o>- 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


^ 

.**> 


^ 


^ 


1.0    ^1^  1^ 

1.8 


m  iiM  116 


Photographic 

Sciences 

Corporation 


1Z  WEST  AAAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


4' 


.<?' 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Cenadian  Institute  for  Historical  Microreproductions  /  Institut  Canadian  de  microreproductions  historiques 


^ 


^ 
■^^ 


Tachnical  and  Bibliographic  Novaa/Notas  tachniquaa  at  bibliographiquttt 


Tha  inatltuta  has  attamptad  to  obtain  tha  baat 
original  copy   ivailabla  for  filming.  Faaturaa  of  thia 
copy  which  may  ba  bibliographically  cnSqua. 
which  may  altar  any  of  tha  imagaa  in  tha 
raproduction.  or  which  may  aigniflcantly  chang* 
tha  uaual  mathod  of  f lining,  ara  chackad  balow. 


D 


D 


0 


n 


D 


Colourad  covara/ 
Couvartura  da  coulaur 


I      I    Covara  damagad/ 


Couvartura  andommag^a 


Covara  rastorad  and/or  lamlnatad/ 
Couvartura  rastaurAa  at/ou  paiiiculAa 


I      I    Covar  titia  missing/ 


La  titra  da  couvartura  manqua 

Colourad  maps/ 

Cartas  gAographiquas  an  coulaur 


□    Colourad  ink  (i.a.  other  than  biua  or  black)/ 
Encra  da  coulaur  (i.a.  autra  qua  blaua  ou  noira) 


n    Colourad  plates  and/or  illustrations/ 
Pianchea  at/ou  illustrations  en  couleur 


Bound  with  other  material/ 
Relii  avec  d'autres  documents 


Tight  binding  may  cause  shadows  or  distortion 
along  interior  margin/ 

La  reliure  serrAe  peut  causer  de  I'ombre  ou  de  la 
distortion  la  long  de  la  marge  intAriaure 

Blank  leaves  added  during  restoration  may 
appear  within  the  text.  Whenever  possible,  these 
have  been  omitted  from  filming/ 
II  se  peut  que  certainas  pages  blanches  ajoutias 
lors  d'une  restauration  apparaissent  ^ans  la  texte, 
mais,  lorsque  cela  Atait  possible,  ce«  pagea  n'ont 
pas  iti  filmies. 

Additional  comments:/ 
Commentairas  suppl6mentaires: 


L'Instltut  a  microfilm*  la  mtiiiaur  exemplaira 
qu'ii  lui  a  *t4  poaaibia  da  aa  procurer.  Les  ditaiia 
da  cat  exemplaira  qui  sont  paut-itre  uniques  du 
point  de  vue  bibilographiqua,  qui  pauvant  modifier 
une  image  reproduite,  ou  qui  peuvant  axiger  una 
modification  dans  la  mithoda  normale  de  filmaga 
sont  indiquAs  ci-dessous. 


r~n   Colourad  pages/ 


Pages  de  couleur 

Pages  damaged/ 
Pages  endommagAea 


□    Pages  restored  and/or  laminated/ 
Payas  rastaurias  at/ou  palllculAes 

Pages  discoloured,  stained  or  foxed/ 
Pages  dAcoiortes,  tachatAea  ou  piquiaa 

Pages  detached/ 
Pages  ditachias 

Showthroughy 
Transparence 

Quality  of  prir 

Qualiti  intSgaia  da  I'impression 

includes  supplementary  materii 
Comprend  du  materiel  supplAmentaire 

Only  edition  available/ 
Seuie  Edition  diaponibia 


I      I    Pages  detached/ 

r~~j.  Showthrough/ 

I      I    Quality  of  print  varies/ 

I      I   includes  supplementary  material/ 

I — I    Only  edition  available/ 


D 


Pages  wholly  or  partially  obscured  by  errata 
slips,  tissues,  etc.,  have  been  refilmed  to 
ensure  the  aest  possible  image/ 
Les  pages  totalement  ou  partieilement 
obscurcies  par  un  feuillet  d'errata,  une  pelure, 
etc..  ont  6t6  fiimiea  A  nouveau  de  fapon  A 
obtenir  la  meilleure  imaga  possible. 


Tl 
to 


Tl 
P< 

01 

fil 


O 

bi 
th 
si 
of 
fil 
si 
oi 


Tl 
sf 
Tl 
w 

M 
dl 
er 
b( 

rij 
re 
m 


This  item  is  filmed  at  the  reduction  ratio  checked  below/ 

Ce  document  est  film*  au  taux  de  reduction  indiqu*  ci-dessous 

10X                             14X                              18X                             22X 

26X 

30X 

/ 

12X 

16X 

20X 

24X 

28X 

32X 

The  copy  filmed  hare  hat  been  reproduced  thanka 
to  the  generosity  of: 

D.  B.  Weldon  Library 
Univariity  of  Waitarn  Onttrio 


L'exemplaire  filmA  fut  reproduit  grice  h  la 
gAnArositA  de: 

D.  B.  Waldon  Ubrary 
University  of  Waitarn  Ontario 


The  images  appearing  here  are  the  best  quality 
possible  considering  the  condition  and  legibility 
of  the  original  copy  and  in  keeping  with  the 
filming  contract  specifications. 


Original  copies  in  printed  paper  covers  are  filmed 
beginning  with  the  front  cover  and  ending  on 
the  last  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, or  the  back  cover  when  appropriate.  All 
other  original  copies  are  filmed  beginning  on  the 
first  page  with  a  printed  or  illustrated  impres- 
sion, and  ending  on  the  last  page  with  a  printed 
or  illustrated  impression. 


The  last  recorded  frame  on  each  microfiche 
shall  contain  the  symbol  — ^  (meaning  "COIVi- 
TINUED").  or  the  symbol  y  (meaning  "END"), 
whichever  applies. 


Les  images  suivantes  ont  AtA  reproduites  avec  ie 
plus  grand  soin,  compte  tenu  de  la  condition  at 
de  la  nettetA  de  raxempiaire  filmi,  at  en 
conformity  avec  les  conditions  du  contrat  de 
filmcge. 

Les  exemplaires  originaux  dont  la  couverture  en 
papier  est  imprimAe  sont  fiimis  en  commenpant 
par  Ie  premier  plat  et  en  terminant  soit  par  la 
dernlAre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'lilustration,  soit  par  Ie  second 
plat,  salon  Ie  cas.  Tous  les  autres  exemplaires 
originaux  sont  filmds  en  cummenpant  par  la 
premidre  page  qui  comporte  une  empreinte 
d'impression  ou  d'lilustration  et  en  terminant  par 
la  dernidre  page  qui  comporte  une  telle 
empreinte. 

Un  des  symboles  suivants  npparaftra  sur  la 
dernidre  image  de  cheque  microfiche,  selon  Ie 
cas:  Ie  symboie  — ^  signifie  "A  SUIVRE".  Ie 
symbole  V  signifie  "FIN". 


Maps,  plates,  charts,  etc.,  may  be  filmed  at 
different  reduction  ratios.  Those  too  fvge  to  be 
entirely  included  in  one  exposure  are  filmed 
beginning  in  the  upper  left  hand  corner,  left  to 
right  and  top  to  bottom,  as  many  frames  as 
required  The  following  diagrams  illustrate  the 
method: 


Les  cartes,  planches,  tableaux,  etc.,  peuvent  6tre 
fiimds  6  des  taux  de  reduction  diff^rents. 
Lorsque  Ie  document  est  trop  grand  pour  dtre 
reproduit  en  un  seul  clich6,  il  est  fiimd  A  partir 
de  I'angie  sup^rieur  gauche,  de  gauche  d  droite, 
et  de  haut  en  bas,  en  prenant  Ie  nombre 
d'images  ndcessaire.  Les  diagrammes  suivants 
illustrent  la  mdthode. 


1  2  3 


1  2  3 

4  5  6 


I' 

1  DIGEST  /^'^^^^ 


n't:.    >i,*4.«,«.( 


or 


^ 


n 


AMERICAN-    CASeX 


'? 


BEIiATISO  TO 


PATENTS  FOR  INVEiNTIOxNS 


Avn 


COPYRIGHTS 


FUOM 


1789    TO    1862 

INCLUDING  NUMEROUS  MANUSCRIPT  CASES 

DECISIONS   O^   APPKALH    FROM   THE   COMMTSSIONKRS   OF    PATFNTS   ANO   T.n- 
.UNDER   THE   1>ATKNT   AM,    COPVKlUilT   LAWS 


TO 


AND  EMBRACING  ALSO  THE  AMEUICAN  CASES  IN  RESPECT 

TRADE-MARKS 


ARRANGED  IN  CHRONOLOGICAL  ORDER 


BY    STEPHEN    D.    LAW 

CnUNSEI.1.011     AT    LAW 


NEW  YORK: 
rUBLISITED  BY  THE  AUTHOR, 


AN-n  iir 


BAKEE,    VOORIIIS    &    COMPANY 

No.  60  Nassau  Street. 
1868. 


% 


ii™ 


•C; 


;•' 


EiKcrod  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlio  year  1802, 

BY  STEPIIKN  D.  LAW, 

1.1  tI,o  CI.  r;;'.s  Orac'o  of  tho  District  Court  of  tho  United  Statoa  for  li-.o 

Soutliern  District  of  Now  Yorlc 


iV»»f 


\96l 


C    A.  Ar.VORD,  STEHEOTYPEB  AXD  PuiyiEZi. 


h 


l>.0 


TO     THE     MEMOR         OF 

MY     WIFE 

1  HI!      VOLUM  K      It 

AFFECTIONATELY     DEDICATED. 


Her  intereft  in  this  work  encouraged  mc  in  undertaking  it,  and 
has  been  a  conftant  incentive  to  my  exertions  in  its  preparation. 
Her  cheerful  fociety  made  light  and  pleafant  my  earlier  labors 
upon  it;  and  had  her  life  been  fpared,  to  no  one  could  this 
volume  have  been  dedicated  more  appropriately,  or  with  more 
fincere  pleafure,  than  to  her.  Her  early  death,  which  made  fad 
and  lonely  the  hours  fpent  in  its  completion,  and  which  has 
(hadowed  my  life  witli  forrow.  has  left  me  only  the  melancholy 
fatisfaction  of  infcribing  it   to  her  Memory. 


f 


i    , 


EXTLANATOIIY  I'KKl' ACE. 


This  voliinie  h  a  T)I-,'('sf,  or  riitlior  u  Dlj^'oatcd  Abstract,  of  iill  tlio 
Aiucricaii  Ciwes,  w.  I'ar  us  tliny  <'«)iil(l  be  ul)taiiie(l,  rcliitiiij;  to  I'atfiitrt 
lor  Inventions,  Copyri-^'ht,  uiul  TnuhsMiirks. 

It  ow'i'.s  itrt  ori<fiii  to  ii  want  cxpcrienc^od  hy  the  Antbor,  of  sonio 
work  M-bicb  sbould  contain  u  general  pununary  of  tbe  Statute  Law  and 
of  tbe  Decisions  of  tbe  Courts  in  respect  to  rutcnts  for  Inventions,  and 
was  commenced  for  Hk-  purpose  of  supplying  sucli  deliciency. 

To  render  tbe  work  more  complete,  tlio  decisions  relating  to  tbe 
kindred  sul)ject8  of  Copyrigbt  and  Trade-Marks  are  incbided  in  it. 

Tlie  wbole  number  of  cases  digested  is  eiirbt  bundred  and  tbirty- 
lour,  of  wliicb  seven  liiindred  and  tbirty-four  bave  reference  to  Patents 
for  Inventions,  and  tin;  remaining  cases,  in  about  ecpud  proportion, 
relate  to  Copyriglit  and  Trade-Marks. 

Of  sucli  cases,  about  four  liundred  are  to  bo  found  in  tbo  Reports 
of  tbe  Supreme  and  Circuit  Courts  of  tlie  United  States,  wbicb  now 
number  over  one  liundred  volumes;  over  fifty  cases  bave  been  obtained 
from  tbe  various  Law  Periodicals  wbicb  bave  from  time  to  time  been 
publisbed,  and  wbicb  exceed  cigbty  volumes ;  and  some  eigbty  are 
Manuscript  Cases,  or  cases  wbicb  Imve  been  determined  in  tbe  Federal 
Courts  but  wbicb  are  not  to  be  found  in  any  of  tbe  Reports  or  Law 
Periodicals.  Tbe  opinions  of  tbe  Attorneys-General  of  tbe  United  States 
bave  also  been  examined,  and  some  tbirty  cases,  baving  reference  to  tlie 
Patent  and  Copyrigbt  Laws,  bave  been  taken  tberefrom;  and  about  one 


0 


IXPLANATORY   I'llKKACK. 


lmri.lr<'<|  uimI  lil'ly  ili'rU.nM  of  tho  .IiirtticoH  cf  t1i«  Ciiruit  Cmrt  of'  tlio 
Dirtfri.t  of  ('.(liiiiil.ia,  on  ii[)(n'iili*  iVorii  flu)  drclHioiirt  of  tho  t'ouiminHloiicr 
oi  Viitvutu,  Imvo  iilno  hi'im  «li^cHN'(|.  In  iid.liliuii  to  all  tlu-Mr,  uhoiit  omi 
liumlml  iiiiil  thirty  nimw,  ndutin;;  to  Tnulf  Miirkn,  or  «l«Mitliii^  (iiUMthum 
inchU'ntiilly  connected  with,  or  growinj?  <»nt  of  c«>ntructrt  n'Hprctiii^ 
I'litt'iitH,  Imvo  HU'ii  /.'utlitifd  fVom  the  voliitiiiriotirt  iiiiihh  of  Stiite  Iti-portM, 
and  in<'or|)onit(>d  into  thti  voltiiiic. 

I'Vom  thirt  htati'MU'iit  an  to  the  Hovcrnl  gonrn'H  from  which  thc^  Cane* 
DijjfC'rttcd  h'lvo  iictii  rolliH'tt'd,  it  will  ho  ut  oiK'c  apiiarnit  that  muh 
cawrt  arn  very  wiih'ly  wattorcd,  luid  that  <|iiito  a  ci»hrtidi!ral)l(j  iiiiinher 
of  them  arc  not  within  rciich  nf  the  profcrtnion  at  lar^jo,  oxci'iit  nt 
I'onHidrrahU'  dilllculty  and  fXpciiKic  and  tliu  perioral  nature  and  K'opo 
of  the  work  will  also  he  hewt  und('rHto(»d. 

The  i>l.in  III-  ni(>thod  of  arraiij^finent  adopted  hy  the  .\uthor  in  tho 
Digest,  and  the  manner  of  ciMn^',  and  referring;  to,  tho  Cases  Digested 
uro  Bomowhat  pet-idiar,  hut  it  is  helievt.-d  that  they  will  bu  found  cou- 
vonicnt  and  useful. 

The  di-xc-ted  notes  are  arranged,  under  tho  Bovei'al  titles  and  puh 
div!s!(»ns,  in  ClinitKtlogica!  order,  and,  in  addition  to  tho  title  of  the 
case,  there  is  also  given  the  name  of  tho  Judge  hy  whom,  and  tho 
jthice  where,  aiul  the  year  in  which  tho  ease  was  decided.  By  tiiis 
arrangement,  it  is  easy  to  trace  tho  course  (»f  .Judicial  decision,  in 
resjteet  to  any  qiu'stion,  and  learn  whether  there  has  been  any  conflict 
or  rliversity  in  respect  to  it,  and  also  readily  di'lermine  tho  character 
and  hearing  of  tho  hitest  decisions.  Tho  digested  note  also  carries 
with  it  tho  weight  of  authority  due  to  the  Judge  who  decide(l  the  case, 
and  the  date  of  decision  is  a  guide  to  (letermine  under  wliat  law  any 
piirticuhir  ease  arose,  and  was  decided. 

In  digesting  tho  cases,  tho  Author  haa  not  confiiu'd  liimself  to 
tho  Head  Notes  of  lie[iorter8  and  otliers,  but  has  carefully  read  and 
studied  tho  cases  for  himself,  and  his  digested  notes  have  been  i)repared 
from  tlio  opinions  of,  and  as  far  as  possible  they  a]>pear  in  the  very 
language  used  by,  tho  Coin-t.     I*  nas  not,  however,  been  tho  intention 


HXI'I.ANATOUY   rilKKACi: 


'.  Cdirt  i>(  tlio 
CoriitniHHioiu'r 
lUHV,  alxtiit  i>nu 
•  liiij^  (|iu>»«tioiirt 
itrtrt    ri'H|ti'ctili;^ 

SttltO    Kl'^KtltM, 

hicli  tlio  CiiHCi 
■cut  tlmt  Hiich 
uniblu  iiiiiiiltcr 
p»,  exj'i'itt  at 
lire  iiiul   Hi'opo 

Autliur  ill  tlio 
Uiirtort  DigoHted 
bo  I'uuud  con* 

itlt'H  and  nub 
title  t.f  tlio 
loiii,  and  tlio 
(d.  By  tliiri 
decision,  in 
11  iitiy  (•(intlict 
the  clmnicter 
uU(»  carrier 
idcd  the  casic, 
vliat   law  any 

d    liiinself    to 

lly  read    and 

'I'll  prejjared 

in    the   very 

he  intentiuu 


I 


of  tlio  Autlinr  to  dl^'i-Kt  only  nucli  pointi  m  mifjht  nioro  utrletly  lie 
calli'il  tilt*  li'adin^  or  turniii}^  |)oltitrt  of  tliu  cuMe,  Itiit  it  liait  been  IiIh 
aim  to  .li;{eHt  all  hik-Ii  points  aH  tliu  Court  may  have  deeiiu'<l  it  propi>r  ti» 
(h'ci«le;  or,  in  other  Wonl-*,  whattiver  the  Coiirf,  in  any  eiwe,  tleeim-d  it 
nuceMttary  and  proper  to  dcelant  ami  decide  lo  be  the  law,  iw  applieablo 
to  (he  qiieHtioiiit  arisiti;^  in  Hiieii  eanc,  that  tho  Author  Iuih  eonhidi-rcd  it 
to  lio  liirt  duty  to  di^c.^t  ami  arran;;e  uialcr  itrt  appropriate  liea<liii^. 
Nor  liiiK  tho  Author  limited  hiiiiMi'lf  to  dij^entiiij^  merrly  tluwo  partii  of 
tho  d(H'i(*ioiH  which  hav»<  more  ('XtrluKive  reCen'iico  to,  «»r  are  declaratory 
of,  tho  law  of  I'liteiitH,  ( 'opyrlj^ht,  «,\:e.,  but  points  of  praetleo,  K.uch  art 
quorttioiH  relatin;;  to  i-vidcncj',  new  trial.-*,  itc.,  which  have  arinen  and 
been  decidecl  in  any  hucIi  eases,  havti  also  been  dip'r<ted — not  becauso 
any  diU'ereiit  rule  or  principle  j^overns  in  such  ca«es  in  tho  decision  of 
(piofttions  of  Bueh  character,  but  because  such  deeisioiis  furnish  authority 
and   precedent,  should  lil\(!  (jnestioiis  arise  in  other  <'ase«. 

Ill  Hhort,  it.  has  been  the  design  nf  the  Author  to  di^jest  all  tho 
points,  whether  of  law  or  practice,  decided  in  tho  eases  embraced  within 
tho  Hcope  of  his  work,  and  tlm-i  make  it  an  Abstract  of  tho  whole  ot 
Buch  eases,  and  not  merely  of  portions  of  them. 

In  respect,  also,  to  such  (tases  as  have  not  been  reported,  and  such 
as  are  not  generally  a<'cessible,  the  di<:^ested  notes  are  bomewhat  inoro 
full  and  comiireheiisive  than  they  would  otherwise  have  been. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  volume,  it  has  been  tho  constant  aim 
and  endeavor  of  the  author  to  make  it  as  correct  m  possible.  For 
that  ptirposo,  ho  restudied  the  eases  digested,  co'*rectiiii^  the  (lij!;ested 
notes,  when  necessary,  from  the  ori;^inal  authorities;  and,  to  {^uard  as 
ofTectually  as  possible  against  erntr,  the  pn)of-s1icets,  while  the  work  was 
ill  the  hands  of  the  i)riiiter,  were  compared  with  the  original  decisions,  and 
not  aluiio  with  the  manuscript.  Absolute  correctness,  however,  is  not 
claimed ;  but  tho  Author  can  honestly  afHrin,  that  he  lias  not  knowingly 
or  intentionally  spared  or  omitted  any  labor  or  care  which  would  bo 
likely  to  render  his  voluiuo  what  it  ?hould  bo  both  as  a  Referenco  and 
an  Autliurlty. 


SXPUy.VTORY   IMMMAfT 


Tlio  Author  ri*lurri'«  hit  iirkiiuHltil^iiu'tiN  to  tliu  nvvitrul  JuA^o*  of 
the  Uhili'il  HiiitM  (!i»urt»,  uikI    |Mii-iii'iilarlv  to  iliitl^fit  Nki.min  himI    It^rnit 

of  New   York,    Hl'KAUl  K  of    MHM«Ucl.UM>tti«,   lltlil    SlIII'MAN    of    ( 'oMIicitirilt, 

for  tho  uMUtiiiico  tht*y  hitvu  im>  kimlly  atl'oi<|i>i|  hiMi ;  uiul  to  Kamiki. 
nr..VTi'iin>Mii,  K*n.,  of  Xi'W  York,  iukI  John  Wiij.iam  Wallace.,  Knq.,  of 
IMiihiih'Iphiu,  thi)  I{t*|H»rt(<rM  «»f  tho  riilti'il  Stutttn  ('irciiit  (-ourtM  for  'ho 
Bi»i!oiiil  iiiid  Third  Circuits,  for  th<>  |iri\ih'f;i<  of  rxtunliiiti);  tho  cii.-^':^ 
f''>titaitii><I  ill  th)'  Thin!  vtiliiiiifH  of  tluir  Ui'|inrtH,  ii(»t  yrt  |iiihliKh('ii : 
mid,  aUo,  U»  all  hin  |)i-i)fi>i«<<iiiiiiii  hnthrfii  uiul  (»thi>rM,  who  havu  ii»«-«i>tii| 
him    ill    liio  coni'djon   v(  caMi>M,  mul   nthcrwiHv. 

That  tho  vohitiio  innv  he  fouiul  <'l  real  pructh'al  vahio,  and  coii- 
V(>ni«>iit  art  a  nufcrciicu  and  ri'liiiblo  ih  uti  Authority,  in  thu  ttiiiciTu  wi^h 
and  hi)|)i'  of 


TiiK  AiriioM. 


Niw  Yonic,  S,j>ftmhfr,  IHOS. 


rerut  Juit^t^K  of 
|JH>N  iiitil  Mrtiit 
of  ('oiiriuctitiit, 
and    to   Sami'M. 

t/uiir»(*   tor  »!ii( 

Idinj;   flic   cnru'H 

.\' '    |>ulili«|ici| ; 

U     ll.lVJ!    Il.-..ti>f|.(| 

vttiiif,  mill  ciiti- 

llU  xilli'iTi!   wirth 

I'lii;  Ai  iiinu. 


OONTExNTS. 


PlUUTAOa    .  '*•"*    , 

A 

TaBIB   or   AnilHKVIATIONI.  .  .  II    .         ,. 

•  •  •  •  •  •  •        I  I     to        I  I 

Indix  or  TiTiKM 18  "     ao 

T*i.n<  or  C\»M,  IN  Ai.rii,uiKri(Ai.  Ouokh.  DimtcT  an„  IUvkukki,, 

Wmi    KirKllRNrKHltNUKll  TIIK   roHMKH    TO    rAOKH    WIIKIir,    (.ulMi   .       L»0    "       ftfl 

Tmiik  or   (!.\HKH,   AnnANu»;i)  AiToiioiN,,  ,„  tiikik  HiiuKOT  Matikk.     60   "      74 
Tai.ik  or  Cahkh,    ArriHMKi),  Aithovko,  CH.TinMKi.,    Dmmm-uovki,, 

Kv  vMiNKi.,  Kkvumhku,  OvKHiiULK,,,  Qi  KsriuNKo,  Ukvkhhici,,  dtc. .  7rt   «       00 

CUKONUtUU.CA..    D.MKsr Ul     ..       OUb 


CONTEXTS  OF  SMTLKMLMAL  VOLUMi;  IIOUXI)  WMJI  AliOVU. 


riiKrAo*  TO  Coi'yuiuirr  and  Patknt  Lawb 

M^rm  fr  V  t  «  f  J  ^ 

riiOV.SION     OV    TUB     CoNHT.TfT.OW     OF    TI.K     U.    S.,    AS    TO    CoPVUimiT 

AND  Tatknth,  with   Notkb         ,         , 
Coi'VKioiiT  Lawh,  1790  TO  1802,  with   \otk« 
Patent  Laws,  1700  to  18fl2,  witu  Notkb 

InDKX    to    Coi'VHKiHT    LaWS         .... 

Index  to  I'atknt  Laws 


rAIIKH. 

3  tu       5 


.       0   "  8 

8    "  30 

.      no    "  11 J 

.   1!;«    ♦'  117 

.    117    "  IL'O 


f" 


ABBREVIATIONS  USED  IN  THIS  WORK. 


New  York, 
Alabama. 


Abb.  Pr.,  Abbott's  Practioo  Reports, 

^^'•■••>  Alubaiujv  Reports,  and 

Araer.  Law  Reg.,    )   .        .       ^ 

^  or  A.  L.  lit-.,     }  American  Law  Register,  Phihulelphia. 

Anonymous. 

j  Cases  decided  by  the  Justices  of  the  Cir.   ) 

I      Court,  Dist  Col.,  on  appeals  frc.;a  the  de-  f  Dist.Colu.nl.i.a. 

I      eis.ons  ol  the  Commissioner  of  l>ateut8  ) 
Arkansas  Reports,  and  '^rkansas. 

Attorney  General  of  United  States. 


Anon., 

App,  Cas., 

Ark., 
Atiy.  Gen., 


Raid., 
I3arb.  S.  C, 

"     Ch., 
B.  Monr., 
Blackf., 
Blatchf., 
Rosw., 
Bright., 
Brock., 

Cal., 

Chan., 

Comst., 

Conn., 

Cra., 

Cra.  C.  C, 

Ct., 

Curt., 

Cush., 

D.  C, 
Day, 
Deve., 
Dov.  &  Bat., 


Baldwin's  Reports  F.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
Barbour's  Supreme  Court  Rei)orts, 

*'         Chiuicery  »t 

B.  Monroe's  Reports, 
Blackford's  Reports, 

Blatchford's  Rei)orts  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
Bosworth  Reports, 
Bright ly's  Reports, 
Brockeubrough'3  Reports  U.  S.  Cir.  Ct., 

California. 

Chancellor. 

Comstock's  Reports, 

Connecticut  Reports, 

Cranch's  Reports  U.  S.  Supreme  Court. 

"        Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
Connectic'.i  . 

Curtis'  Rej)orts  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 
Cushing's  Re])orts, 

District  Columbia. 
Day's  Reports, 
Devereaux's  Reports, 
Devcreaux  «fc  Battle's  Reports, 


3d  Circuit. 
Kcw  York. 
Kew  York. 
Kentucky. 
Indiana. 
2d  Circuit. 
New  York. 
Peimsylvania. 
4th  Circuit. 


New  York. 
Connecticut. 

Dist.  Columbia. 

Ist  Circuit. 
Massachusetts. 


Connecticut. 
Court  of  Claims. 
North  Carolina. 


12 


AUHUEVIATIONS  VSKV  IN  THIS  WORK. 


1 


!•      ( 


Dt'iiio,  Doiuo'h  IJoports, 

DiUT,  Uuer's  Ucports, 

E.  D.  Smith,  E.  D.  Smith's  Roportn, 

Edw.  Cb.,  Edwards'  Cliancery  Iluports, 

Fes.  on  Pat.,  Fessonden  on  Patents,  2d  edition, 


Gall, 
Goo., 
Gilp, 
Gray, 
Greenlf., 

Ilalst.  Ch., 

Ilarriiig., 

Hilton, 

Iloff.  Ch., 

How., 

How.  App.  Gas., 

How.  Pr., 

r 

HI., 

Ind., 

John., 
Jones  Eq., 
Jour.  Fr,  Inst., 


Gallison's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Geori^ia  Reports,  and 

Gilpin's  ] Reports  U.  S.  District  Court, 

Gray's  Reports, 

Grcenlcaf's  Re])orts, 

Ilalsted's  Chancery  Reports, 

Harrington's  Reports, 

Hilton's  Reports, 

Hoft'man's  Chancery  Reports, 

Howard's  Reports  U.  S.  Supreme  Court. 

Court  of  Appeal  Cases, 

Practice  Reports, 


(( 
(( 


Illinois  Reports,  and 
Indiana  Rej)orts,  and 

Jolmson's  Reports, 
Jones'  Equity  Reports, 
Journal  Franklin  Institute, 


La.,  Louisiana. 

Law  Int.  &  Rev.,  Law  Intelligencer  and  Review. 

u        ^*  *   [Law  Reporter,  1st  Series, 


Mart., 
Mass., 
Mas., 
McAllis., 
Mete, 
McLean, 
3Iich., 

Mir.  Pat.  Off., 
Mo., 

JNIo.  Law  Rep., 
ATo.  L.  Rep., 

MS., 


Martin's  Reports, 

Massachusetts  Reports,  and 

Mason's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

McAllister's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Metcalf  8  Reports, 

McLean's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Michigan  Reports,  and 

Mirror  of  the  Patent  Office, 

Missouri  Reports,  and 

|-  Monthly  Law  Reporter,  2d  Series, 

Manuscript  C.'iscs. 


New  York. 
New  York. 

New  York. 
New  York. 

Boston. 

1st  Circuit. 

Georgia. 

Peimsylvania. 

Massachusetts. 

]\laine. 

New  Jersey, 
Delaware. 
New  York. 
New  York. 

New  Y  ork. 
New  York. 

Illinois. 
Indiana. 

New  York. 
North  Carolina. 
Philadelphia, 


Boston. 

Louisiana. 

Massachusetts. 

1st  Circuit. 

California. 

Massachusetts. 

Tth  Circuit. 

Michigan. 

Washington. 

Missouri. 

Boston. 


AnnUKV' lATIONS  USED  IN  THIS  WORK. 


13 


I^.  Car.,  North  Carolina. 

j^_  I[.^  Now  Hampshire. 

N.  Hamp.,  New  Hainpsiiiro  Reports, 

N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  Now  Yorli  Loj^al  Observer, 

14  ilea'  Keg. ,  Niles'  Register, 


New  Tlatnpsliire. 
New  York. 
WaHhujgton. 


Opin., 
Ohio, 

Paige, 
Taiiie, 
Pa., 
IViiii., 


Opinions  of  the  Attorneys  General  U.  S.,     "Washington. 
Ohio  Reports,  and  Ohio. 


Paige's  Chancery  Reports, 

Paiiie's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania  Reports, 


^''or'p'^L  "jou"!*'    \  I'ennsylvania  Law  Journal, 

l>ot.,  Peters'  Reports  U.  8.  Supreme  Court. 

Pet.  C.  C,  Peters'  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Pick.,  Pickering's  Reports, 

Rich.  Law,  Richardson's  Law  Reports, 

S.  Car.,  Sotith  Carolina. 

Sand.  Ch.,  Sandford's  Chancery  Reports, 

Sand.  C.  C,  Sandford's  Superior  Court  Reports, 

Serg.  &  R.,  Sergeant  &  Rawle, 

Story,  Story's  Report  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Suran.,  Sumner's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court, 

Sup.  Ct,  Supreme  Court  U.  S. 

Upt.  on  Tr.  IVIk.,  Upton  on  Trade-Marks, 
U.  S.  Law  Jour., 


or  U.  S.  L.  Jour 

Verm., 
Vt., 

Wall,  Jr., 

AVash., 

Wend., 


::K 


S.  Law  Journal, 


Vermont  Reports, 
Vermont. 


New  York. 
2d  Circuit. 

Pennsylvania. 
Philadelphia. 

3d  Circuit. 

MassacluLsctts. 

South  Carolina. 


New  Y'ork. 
New  York. 
Pennsylvania. 
1st  Circuit. 
1st  Circuit. 


New  York. 
Connecticut. 

Vermont, 


Wallace,  Jr.'s,  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  3d  Circuit. 
Washington's  Reports  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  3d  Circuit. 
Wendell's  Reports,  New  York. 

Cleveland. 


West.  Law  .Tour.,   )  y^^^^^^^  ^^^  j^^^^nal, 
or  W.  L.  Jour.,    )  ' 


Whart., 
Whart.  Dig., 
Wheat., 
Wood.  &  Min., 
Wright, 


Pennsylvania. 


Wharton's  Reports, 

Wharton's  Digest. 

Wheaton's  Reports  U.  S.  Supreme  Court. 

Woodbury  &  Minot's  Reports  U.S.Cir.  Ct,.  1st  Circuit. 

Wright's  Reports,  Ohio. 


I 

A 
A 


INDEX  OF  TITLES. 


A.  «•*«"• 

AI3ANDON3IENT. 

A.  Of  Copyright  and  Manuscript,      . 

B.  Of  Invention,  *        *        *        *        •        '81 

1.  Before  ratent  granted,     . 

2.  After  Patent  ynrnted,    .        .  * .02 

^•^<'fenceofan(lwhotodecidl.  '        '        '        '        '        '  ^* 

4.  Proof  of    See  Evidexce,  U  i  ' ^® 

C.  Of  Traile-Marks,       . 

ABRIDGEMENT  OF  BOOK  wlmtJ«.\.i  '•.••••  08 

ACCOUNT  OF  PROFITS  ^^u,'  ^  ^oj^waoy,  ....  eg 

ACTIONS. 

^-  f0''t  of  aclion,  ami  principles  gomrning,  .  ,„. 

3.  Parties  to. 

See  also  Equity,  B.  2. 
a.  Plaintifts,   ... 

*.  Defendants,    .  HO 

See  also  CoRPOEATiojfs.  ' ^^^ 

4.  mseontinuance  of  by  tojiom,         . 

5.  Defences  to.    See  Defences  '        *        '        '        *      ^^^ 
6    Pleadings  in.     See  Pleading. 

lTr\  '"  ^'•"^^■M-'^^ks,  and  defences  to,         . 
oee  also  Aliens  :  Cohrtq  n  .  t.^  '        •        •  ^  1  '^ 

ADDITIONS  TO  A  LITkR^RY  wn^T'''^^'''^'^'  ^'^  I^-^^^ction,  C. 

AGREEMENTS                      '  ^^'^^*^  "^'  "« ^^""S^^'^'  •        •        .      lio 

A.  As  to  Copyrights, 

B.  As  to  Patents, .        .        .    *        '        '        '  '        *        •        -120 
See  also  AssiGNMENi^,  C,  and  License,  A.        '  '        *        •      121 


10 


IXDKX  OK  Tiri.KS. 


AI.IKNB. — AHHIGNHKNT. 


ALIKNS. 

A.  ]liL,'lits  !uul  li.ihiliticH  of,  in  respect  to  Piitcnts,     ....  I)i6 
Si'K  also  Patknts,  K. 

B.  Ki^'hlH  (tf,  us  to  iiif'ringciucnt  of  Triidt'-Markfl,  t         •         .128 
AMnKJlHTV  IX  I'ATKNTS,  t'lloct  of,  US  to  thtir  viilidify,      .        .        .  i-ju 

8i'0  also  Composition  ok  Ma'jtku,  15. ;  Imi-kovkment,  B.  ;  Maciiim:, 

15.;    Sl'KCIl'K'ATIO.V,  JJ. 

AMOUNT  IN  CONTIlOVKI{SV,lio\vam-ctsJuris(li<:fion  in  Patent  Cases,  132 
ANALOlJOrS  rsK.     See  Doum.K  t'rti;;  N k\v  Ai-i-ucatiox. 
ANAIiYSIS,  importanee  of  evidence  decideil  by,     .....       \.ui 
ANSVVKH.     See  MtiiMTV,  15.  5. 
Al'I'EAI-S  IN   I'ATKNT  CASP:S. 

A.  To  tlie  Suiireiiu!  Court,  .         ,         .         ,        .         ,        ,        .  133 

See  also  WniT  ok  Kukou. 

T>.  To  .Iiisliccs  of  tlic  Circuit  Court,  District  Columbia. 

1.  W/iiit  iii  ;  w/ii;n  fleii  and  when  not  ;  rchen  lost,     .         .         ,       135 

2.  Diiti/  (>/'  ('oninu'snioncr  ({f  I'atentH  in  cases  o/\         .        .        ,  187 

3.  Jtirisdu'tion,  of  justices  on  appe((l,  .....       138 

4.  licasons  of  ajipeal ;  siiffi,ciency  of, 141 

5.  Practice  in  cases  of  appeal, 143 

APPLICATION  FOR  PATENT. 

A.  When  and  by  wlioimnade  ;  effect  of ;  effect  of  delay  in  making 

or  prosecuting, 143 

B.  Powers  and  duties  of  Conunissioner  of  Patents  on  applications 

for,  and  in  granting  patents,  .         ,         .  ,         .149 

C.  Witlidrawal  of;  effect  of, 153 

ART.     What  is ;  wlien  patentable, 154 

See  also  Ekkect  ;  I'rixciplk  ;  Pkocess. 

ARTS,  LOST.     When  patentable 155 

AliTICLE  OF  Manufacture.    See  Manufacture. 
ASSIGNEE. 

A.  Of  Copyright  and  Manuscript, 15G 

B.  Of  Patent. 

1.  Who  is,  under  the  Statnte, 157 

2.  Genercd  rif/hts  of, 157 

3.  Whc?i  Pateiit  may  issue  to, 158 

4.  Whe?),  may  maintain  action,  .        .        .        .        .        .159 

5.  Ilight  of,  as  to  Disclaimer.    See  Disclaimeu,  C. 

6.  "  in  cases  of  Reissue.     See  Reissue  ok  Patent. 

7.  "  in  Extensions.    See  Extension,  C. 

C.  Of  Trade-Marks,  rights  of, 160 

ASSIGNMENT. 

A.  Of  Copyright  and  Manuscript ;  requisites  of ;  -what  amounts  to,     161 


INDEX  OF  TITLK8. 


17 


ABHIUNMI.NT. — roMI'OHITUlS  Of  UATTRR. 


I'M. II 


.  ISiiJ 

.       128 
.  liiO 
;  ]\Iac;iiink, 

iitcnt  Cases.  132 


.  133 


.     in5 

.  137 
,       133 

.  141 
.       143 


in  inukiiisi 


jlio.itions 


.  143 

140 

.  153 

154 


,    .  155 


150 

.  157 
167 

.  158 
159 


\TENT. 


.  160 


rnoimts  to,  101 


ii.  Of  Iiivciilioii  (»r  l*;it('ut. 

1.  W'/ittt  mill/  hv.  nHxhjueily  and  vhru  j  whnmmj  nmke  ;  khnh  «/,  U\'2 

2.  Jiecordhuj  oj\ Kjl 

3.  Whdt  <nnoU!>tH  ti>  ;  ron«fnirfi'on  n/, KDi 

('.  Of  I'iitciit  or  Copyriulit,  liy  o|,t'riitioii  (if  law,  .         ,         .         ,  llS'.i 

ArrACllMKNTS  l\  I'ATKXr  CASKS. 

A.  Comnu'iu'i'iiK'nt  of  miits  by, 171 

U.  T(»  oiiforco  obtMlunco  to  |)r(ici'S8, 171 

C.   I'racfi<'0  in  ('ascM  of,      • I7n 

AUTIIOU.     Who  is;  rij,'lils  of,  ill  his  |.roi»erty, 173 

Soe  also  Ciiauth;  C'oi'VJshinr,  V. 

II. 

Bn.L  IX  K(2UrrV.    Sco  Kwinv,  II.,  2,  3. 

BILLS  OF  FXCICITIOXS  IX  I'ATKXT  C.VSES.    Wlien  takon  ;  what 

to  coiitiiiii, 174 

BOOK  AX  I)  COPY  OF.     Wh:il  is,  un.k-i- the  copyri^'ht  laws,      .        .       17(i 
BUBUEX  OF  I'llOOF.    Sio  EviDicNtiK,  A. 

C. 
CAVEAT,  purpose  and  clfci't  of, 177 

CHAUOE  OF  .iriXJE  IX  I'ATEXT  ACTIOXS,  pmotico  as  to,         .      17h 

ClIAllTS,  ^[AFS,  IMJIXTS,  .t.;.,  oxtcnl  of  Copyriirht  in,  .         .         .17!) 

COLOUAIILE  ALTKUATIOXS  AND  VAIIIATIOXS,  bearing  of,  as  to 

invention,  .         .         , IbO 

See  also  DouHLE  Use;  Equivalent;  Form;  Invextion,  E. 

COMBINATION. 

A.  What  is ;  what  pateiifjible;  constrnetion  of  patents  for,      .         .181 

B.  What  an  Infrinj,'cinent  of,  and  what  not, 1 80 

COMMISSIONER  OF  PATENTS. 

A.  I*ower  of,  on  applications  for  and  in  granting  patents.     See  Ar- 

Pi.iCATioxs  Fou  Patents,  B. 

B.  Power  of,  on  Interferences.     Sec  Interferences,  A. 

C.  Power  of,  on  Surrenders  and  Reissues.     See  Rkissue  of  Pat- 

ent, B. 

D.  Power  of,  on  Extensions.     See  Extension  of  Patent,  B. 

E.  Power  of,  in  cases  of  Ajipeal.     See  Appkals,  B.  2. 

F.  Action  of ;  Avhen  conclusive, 191 

G.  Acting  Commissioner ;  powers  of, lO.*) 

COMPILATION  OF  A  BOOK ;  what  is, 19.0 

COMPOSITION  OF  MATTER. 

A.  What  patentable, 194 

B.  How  should  be  set  forth  in  Specification,     .         .         .         .         .  1  9.l 

C.  Infringement  of  Patent  for, ]  00 

2 


II 


IN'DKX  or  TITLKS. 


OOMOtlKM.— DAMAOM  IN  PATINT  OAIM. 


fAi, 


;!ii 


I  I  til 


'Ill 


I 


C()N'(iUKSS,  lt>i;i>tlativ(>  t><>W(>r  of,  in  rfHpcct  to  pittoiitN,  .  •  .  .  11»7 
CONSIDKIIATION  ON  SAI-K  OK  PATKNTS,  wlu-n  may  \w  impoacluMl,  ini) 
CONSIMKACV  ACJAINS'I'I'ATKNT,  .m.t  <.»;  ....       200 

V     COXSTUrCTION   Ol'  I'A'rKNT.     S....  iViiivr,  P. 
CONTUAC'I'S  AS  TO  PATKNTS.     Sco  AuitKiaiKXTS. 

COI'IKS  OK  I'AI'KliS  KUOM  I'ATKNT  OKKICK,  Ik.w  lar  cvi.UiKc,  .  joo 
COl'VRKJMT. 

A.  Oil  wliaf  foiiiiilcd  ;  nntiiro  of  property  111 ;  what  incliulos,         ,      20R 

]].  Sultjcct  iiialtcr  of, 200 

Sen  uIho  AiiuinuKMiCNT;  Ciiakts;  Comimi.a  i  kin  ;  DicnoNAitiKH; 
DuAMATU^  CoMi'oHiTUiNs;  K.NoitAViNUH ;  Mai*8  ;  MuMic ;  I'i-an; 
l{i;i'oi[rs;  IJkvikws;  'ruANsi.AiioN'. 

C    Wlio  ciitillcil  to  t:ik(<  :ui(l  lioM, 210 

1).  How  iicqiiiri'd  ;  rij^Iitto;  how  lost,      ......  '2l'i 

K.  Hucond  toriii  of,  to  whom  Ih>Ioii|;;h,    ......       214 

F.  AlKUldoiimcllt  of.      S»'0  AltAN'DoVMK.VT,  A. 

G.  Actions  respect iii<;.     See  AiTlovs,  A. 

II.  Atfreeineiits  as  to.     Se((  AfiKKK.MKNTS,  A. 

I.  Assi<,'nineiit!uul  transfer  of.    Sec  Assigxek;  AssKiXMKVT,  A.,  C. 

J.   Antlior,  wlio  is.     See  Aniiou. 

K.  IJook,  what  is.     See  IJook. 

L.  Courts,  jiiristlictioM  as  to.     See  Couhth,  A. 

M.   Injunctions,  in  respect  to.     See  iN.uiNcno.vs,  A. 

N.  I'ubUcation,  what  is.     Soo  PrnuoATiox. 

O,  Translation,  ('opyrii^ht  in.     See  Thaxslatiov. 

1'.  Violation  of.     Si'c  I.\Ki;iN(ii;Mi:NT,  A. 
COPtPOU.VTIONS,  ri-rhlsan.l  liahililies  of,  as  to  Pjitentfl,  .         .         .         .215 
COSTS  IN  PATKXT  SUITS,  when  recoveruble,  Avhut  taxable,       .        .217 

COUNSEL  FKKS,  whether  recoverable  as  damages, 219 

(OUKTS,  .lUKISDRTIOX  OF. 

A.  In  respect  to  Copyriijjhts  and  Manus(M*ipts,        ....       220 
See  also  Actioxs,  A. ;  Kquity,  A. ;  Injunctions,  A. ;  Lettkus  ; 

]\IaNUSCKI1'T8. 

B.  In  respect  to  [)atents. 

1.  Siqn'enie  Court,  Unitfid  States, 222 

See  also  Aim'eals,  A. ;  IJii.i.  of  Excepiions  ;  Writ  of  Error. 

2.  Circuit  Gotirts,  United  States, 223 

See  also  Account  ;  Equity,  B.  ;  In.tunction,  B. 

3.  District  Courts,  United  States,  under  acts  of  1790  and  1793,      227 
_^                 4.  State  Courts, 228 

C.  Authority  of  decisions  of,  in  otlier  Courts,       ....      230 
-■  - ^^.-,------  D. 

DAMAGES  IN  PATENT  CASES,  who  liable  for  ;  measure  of,  &c.,         .  230 
See  also  Counsel  Fees. 


.  'iOii 


\Ksr,  A.,  C. 


.  216 

217 

.  219 


220 


;  Lkttkus  ; 


.  222 


It  of  Erbor. 


223 


and  lion,      227 
.  228 
.   230 

If,  &c.,  .  230 


I 


vMenco,       .  200 

idoH,         .       20H 

1 

.  200 

m 

KTIONAKIKW; 

m 

ui.u  ;  Ti.an; 

^ 

.       210 

.  212 

.       214 

INDKX  OF  TTTI.ES.  10 

OBOLAEATIOir.— RTIDIIMCII  IN   I'ATKNT  OAIBI. 

,     Mai. 

DKCF.AIf.VriON'.    Hco  KviriKNCK,  I).;  Plkaimvo,  A. 

DKFKN<'l'^'l'*>  ''•^'''•'■'^"'''^^"''"^-^^         ......      241 

Si'»' !iN'»  <ti;NKitAi.  Ukii:  ;  I'l.isAiirsn,  M. ;  Pur(»ii  Ukk. 

1)KMI'I{I{HI{-      S»'l'   I'.iH  ITY,   II.  4;    ri.KAIHNU,   K. 

DKI'OSI  rioNS.     S«'i'  KvihKN<  i:,  ('. 

DKSKJN.     Tiiti'iJl  lor,  aiitl  itifiiii;,'t'iiu'iit  of, 240 

DISCI-AI.MKU. 

A.  Wlifii  i»rnppr;  wlwit  to  Hi't  forth;  cflt'ct  of,      .         .         ,         ,       247 

H.  Kll'i'ct  of  ilt'Iay  or  ii(%'lfrt  in  liliii;;, 241) 

H.  AHHi<;iu't>,  rijxlit  of  iimlfr,  ami  to  maki>, 2fil 

IjKTIONAKIKS,  (JAZKTTKI'.IJS,  Ac,  I'xti'iit  of  ('o|.yii{,'ht  in,        .        .  252 

DISCON'KliV,  wli.if  is,  ami  wliiil  piitcntalilf, 252 

DOriWiK  rSK,  wlial  is;  when  iialoutablo, 254 

Si'i'  also  Ni;\v  Ai-iM.ttATiov. 
DKAMATIC  (M>MP()srri()N,  li^'ht  of  author  in,  ....       255 

DKAWIN'iS,  riMjuisitis  of;  of  what  t'vidi'iico,  ....  250 

E. 

EFFKCT,  whether  patcntahlc;  how  fur  t'vulentjo  of  invention,        .         ,      260 

See  also  I*Kix(;iri.K;  I'uockhs. 
KN(}1{AVIX(;S.    Si'o  CiiAuis. 
EQUITY,  Jurisdiction  of,  and  I'lcadinj^s  in. 

A.  As  to  C'tpyrij^hts  iind  Manuscripts, 202 

Sec  also  AfTi'ioNrt,  A. ;  Dkamatio  Comi'ositioms  ;  Injunctions,  A. 

B.  As  to  Patents. 

1.  General  Jni-iiidictiony •         .       203 

See  also  Fieri. m;i»  Issuk;  In.iitnctio\,  H. 

2.  Orhjiiud  hill ;  partiea  to;  xohat  to   act  forth /  Multl/iiriouS' 
neaa  of ;  amendment  and  diamiHaid  of  ,        ,        ,        ,207 

3.  Suj^plenuntal  and  croaa  bill ;  bill  qf  discovery.     »        ,        ,      209 

4.  Demurrer, 270 

Sec  also  Pi.KADiXG. 

5.  Anawer  ,•  what  to  set  forth  ;  when  conaidered  only  aa  an  ojjida- 
vit  /  amendment  of     ..*..,.  270 

See  also  Dkiknces;  Gexebal  Issuk. 

C.  As  to  Trade-Marks, 272 

See  also  I.vji'xcrio.v,  C. 

EQUIVALENTS,  doctrine  as  to,  and  application  of,       ...        .       275 

See  also  Form;  Ivvkn'tioxs,  C. 
ESTOPI'F.L,  application  of  doctrine  of,  in  patent  cases,       ....  27S 
EVIDENCE  IN  PATENT  CASES. 

A.  Burden  of  proof,  on  whom  lies, ,       282 

B.  Presumptions, ,         .  283 

See  also  Paxknt,  P.  2 ;  Reissue  op  Patent,  C. 


I  • 


H\ 


90 


INUKX  OF  TITLES. 


IVIIWiiCN  IX  rATMT  OAaU.— rOHIIOK  rATIKT. 


I'll 


Ui  I 


KVIDKNCi:  IN  TATKNT  i'\SKH--vo„t!mtf,i. 

V,  I)«>|MmiliiiiiH,  uliiit  iir(>, 384 

1.  /h-  f>i-nu  ettin'  iiin/ir  Ai'tM  o/  f'onf/fi>AM, 28S 

2.  Uiultr  nitfi  of  t'luirtynr  <'<>inmiHHiun^  .....  287 

3.  (Ttiilir  rnl<»  n/t/u/'iitftil  fijit-e^ 2HH 

P.  iK'cliiraliiiiiH  ami  iK'ti  nl'piirtU'H  ami  tliinl  IMTMOFM,       .         ,         .  200 

K.   Parol   III. I  si'comlary  t'viil«'iiri>, 20;j 

F.   I'ul)lic  rt'cronli  ami  paporM ;    Vcrtlict, 204 

O.   Witiu'sHcM 

l.Conijuli  ni'jf  iiikI  vr<il!t  »»/'. 
Sco  alMo  Kxi'kutk;    Kvimknck,  O.  .3. 

a.  Of  wifiicsscs  j^crn'rally, 

b.  Of  AMsi;^iiur  of  rii\»'iiti()ii  in  Iiiti'rrtTi'iici'H,  .         . 

2.  KjfJtmi nation  ami  ltn/»itch/tnnt  )>J\  .... 

3.  PartiiSy  Kxdtniniitlon  of\ , 

Sfc  also  Fvti»KN<i:,  <•.  I.  ii, 

II.  Kulcs  as  to  particular  facto  luid  iHsuoa. 

1.  Ahittidontncnty 

ScO  also  AllANDONMENT. 

2.  TVniiiliih nt  i/itint, 

3.  Infrimjimi'nty 30J 

Set)  also  CoMiUNATioN,  It.;  Comi'ohition  ok  Maitkw,  C. ;  In- 

FIlIMiKMKNT. 

4.  Tm^eution.,  and  orlyiiKtHtif  ami  priority  nf,  .         .         , 
fi.    fni'rnfion,  noi'i'fti/  (DhI  utility  i,f\       ...... 

KXA:MINI':US  of  PATKNT  OFKICK,  p..siiion  aii.l  .lutii'fl  of,     . 
KXKCIJTION,  Halo  of  I'atviitH  and  C'opyrijrhtH  umlcr,  .... 

FXl'KHIMKNTS,  relation  of,  as  to  Invention, 

FXI'F/{'rS,  tostiinony  of;    wlicn  a(ln)issil»l«>,  and  force  of,  .         .         . 

EXTENSION  OF  LETTKKS  FATKNT. 

A.  Who  may  apply  for  and  olitain  ;   in  what  cn^i^'i,       .         ,         . 

B.  Power  of  Corntnissioncr  on  applicatiofis  for;  (Conclusive  naturo  of 


20.-1 
20H 
21)H 
300 


300 


.iOJ 


301 
307 
311 
312 
813 
316 

319 


1 


action  of, ^ 

C.  l{i<;li(s  of  Assii^'iiocs  and  others  nmlor, 

D.  Authority  and  force  of  Fxtended  Patent, 
See  also  I'^xtknhiox  ov  Patkxt,  B. 

E.  Extension  of  special  laws,  and  rights  under 


320 
321 
327 

323 


l'1 


i    I 


F. 

FEIGNED  ISSUE  IN  PATENT  ACTIONS. 

A.  When  ordered  and  practice  on,  32C 

B.  P]ffect  of  verdict  in,  .....,,,       331 
FOREIGN  PATENT ;  bearing  of,  on  Homo  patent ;  how  proved,    .        .  332 


J 


! 


VMIM. 


.         .         .  281 

.  a87 

.  200     I 

.        .        .      20:) 
.  204 


.  20ft 
208 

.  208 
300 


.  SCO 


803 

.  302 


MTKi;,  C;  In- 


of, 


304 
.  807 

311 
.  31'2 

313 
.  310 


.  310 
isivc  niituro  of 

.  320 

.  321    I 

.  827  ; 

.       325 


INDEX  OF  TITLEii. 


81 


riMUI.— UMUNOTtOKg. 


FOKM;  clitiii^'i'*  lii«  whfMi  patfrititblo,  nn<l  wlioti  not,  .        •        , 

,Si>0  uImo  Ci>l.<>ltAIII.».  Al.TKKATIONH. 

FIlAri),  AND  KUAI'Drr-KNT  IN'IKNT  IN   UKSl'KCT  TO  W 

K^nTH;  wlial  tU'tnuutl  to  In-,  uii«l  v\\\>v\  of,     ,        ,        .        .         . 

GKNKUAF.  ISSl'K,  AND  NoTKK  Ol'  Sl'KCIAI.  MATTKIl. 

A.  KvidiMicu  iindiT  ^fiK*riil  \**\Wy 

H.  Wlii'ii  iiotico  ri'<j(iirf(l ;  wh.if  to  coiitiun,  ,        ,        , 

(',   Wlu'ii  N|it>ci:il  plfiis  itllovvitlilo,        ...... 

0()()l)NVIM>  <)l'  IM'SINKSS;  wliut  in,  aiwl  property  in,  , 

GKANTKK  OF  I'vVrKN'r,  who  Ih.     S«'u  Akhkinkk,  IJ.  1. 


.  8:ia 


VT. 


3a7 


.  .'Ul 

.'!4-J 

.  .'UO 

li47 


.  .148 

i532 

.  .')5S 

357 

.   300 

.105 


.  32!) 
331 


)roved,     .        •  332 


I. 

TMPnoVK^nONTS. 

A.  Wliat  patciitaMc  ;   ami  lo  what  oxteiit,         .... 

I{.  IIow  shrxihl  \w  sft  toi'th, 

C.  I'att'iit  for  ;  what  Hi'curcd  by;  coimtruction  of,     .         ,        , 

INKI{IN(:K^n':NT. 

A.  Of  Copyrij^ht ;   what  {•onstituteH,      ..... 
JJ.  Of  I'ati'iits. 

1.  Genenil />rini'i/>li!n  aa  to, 

St'o  also  AtrnoNs,  II.;   In'VENTIoV,  E. 

2.  Wlidf  hill  to  mnoii/it  ^>,         ...... 

St'u  also  Co.MiiiNATioN,  II. ;  Ct)Mi'osrnoN  of Maiteii,  C.  ;  Dksiqx. 

3.  Wh'it  field  not  to  (tmount  to, ;170 

4.  Actions  for,  and  (h'/ence«  hi.    iSoc  Acrio.vs,  B.  1,  3;  EtiUirv, 

H.  1  ;  Dia'KNCKH. 

5.  Eindence  as  to,  and  />//  ir/ioni  derided.    Seo  Evidence,  II.  3. 
C.  Of  Trade-Marks;  what  Ih,  atul  nuturo  of, 

See  also  EiiUirv,  C. 
INJUNCTIONS. 

A.  In  respoct  to  Copyrights ;  when  will  issue  and  extent  of,     , 
13.  In  respect  to  I'atoiits. 

1.  General  2)rinc!ples  appUi'idde  to  all  kinds  of^  .        . 

2.  Preliminary  or  Provisional, 
a.  AUowanci'  or  refusal  of, , 

See  also  L^jumrriONS,  IJ.  2.  d. 
h.  Right  to,  from  exelusive  possession  or  former  recoveries;  cL?r- 

acter  of  sudi  exclusive  possession, 088 

c.  Security  in  place  of,  or  on  granting, 306 

(/.  Practice  on  motions  for, 308 

(!.  Continuance  or  dissolution  of,         ......  401 


373 

377 
370 


1*» 


a 


ii  I 
I 

"I 


UN 
»f  i 


III 


'1 


'ii 


•■ " » 


n  IN'DKX  OK  TITf  KH 

out   *-•   llwSK         jl  H) 

IXJ  UNCTION'S— •,./*///,»«,//. 

tl«  Fhttit  nt- l*,ri>tiuiil ;  ir/tfH  (/luihUtl  ami  teA«H  notf        ,        ,      401 

Hl'l<  nUo  lNJt'M<'l|itMM,  II.    I. 

4.   Vinliition  nf\  iiiul  iiltiii'/inti'nt  on^ 407 

Ct  III  rt'*«|>f('i  III 'I'rikili' .Mitrko,        .         .         •        i  .      4Utl 

Ht'i<  itlxo  Ktjiiiv,  ('. ;  'ritAiii>:-M.\uKM,  C, 

INsrKcTloN  OK  MACIIIVKS;  wh..|i.,nlmu|, \\& 

INTKNT. 

A.  I'iiti'iiiiiMlity  ot*.     Set'  1*1  nroKK. 

It.   MtMriii'^  of,  i\%  to  .\litiii<l<iniih  lit,  liifriii^ciiii'tit,  «Sco.,  •         •       41>t 

INTKUKKUKNCKS  ON  AI'I'MCVTIONS  KOU  I'.VTKNTS. 

A,  Wlirii  iirisf,  mill  ^I'licriil  imtiiri>  nt', 417 

SiM' iiImu  Im^i  ivai.knix  ;  Invkmidv,  K. 
i\,  rt'U('tii-i>  ill  ciiscH  lit',  uikI  f\iili'iic«>  in,         *        •         *        •        •       418 
Hfi'  iiUo  KviiiKN.K,  C!.  'i\   I).,  K.,  ({. 
IXTIfODUC^KIt  OK  INVKNTION;  howiirotocU'il,        .        ,        .        .419 
INVKNTION. 

A.  \Vli!kl  IN,  iiinl  w  litii  |Kttriit:il)li>,  ......        420 

Set'  hImo  Coi.iiuaiii.k  N'aiiiationk;  ('omiiivatiov;   ('omi'ohitiov 

OK   Maitku;    l)iH«'ovi:itv ;    Doini  lo    I'si:;    Kkkkit;    Kohm  ; 

ImI'UHVKMI'.NTH;    InVKNTOU,  a,  ;     .MAtlllNKH;     .MAMfK.VlTl'UK, 

Auini.K  oi- ;   Maikiiiai.  ;  Mkciiamc,  Skii.i,  ok  ;  Nkw  Ai'i'i.i- 
rATioN  ;  I'aiknt,  l).;  I'lti.Ni  It'll:;  I'l  im-osk;  Suijciksiions. 

B.  Pt'rro(!liiij;,  or  ri'duoiii;;  to  iiriiclifo ;   wlmtiN;  iioccssity  of;  tlili- 

^(.'nc»  ill, 424 

C.  Oii^'iimlity  niul  priority  of.     Soo  Invkntoh,  H.  ;  Piiiou  Knowl- 

i:j>c)i:. 
Ah  to  oviiic'iico  of,  hoc  Kvidknik,  II.  4. 

D.  Novi'lty  iukI  utility  of, J'29 

Am  to  t'vidciK'o  of,  nee  Kvidknx'K,  II.  8. 

E.  LK'iitity  ot', 4.15 

»Si't'  also  ('oi,ouahi,eVauiatiokh;  EtjuivALENXs;  Fou.\i;  Intkh- 

KKUKNCK8. 

INVENTOR. 

A.  Who  is;  luid  ri^'hts  of,  !iM  such,         ...,,,       441 
D.  First  and  original ;  Hubscnuont ;  rights  of,    ,        .         .         ,         ,  444 

.1. 

JOINT  INVENTION  AND  PATENT;  when  and  rights  under,    .        .  452 
JUUISDICTION. 

Of  Courts,  sec  Couuts  ;  Equity. 

Of  Justices'  Circuit  Court.     See  Appeals,  B.  3. 

JURY ;  what  (luestions  dt'tcrminod  by, 454 

See  also  Patent,  P.  4. 


if 


r«<t«. 


.      4nt 

.  407 
.       400 

•        .         .410 


IS. 


.       Il."» 


.  tr 


.       418 


INDKX  OK  TITLES. 


9» 


UW  CMi.-K>TMI  AVO  MMIfMV. 


r*Mi. 


407 


■   LKCTI'IIKS,  riulit  ofiiroporly  in 

MllTKIlS,  |in)|Mriy  in  iiikI  |)ro(t«<tii>ii  of,     .        , 

LKKNMK. 

A.  What  ('<>iiNtiiiirt»« ;  ri;;li(ri  lUMlor;  vfli<«t  n(  tikkiti'Xi       •        •        .  400 
S»"it  iiUo  Ahhhjnmi-'.m,  li. ;  KxiKHMioN  or  I*.\TicNr,  U. 

n.  Uciorilitiu,  iiml  triiii't'iT  of, 401 

('.  roriiiiiirt*  of;  Ai'tioiii  on,       »»*»,,,      40^ 

LIMITATIONS. 

A.  or  A|>|)lit'itti<>ii<4  Cor  I'atrtiti*, 400 

11.  Of  Api'tal-*  to  .IuMtiot'<»' C'irouit  Court, 400 

v.  ort'oiiiiiiciK-iii-;  actiiiiix,         ...••«».  400 

LOST  A  UTS.    Sio  AaiH,  Limr. 


.  411) 


4'.'i) 


CoMroHrrioN 
i;<r;    Im»i:m  ; 

VNtlKAt'llKi:, 

Nkw  Ai'I'i.i- 

IlKHTIONH. 

ity  of;  ilill- 


.  424 


iDU  Knowl- 


.       429 

.  435 

)Um;  Lntku- 


.       (tl 
.1(1 

•lor,    .         .  452 


454 


^  A.  Wlii'ii  itatontaltlo;  ]triiici|)luH  of;  idi'tility  of,       ....  470 

8«o  also  I'oitM  ;  Imi'Uovkmk:«t;  Invkntion,  A.,  K. 
]j.  I'linciplcH  uC,  and  iiiniloi,  of  a|i|)lifatioii,  how  i>\|)l;iitiu<l  mid  div 
scriiu'il,  ....... 

JIANrFACTrUi:,  artic'lo  of,  whiii  patt'iitablo,     . 
aiAN'rsClMI'TS,  li^lit  ofpropgrty  in,  and  how  loit, 
M  S(H*  al.Mo  lii-.rrKUH. 

^    MATKHIAI,  OF  INVKXTION-,  wl.i.tl.i.r  patontalilo, 
MKC'IIANU  S,  hkill  and  Hiijxgi'Hiions  of;  flVcoi  of,  .        . 

Si'o  also  SrtKiKHiioNS. 
jMKDH'INKS,  ri^jhts  oriiivciitorM  in,  .         .        , 

1    iMISTAKKS  IN   I 'ATI :  N'lS,  (•m'<'t  and  correction  of,    , 

Sot' idsii  Hkissi  i:s  ok  I'atknt. 
4   MODE,  .MHTIIOI),  Oli  I'UOCKSS;  when  patentable, 
.J  Sci' also  Kfi'icrT;  PitiNcii'M:. 

^1  MODKI-S,  part  of  patent ;  of  wliut  evidence,    .         ,        , 

I""'"" " ""•  ■  ■ 


•    « 


.  473 

473 

.  470 

.  477 
478 

.  480 

•1H2 

4U3 

480 
.  4^7 


]V. 


NAME,  j)ropcrty  in,     Sco  TiunK-MARK,  A, 

NKW  APPLICATION  OR  ITSK,  when  patontaMo, 

NKW  TItlALS  IN  PATKNT  CASKS,  wiien  ordered,  when  not, 

NKWSPAPKIt,  properly  in;  copyiij^ht  aH  to,   ■ 

NONSUIT,  power  of  Federal  Courts  to  ordwr,        .... 

O. 

OATH  IN  INVENTION,  necessity  and  force  of, 405 

OYER  &  PROFERT.    See  I'i.eadkno,  C. 


488 
401 
404 
4  Of 


*ti' 


"Ml 


84 


INDKX  or  TlTr.ES. 


!li 


I    I, ' 


<4^ 


TAUriKS   TO   ACTIONS. — I'ATKNTH. 


F. 

TARTIES  TO  ACTIOXS.    Soo  Actions,  IJ.  3  ;  Eqcity,  B.  2. 
"  DI'X'LAKATIONS  OF.     Soc  Kvii.knci;,  D. 

"         KXAMIXATION  OI'\     See  Kvii.K.vct:,  C.  1,  4.,  3. 
PAllTNKRSIIIP  IN  PATP:NTS,  what  constitutes,       ....      407 
PATENTS. 

A.  Subject  Matter  of. 

See  Art;  C(>i,oij.vni,K  Ai,TKii.VTinva;  CoAnsiNATiox,  A.;  Composi- 
tion OF  ]M.vrri:u,  A. ;  1)i-<covickv;  Dol'iu-e  Use;  Kffixt  ;  Equiv- 
alkxt;  ExncuntENTK ;  1\»ijm  ;  Imi-uovements,  A. ;  Intent  ;  In- 
vention, A. ;  Machines,  A. ;  JManufactuke,  Autici.e  of  ;  Ma- 
terial; ]Mei)I("ine  ;  ]\rE<'iiAMc,  Skim,  of;  Mode,  Method,  or 
Pko(.ess  ;  New  Ai'I'i.ication  ;  I'iuncii'le  ;  Puocess  ;  Purpose; 
Sl'coestions. 
IJ.  Iiii,'lit  to,  lioNv  lost  or  forleitetl.  See  Ahakdonment,  B.  ; 
Aiti.ication  Ton  1'atent,  A.;  1'riou  Use;  and  also  PmoR 
Knowledge. 

C.  Grant,  or  Issue  of;  by  and  to  whom.     See  Ai'plication,  B.  ; 

Introducer  ;  Invkntor,  A.,  B. ;  Joint  Invkntor;  and  also 
Invention,  D. 

D.  "What  jjjranted  or  secured  by. 

1.  General  nature  of  the  grants 408 

See  also  Patent,  P. 

2.  Whether  may  include  more  than  one  mvention,    .        .        .      501 

E.  Wliat  embraced  in  the  Letters  Patent, 504 

F.  Api)lication  for  Patent.     See  Api'mcation  for  Patent 

G.  Interfering  Applications.     See  Interferences. 

II.  Term  of;  date  of;  when  begins  to  run, 50,5 

See  also  Extension  op  Patent. 

I.  Territorial  extent  of, 506 

K.  Name  and  title  of, 506 

L.  Prior  and  subsequent  for  same  invention, 507 

jM.  Surrender  and  reissue  of.     See  Reissue  op  Patent.  . 

N.  Renewal  and  extension  of.     See  Extension  op  Patent. 
O.  Mistakes  in,  correction  of.     See  Mistakes  m  Patent. 
P.  Construction  of. 

1.  General  jwinciples  of  constniHion,       .        .        .        .        .      608 
See  also  Ambiguity  ;  Pati;  t,  D.  ;  Spkcipication,  A. 

2.  Prima  facie  authority  of 513 

3.  How  far  construed  hy  the  Court, 517 

4.  How  far  construed  hy  the  Jury, 519 

See  also  Jury. 

5.  Claim  in,  force  and  construction  o/,    .        .        ,        ,        ,      621 


INDEX.  OF  TITLES. 


2S 


I'ATKNTS.  —  l'AnTIl'l!I,AU   TATKNTM. 


I'Aob 


407 


.. ;  CoMPOSi 
FXT ;  Equiv- 
Intknt ; In 
ji.K  OF ;  Ma 
Mktiiod,  or 
5 ;  PuurosK 

<fMENT,      B. 

i  also  Pkiob 

CATION,   B. 

or;  and  also 


.  408 

601 
.  50-t 


xr. 


•  • 


.  50G 

506 

.  507 


iNT. 


A. 


508 

513 
617 
519 

621 


PAOI. 


631 
531 

5;u 

5  a 'J 

632 
533 
633 
533 
534 
534 
535 
635 
535 


PATENTS — continued. 

Q.  Violation  of.      Spo  Actions,  A.;    Comhination,  B.  ;     Cosiro- 
sniov  or  ^Iaitkr;  Dksiuns  ;  Form  ;  Infrinokmknt,  B. 

K.  Wlion  void, 625 

Soo  also  AiJANi)ON».»i:NT,  B. ;  Dkfencks;  Prior  Knowledge; 
Prior  Usk. 
S.  Tran'sfi;i{  of.     Soo  Ashionment,  B.,  C. 

PARTICIILAII  I'ATENTS. 

Applt'-Paiin.!^  ^Machine, .... 
Au{?er,  for  boring  Muskets, 
Bank-Noto  printing,       .... 

Bark  INIills, 

Bran  Duster, 

Brass  Kettles, 

Brick  IMachine, 

Burring  Machines, 

Buttons,  Designs  for,     .... 
Cars,  supporting  Bodies  of,        .         .        . 

Cars  for  Co.il, 

Carriages  for  Railways,  &c.,     .        .        , 
Cars,  Eight-Wheeled,    .... 

Car  Wheels, 630 

Casters  for  Bedsteads, 537 

Cotton  Ghi,  Ilibs  of, 637 

Cotton  Speeder, 537 

Cultivators, 538 

Dyeing  Parti-Colorcd  Yarn, 538 

Dyeuig  and  finishing  Silk  Goods, 639 

Electric  Telegraph, 539 

Fire-Engines, 540 

Glass  Knobs, 542 

Grain-cleaning  Machines, 543 

Grinding  Tools, 543 

Gun  Locks,        . ,         .  544 

Harvesting  Machines, 544 

Hat  Bodies,  making, 54G 

Ice,  cutting, 547 

India-rubber, 547 

Irregular  Forms,  tuniing, 550 

Lead  Pipe  Machines, 652 

Locomotives,  Vai'iablc  Exhaust  of, 553 

Looms, ,        .  554 

Matches,  Friction, 664 

Millstones,  regulating,  &c., 555 


26 


INDFA'  OF  1'ITLKS. 


I'AUTU'rr.All   I'ATKNTH.— ri.KAIilN(lS. 


l»AUTI('irLAU  I'ATKNTS— m/<mua?. 

]M()ul(liiii;H,  inakiii*;,       .... 
Nr.ils,  ]\I:iiiiit:u'tiiro  of,        .        .         .        < 
Piilm-U'iir,  prt'pjiiing,      .... 
Pa|H'r,  Maniifai'turo  of,       .         ,         . 
IMaiiinuf  jMacliincs,  .... 

l*loii<;lis, 

Puddle  I  Jails,  rolling,     .... 
Kails  for  Railroad  Carriages,     .         .        , 
Rocking  Cliuirs,     ..... 

Saddles,     . 

Sivw  MillH,  Circular,       .... 

"  Portable,  Circular,   . 

Sowing  Machines,  .... 

Sowing  Seed, 

Steani-Engines, 

"      Generators,      .... 

Stoves, 

Straw-Cutter, 

Tailors'  Shears, 

Thread,  packing,  &c.,   .... 
Valves  for  Governors,        .... 

"      Lifting  and  Tripping,         .        . 

"     Lifting, 

Water-Closet  Valves,  Governors  for,     . 

Water  Wheels, 

Wheels,  liorizontal,  for  Boats, 
Wood-Bending  jMachiue,   .... 
PATENTED  ARTICLES  OR  MACHIXES. 

A.  Rights  of  purchasers  to  use,  repair,  &c., 

B.  Products  of,  right  to  sell  and  use, 
PENALTIES,  ANT)  ACTIONS  FOR. 

A.  Under  the  Copyriglit  laws,      .        •         , 

B.  Under  the  Patent  laws,        .... 
PERFECTING  AN  INVENTION.    See  Invention,  B. 
PLAN  OP  A  WORK.    See  CopyniGUT,  B. 
PLEADING. 

A.  Declaration  ;  what  to  set  forth,         .        , 

B.  Pleas  in  bar, 

See  also  Defences  ;  General  Issue. 

C.  Oyer  and  Profert, 

D.  Defects  in,  cured  by  verdict,        , 

E.  Demurrer, 

See  also  Plkadings,  A.  B. 


PAaii, 

56fi 

,  Sfifi 

050 

.  55a 


557 
.  660 

661 
.  561 

602 
.  662 

662 
.  663 

663 
.  668 

668 

660 
.  660 

670 
.  671 

671 
.  571 

572 
.  673 

673 
.  673 

676 
.  676 

676 

.  680 

683 

684 


685 

688 

680 
600 
600 


r 


1 


INDEX  OF  TITLES. 


rAoii, 
.  6fl:) 

5.JtJ 
.  650 

667 
.  5G0 

601 
.  501 

602 
.  502 

502 
.  503 

50a 
.  508 

608 

609 
.  660 

670 
.  671 

671 
.  671 

672 
.  673 

673 
.  673 

676 
.  675 

576 
.  580 

683 

684 


685 

.  688 

689 

.  690 

690 


I'niNCII'AI,.-  -HiI'KCirirATlON. 


PAdK. 

I'lilXCIPLE,  Avhi'thcr  imtontiiblo;  to  what  extont,    ....        .601 

See  also  Aut;   Discovkuy;   Ekkect;   Mode   ok    Metiiop;   Puk- 
rosB. 
TKIXCirLK  OF  A  MACHINE.    Soe  Machines,  A. 
I'll  I NTED  1»U  I  {LIGATION.    Sec  Piiu.io  Wouk. 
I'KIOIt  KNOWLEDGE,  AND  INVENTION, 605 

Se«  iilso  Lw'ENTiox,  A.;  Inventok,  A.,  D. ;  Public  Work. 
PIIIOU  L'SE,  whicli  will  lorfeit  u  pateut, 003 

See  also  Aijandonment,  B.  1. 
PllOFERT.     See  Pleadixo,  C. 

PUBLIC  USE,  Avhat  miant  by, 608 

PUBLIC  WOUK,  OH  PRINTED  PUBLICATION      .        .        .        .008 

See  also  Puiok  IvNowLEixiK  and  Invkntion. 

PUBLICATION  OF  BOOK,  what  is  ;  effect  of, 000 

PURPOSE, 010 

See  also  Effect;  New  Api'LicATioif. 

U. 

REISSUE  OF  PATENT. 

A.  When  may  bo  had  ;  by  Avhom  ;  for  what,        ,        •        ,        ,       012 
See  also  Reissue  of  Patent,  B. 

B.  Action  of  Commissioner  in  cases  of, 617 

C.  To  be  for  same  Invention  as  the  original,        ....       018 

D.  Validity  and  force  of,  and  rights  conferred  by,    .        .      •  .        .  022 
See  also  Reissue  of  Patent,  B. 

E.  Effect  of,  on  assignees  and  others,  and  their  rights  imder,       .       626 
REPAIRS  OF  PATENTED  MACHINES.    See  Patented  Machines,  A. 
REPORTS,  Copyright  in, 0?0 


RESTRAINT  OF  TRADE  AS  TO  PATENTS,  what  is  not,  . 
RESULT.    See  Effect  ;  Purpose. 
1   REVIEWS,  when  piracy  of  Copyright ;  when  not,     .        .        . 
RULES  OF  PATENT  OFFICE,  authority  of,      .        .        . 

IS. 


620 

027 
027 


SECRET  USE  OF  INVENTION,  effect  of, 628 

SPECIFIC  PERFORMANCE  OF  CONTRACTS  AS  TO  PATENTS,        630 
SPECIFICATION. 

A.  General  principles  of  construction.    See  Patents,  P.  1. 

B.  How  invention  to  be  described  in, 630 

See  also  Composition  op  Matter,  B.  ;  Improvement,  B.  ;  Ma- 

CHtNE,  B. 

C.  Ambiguity  in,  and  effect  of.    See  Ambiguity. 

D.  Concealment  in,  and  effect  of, 636 

E.  Defects  in,  how  remedied.    See  SIistakes  ;  Reissue  of  Patent. 


I«l 


9B  INDEX  OF  TITLES. 

HTATL'TtS,   CONSTUUCTIOM  OF. — WUIT  0»'  EUltOll. 

S'l'ATOTKS,  CONSrilUCTION  OP. 

A.  Copyright  .acts,         .        .        , 688 

B.  I'utont  Jicts. 

1.  J^oioer  of  Congress  to  enact.    See  Conokkss. 

2.  Polirtj  (ind  Intent  of 647 

See  also  I'mknts,  1'. 

3.  General  or  I'ublic  acts,        ,        ,        ,        .        ,        ,        ,       640 

4.  Special  or  Private  acta. 

a.  Gc'iuTally, 676 

b.  Act  for  relief  of  Tliomiis  Bhindmrcl,  .         .        .         .        677 

c.  "  "         Oliver  Evhiih, 078 

d.  "         "        Wiliiniu  Woodwortb,       ....      670 
SUGGESTIONS,  bearing  of,  on  invention, 680 

See  also  Mkcuanic,  Skill  of. 

T 

TECHNICAL  TERMS,  «fcc.,  meaning  of;  who  naay  prove,        .        .        .08] 

TIIEOIIY,  patentability  of, 682 

TKADE-MAUKS. 

A.  Property  in ;  in  what  may  exist,  ......  683 

B.  Who  may  acquire  i)roperty  in, 687 

Sec  also  Aliens. 

C.  I'roperty  in  ;  how  protected.    See  Actions,  C.  ;  Equity,  C. 

D.  Violation  of,  what  is.     See  iNrRiNOEMENT,  C. 

E.  When  violation  of,  will  be  restraiuotl.    See  Injunction,  C. 
TRANSLATION,  Copyright  in, 691 

u. 

UNITED  STATES,  rights  and  liabilities  of,  as  to  patents,  .        .        .692 

V. 

VERDICT  IN  PATENT  CASES,  effect  of, 09^ 

See  also  Feigned  Issue,  B.  ;  Pleading,  D.  ;  Injunction,  B.  2.  b. 

WARRANTY,  as  to  Patents, .        .        .094 

WITHDRAWAL.    See  Application  fok  Patent,  C. 
WITNESSES.    See  Evidence,  G. 
WORKMEN,     See  Agent;  Employei:. 

WRIT  OF  ERROR  IN  PATENT  CASES, 695 

See  also  Appeals  ;  Bills  op  Exceptions  ;  Courts,  B.  1. 


PAiii:, 


638 


.  647 

6-iU 

.  676 
677 

.  678 

67!i 
68U 


TABLE  OF  CASES 


Df  ALPHABETICAt  OIlDKIl, 


DIUECT  AND  REVERSED,  WITH  REFERENCES  UNDER  THE  FOIIMKR 


TO  THE  PAGES  OF  TJI3  DIGEST. 


681 
682 


)N,  B.  2.  h. 


08:; 
687 


A. 


691 


692 


C9;j 


694 


605 


Abbott,  TIowo  V. 

"        lloj^ors  V. 

"        Spoar  V. 
Adams,  Ex  parte, 

"        V.  Edwards, 

"        Herbert  v. 

"       V.  Jonoa, 

"        Minis'  Asaignoo  v. 

"        Wilder  v. 
Affor's  Case, 
Aiken,  Ex  parte  (Propollors),  MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

"       "        "   (Car- Wheel), 


2  Story,  IDO, 

4  Wash.,  511, 

MS.  (App.  ".13.), 
II  II 

MS., 

4  Mason,  15, 

3  Wall,  Jr., 
3         " 


"     V.  Bomis, 

Aldcn  V.  Dewey, 

Allen,  Ex  parte, 
"     V.  Alter, 
"     V.  Blunt, 

"     V.     " 


Mast.,  1842. 
I-a.,  1826. 
D.  C,  18r)9. 

"      1800,       25.-.,  47S. 
Mass.,  1848,      183,  608,  CS2. 

"      1825. 
Pa.,  1859,         95,  147,  G07. 
"     1861. 
2  Wood.  ifcMin.,  329,  Masa.,  184G, 
MS.  Opia,  "       1859,     159,  GG9. 

D.  C,  1850,       137,  139,  142,  151,  312, 
1850,       139,  142,  143,  151,  433. 


433. 


477, 4;i;;, 


V.      " 
V.  Hunter, 


"     Nourse  v. 
"     Palmer  v. 
"     V.  Spraguo, 
Alter,  Allen  v. 


MS., 
MS., 

1  Blatchf.,  5G7, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
Amer.  Elas.  Cloth  Co.,  Cong.  )  „„ 
Rubber  Co.  v.  \  ^^^'t 


3  Wood.  &  Min.,  348,  Mas.a.,  1847,     188,  233,  287,  291,  371,  ■ 

622. 
1  Story,  336,  "      1840,     232,  243,  290,  303,  305,  3G1,  401, 

496,  613,  GSO. 
MS.  (App.  Cas.),        D.  C,  1860,      254,  490. 

"  "  "      18G0,       143,  290,  298. 

3  Story,  742,  Mass.,  1845,     131,  294,  317,  331,  437,  613,  017, 

623,  693, 
a  Wood.  &  Min.,  121,      "      1846,     144,175,179,192,220,232,243, 

280,  283,  280,  293,  294,  303,  447, 
469,  492,  617,  018,  624,  66G. 
1  Blatchf.,  480,  N.  T.,  1849,     100,  109,  132,  225,  265. 

6  McLean,  303,         Oliio,  1855,       133,  177,  181,  197,  297,  317,  .'iOS, 

427,  419,  512,  615,  523,  600,  608. 
N.  Y.,  1858. 
"       1854. 

"       1850,      331,  392, 544. 
D.  C,  1860, 

Pa.,  1857. 


Amer.  Pin  Co.  v.  Oakvillo  Co.,  |  "'A.'L.°Reg.fl36^  }  C'-'  ^^S*, 


260,  336,  372,  523,  529,  635. 


Amer.  nnirCo.iTifuacan  Hair  ),■,-,,  »  .  r 
Co.  V.  r  ^^^-^"^^'^ 


N.  Y.,  1853. 


30 


TAIILK  OF  CASES,  A. 


I 


IN   AU'IIAUKTICAL  OltOKR,  WITU 

ntrxiiKNCU  TO  paukh  viUKua  rot  mi. 

AmuM  V,  Iluwanl, 

1  Siimn.,  482, 

MOHH 

,  1S33, 

10.'),  ni,  182,  301.488,491,  600, 
627,  0.^7,  G22,  U48. 

"     V.  Kintr, 

a  (Irny,  .170. 

11 

1854, 

UU. 

AnioM.  Nail  l''ao.,  Oiliorno  v. 

2  Mason,  2H, 

II 

IHl!), 

AiiiDsk.  M('j(.  Co.  V.  Hpcur, 

2  Saml,  S.  C,  59t), 

N.  V 

,  1H49, 

08,  101,  272,  374,  410,  684,  C88. 

Aiioiiymous, 

1  Oliil..,  110, 

1802, 

12«. 

1       "       171, 

1H12, 

20(;,  019,  056. 

ti 

6      "      701, 

IMII, 

149,  417,  064. 

11 

1       "      37(1, 

1  «20, 

200,  055. 

M 

1       "      718, 

1825, 

200,  055. 

u 

2       "      455, 

1831, 

149,  206,  612,  022,  055. 

u 

a       "      611, 

1832, 

150. 

t« 

3       "      Hi5, 

lH3(i, 

3,19,012. 

u 

3       "      532, 

1840, 

490, 

H 

4      "      3'J9, 

1M45, 

]:>H,  45,1,  009. 

M 

3  W.  L.  Jour.,  144, 

1845, 

114,  405,  581,  371. 

U 

6  Ojiin.,  IH, 

1H48, 

447,  597,  005. 

M 

6       "      3(5, 

1853, 

15:i. 

I) 

G       "      38, 

1853, 

137. 

•• 

MS.," 

1857, 

153,  177,  002. 

II 

MS.," 

1859, 

259. 

Af>plcton  V.  Chfp^TB, 

ilS.  (A pp.  Ci\i>.), 

D.  C, 

18(1(1, 

429,  452. 

"         Dwijjlit  V. 

1  N.  Y.  L.  OI.H., 

195 

N.  Y. 

,  1H43. 

"         Ik'iiio  t'. 

4  BlatehC, 

ii 

18,J7. 

ArtiiHtroiiK  1'.  llariloubeck, 

8.  N.  Y.  L.  Obs. 

,43 

(1 

1 

1841, 

279,  40.5,  401,  40(5. 

Ariiuld  V.  liiHlioj), 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.C., 

1841, 

135,  138,  1.50,  288,200,418,453, 
027,  073,  071. 

"      V.  Potter, 

II             II 

H 

1800, 

423. 

Arthur,  Kx  parte, 

II            II 

a 

IHCl, 

311. 

ALkiiiHou  V.  lioardman, 

II            11 

(( 

1847, 

283,  284,  291,  442. 

"         V.             " 

MS., 

N.Y., 

1851, 

205,  COO. 

Atwill,  Ferrctt  v. 

1  Blatchf.,  151, 

il 

184G. 

"     V.        " 

3         "          30, 

ii 

1840, 

103, 174,  211,  270,  641,  644. 

'' '( 


••(l-jKl 


;i|',*- 


Bubcock  V.  DcRonor, 
liackiiH  V.  Gould, 
It'.icon's  Case, 

"       Peck  V. 
Badger,  Orr  v. 
Barley,  llawley  v. 
Bagot,  Gebberd  v. 
Bain  v.  Morso, 
Baker  v.  Taylor, 
Ball,  Kk  parte, 

"    V.  Miirry, 

"     Root  V. 
Bal.  &  Siis.  R.  R.,  Stimpson 
Jiainkor,  Parker  v. 
Banks,  (iould  v. 
Barber,  Mowry  v. 
Barbour,  "Woodworth  V. 
Barclay,  Mitchell  v. 
Barnard,  Gibson  v. 
"       V.     " 
"      Parsons  v. 
Barnum,  Hopkins  v. 
"        Wilson  V. 


Barrett  v.  Ilall, 


'il 


"      Morris  v 


MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
7  How.,  798, 
2  Opin,,  109, 
18  <Jonn.,  377, 

7  Law  Rep.,  405, 
MS., 

4  Blatchf., 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
2  Blatchf.,  82, 
MS.  (App.  Ca.s.), 
10  Penn.,  Ill, 
4  McLean,  177, 
V.  10  How.,  329, 

6  McLean,  031, 

8  Wend.,  502, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
Cited  1  Blatchf.,  529, 
MS., 

1  Blatchf.,  388, 

7  How.,  050, 

7  John.,  144, 
MS.  (App,  Cas.), 
1  Wall,  Jr.,  342, 
1         "        347, 

8  How.,  258, 
1  Mason,  447, 


MS., 


139,  184,  259,  335,  417,  510.  59: 

213,  009. 

610,  620,  628,  GG9. 

203,  314,  425. 


D.  C,  1859,       130,  147,  002,  OflC. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1848,  584,  044. 
1828,  480,  606. 

Ct.,  1847. 
Ma.s8.,  1844. 
N.  Y.,  185u. 
Ct.,  1857. 
I).  C,  1849, 
N.  Y.,  1848, 
7X  C,  1800, 
Pa.,  1848, 
Ohio,  1840. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 
Ohio,  1855. 
N.  Y.,  1832. 
I).  C,  1858. 
Mo.,  1850. 
N.  Y.,  1800. 
"       1848. 
Sup.  Ct^  1848,  134. 
N.  Y.,  1810. 
D.  C,  1854. 
Pa.,  1849. 
"     1849. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1849. 
Mass,  1818,      129, 181, 187,  278,  316,  349,  35,1, 

355,  430,  452,  470,  602,  607,  60S, 

525,  539  39;. 
Ohio,  1858. 


)>'' 


r   :"    'ii 


■^ 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


ai 


;    KOI  Nil. 


in  AM'iUnBTIOAI.  ORIlKIt,  WITH   HirKRKNCKS  TO   PAOKH  WIIKHR   FOUND. 


82,  301,488,191,  009, 


m,  U4U. 


12,  374,  410,  684,  CSS. 

ins. 

364. 


S12,  022,  G65. 


;r,n. 
r)Hi,  371. 

QGS. 


!G2. 


ir.l,  406. 

l.^.O,  '.iaB,  290,  418,  453, 

U74. 


291,  442. 
11,  270,  Cn,  044. 

;02,  OfiC. 


59,335,  417,  510.591 

28,  009. 
25. 


i 


;f 


Darrutt,  HtoiirncH  v. 
»t  " 

Biirry  v.  Clirliu«l>, 
i^urntitw,  Kx  piirlc, 

"      r.  Hwiin, 
UiirlhuloiiKJW  u.  HuvryoT, 

Partklto  V.  Crittimdon, 

"       V.  " 

]!:.lt(l,  ToinlinHon  v. 
DiiUiii  I'.  Clayloii, 
Ih'iliiiT  V. 

"      V.  Silliiiian, 

"      V.  TuKKort, 


Bonch  V.  WliPilor, 
Iloan,  S<«i'loy  i'. 

"     ('.  .Siiiallwood, 
Itodford  V.  Himt, 

Beoch  V.  Tucker, 
Ik'culicr,  Wilbur  v. 
liuiTH,  lilaiichard  v. 
Bell  V.  Dunii'Ks, 

Boll,  Davis  v. 

"    V.  Hill, 

"    V.  Lrx'ko, 

"    V.  Mc'OuUough, 

"    V.  I'hillips, 
BoUas  V.  Hays, 
Hoiiiin,  Aikon,  v. 
Bonnott  v.  Martin, 
Ber^  V.  Thistle, 
Borjrer,  Samuel  v. 
Berry,  i']x  parte, 
liettrt,  {ril)son  I', 
lioverly  Hub.  Co.  v.  Wing, 
Ijlcknoll,  Brooks  v. 


"        V.  Todd, 
RiRlcr,  Parker  v. 
BiiliiiKs,  Marsh  v. 
Binns  v.  Woodruff, 
liird,  Harmon  v. 
Birt,  Loudon  v. 
Bishop,  Arnold  v. 

"       Goodyear  v. 
Bladen,  Treadwell  v. 

"      Watson  V. 
Blake  v.  Sperry, 
Blakinton,  Douglass  v. 
Blanchard's  Case, 


7,  278,  310,  .319,  353, 
2,  470,  502,  507,  DOS, 


V.  Beers, 
V.  Eldridgo, 
V.  Haynes, 

V.  Sprague, 


1  \Uwin,  15.1, 

1  Pick.,  n;i, 

12  Law  Ucp.,  :iG7, 

MS.  (Apj).  Cu«,), 
II  II 

MS., 

4  McIiOnn,  300, 

6         "       32, 

M.S., 

2  Whar.  Dig.,  409, 
27  I'cnn.,  517, 

3  Wall,  Jr., 

2  "         101, 

17  How.,  74, 


MaM.,  1810. 

"     lN2:i. 

N.  Y.,  IHIK, 
1).  (!.,   IHC.O, 

"     iMdo, 
N.  Y.,  \HM, 

Ohio,  iHtV, 

"     1H19. 

N.Y.,  lHr.7. 
I'a.,  1818 

"      l.-t.'i"!. 

"     IHrtl. 

"     1H31, 
Sup.  Ct.,  1854, 


24  Ponn.,  212. 
M.S.  (App.  Ca.s), 
2  Story,  108, 

1  Mason,  302, 

M.S.  (Ai)]).  CaH.), 

2  Blatclil'.,  132, 

2  "       411, 
MS., 

8  N.  Ilnmp.,  500, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
8  Paine,  7ii, 
MS., 
MS., 

5  Sorp.  .t  R.,  427, 

3  Wood.  fi.  Min,,  348, 

0  Mo.,  4(i0, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

24  Uarb.  S.  C,  1C3, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1  Blatdif.,  103, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
3  McLean,  250, 

3  "  432, 

4  "  04, 
4  "  70, 

6  "  230, 
MS., 

7  CiKsh.,  322, 
4  Wash.,  48, 
22  Wend.,  113, 
4  Ind.,  500, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
4  Blatohf, 

4  Wash.,  703, 

4  "       680, 

2  N.  Y.  L.  Oba.,  251, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

5  Opin.,  722, 

(  Opin.,  Gilpin's  Ed.,  ) 
"I      p.  1125,  \ 

2  Blatchf,  411, 
1  Wall,  Jr.,  337, 

6  W.  L.  Jour.,  82, 

(  3  Suinn.,  535 ;  2  ) 
1   Story,  104,     J 


Pa.,  18, ".6, 
1).  C,  1801. 
Mas.s.,  1813. 
Mass.,  1817, 

D.  C,  IHOO, 
N.  Y.,  IS.-iO, 
Ct.,  1852. 
Ohio,  1808, 

N.  TL,  1837. 
D.  C,  \HM, 
N.  Y.,  1840, 
Ohio,  1858, 

"   185S, 
Pa.,  1819, 
MaH.H.,  1817. 
Mo.,  1840. 
I).  C,  1800, 
N.  Y.,  1850. 
D.  C,  1800, 
N.  Y.,  1840. 
I).  C,  1800, 
Ohio,  1843. 

"   1844. 

"   1845. 

"   1845. 

"   1851, 

"   1857, 
Mas.s.,  1851. 
Pa.,  1821, 
N.  Y.,  1839. 
Ind.,  1853. 
D.  0.,  1841. 
N.  Y.,  1800. 
Pa.,  1827. 
"  1826. 
Ct.,  1843, 
D.  C,  1859. 
1820, 

1837, 

Ct.,  1852, 
Pa.,  1849, 
N.  n.,  1848, 

Mass.,  1839,  j 


620. 
441,011. 

2:iH,  307,  510. 

300,  427,  450,  457,  610,  619,  573, 

002,  009,  0511. 

01,  104,  221,  202,  457,  470, 

6 15. 

91,  lOJ,  213,  221,  467,458,  470, 

009,  U15. 

183,  248. 

388. 

90,018. 

!'"'.,  97,  192,  245,  31. »,  321,  327, 

439,450,  5J0,  015,  018,  019,  022. 

025. 

107. 

432,  471,  4SS,  502,  Oil. 

150,  242,  342,  430,  445,  440,  625, 

595,  053,  082. 

130,  I  IS,  307,  073. 


90,  190,  239,  240,  300,  311,  304, 
507,  51.3,  510,  007. 

317. 

494. 

115,  104,  109,  239,  404. 

240. 

199. 

698. 
148,  629. 

180,  256. 

429,  451. 

112,  160,  205,  402,  578 
179,  210,  247,  040. 


131,  471,  488,  537. 

605. 

328,  677,  092. 

270,  302,  307,  437,  551. 

112,  103,  402,  500,  001,  004. 

198,  328. 

198,  328,  510,  521,  551,  552,  592, 

076,  077. 


i: 


II 


TAIU.K  OI'  CASKS,  A. 


,.    + 


''■I 


^i 


IN  AU*nABVnOAI.  ORDBR,  WITH  RKrKllKNClCIt  TO  PAOKN  WIIKRN  ruVNO. 


BlanolKinl  i'.  Spriicuo,  S  Riinin  .  270, 

r.  Wliiini'V,  8  Hlalrlir,  .107, 

Ulim.  (Jun-Klk.  Fuu.  r'.  JucnltM,  'J  IlluUhl'.,  til), 
"  V.  \Vuriicr,l        "      aO«, 


liliinily,  V,x  jmrto, 

"        J,i'()  II. 
IHIhm  ii,  Ni'KiiH, 
IUihhI,  Wcllinim  V. 
lilo()im.T,  llloKH  V. 

"       V.  McQiufwnn, 

"       V.  Stollcy, 

"        V.  ViiiiKlit, 
DloHX  r.  IllodiiiLT, 
I}luiit,  Allun  V. 


"     V.  Piitton, 
BoariliiiDii,  AtkiiiHon  v. 

14  It 

Bootli  V.  Onrelly, 
BonUn,  Slfklcs  v. 

BoHt.  U<'lt.  Co.,  ClinfToo  v. 

"  Day  V. 

Ii  II 

BoMt.  Maiiuf't.'.  f'o.  r.  Fisko, 
JIdst.  A  I'rov.  II.  Il.,Wiimn»  v 
]tnii;,'lil(pii,  l'!x  jiaftc, 
JJoiinic,  (Idiiilyuar  v, 
Uityd  I'.  Urnuii, 
"    1'.  McAlpino, 

Boydon  v.  Diirko, 

Ura'ltiiril.  r'uflmsh  V. 

liniiiit.  .Maiiiif'),'  (Jo.,  Cnrvcr  v. 

Jir.iiil,  I'aikcr  v. 

lircwiT,  Cliiin  V. 
II  II 

Bnnvstor,  Biirnimm  v. 
Jirockway,  Durst  v. 
lirook,  \V.  L.  Co.  V.  Mnsury, 
Jimokllokl,  Ycarsloy  v. 
Brooks  V.  Bicknoll, 


MH.  (App.  Gnu.), 

MS., 

8  MuH^.,  to, 

MM.  (.\i>p.  Ca.H.) 

2:1  Marl..  H.  C.,  C.Ot, 

11  How.,  f.:i9, 


MaHK.,  1H3H, 
N.  v.,  |Nr>5, 
"       1H17, 
Ct.,  1840, 


h.  C,  1858, 
Ohio,  IMdO. 
MasH.,  INI  I, 
D.  0.,  IH.-.O. 
N.  Y ,  IH.17. 
Hiip.Ct.,  1852, 


5  Mcrx>mi,  15H,  Olilo,  1860, 

Cltod  1  nialclif.,  r.'JO,  ]j\.,  1850, 
2:1  Karh.  S.  ('.,  tun,   S.  Y.,  ls.17, 
3  Slorv,  I  I'J,  MiiHS.,  IHI.-.. 

2  \Vo(mI.  it  .Mill.,  IJl,     "       181(1. 

1  llliitchr..  .ISO,  N.  Y.,  1840. 

2  I'liiiir,  Wi,  "  1828, 
MS.  (App.  CuH.),  D  C,  1847. 
MS.,  N.  Y.,  I.'^r.l. 
1  niuU'lif.,  217,               "       1H17, 


3  lllrtlclif.,  035,  N.  Y.,  1850. 
MS.,  "       1857 

22  How,,  217,  Siip.Ct.,  1859. 

0  Mo.  L.  Ili'p.,  :iOO,  MasH.,  1853. 
"  "       1851. 


552,  077. 

f>"!». 

lit,  403,  581. 

H)..,  litH,  210,  220,  275,333,328 

420,    437,    4.'.tl,    470,    622,    601 

602,  OtM,  070,  078. 

254,  400. 

100. 


no,  158,  104,  10!),  220,  220,  32: 

320,  320,  57H,   fl.lM,  077. 

108,  324,  328,611,  678,  C2.t,  070 

070. 

080. 

000. 


01,  170,  208,  377,  638. 


04,  97.  2.17,  301,  38.1,450,  5.11 
581,  072. 


2  Ma.Mon,  110, 

2  SK.rv,  412, 
MR.  (.\pp.  ''as.), 

3  Itlntclir,.  2il<!, 
3  McLonii,  205, 
3         "       427, 


Mas.x.,  1820, 
"       1843. 

D.  (!.,  1854, 

N.  Y.,  1 855. 

tiliio,  184.3, 
"     1841, 


14  How.,  575,  Sup.  Ct.,  1852 

11  Mo.  Ii.  Hop..  171,  MasH.,  1850. 
,  2  Story,  432,  "       1843. 

MS.,  I'a.,  1850. 

2  Curt.,  5.10,  Mass.,  1855. 
11  Mo.  L.  Ucp.,  390,      "       1850. 

I  Venn.,  87,  Yt.,  1828. 

II  Ohio,  4(12,  Ohio,  1842. 

25  Bnrl).  .S.  (j.,  410,    N.  Y.,  1857,     414,  090, 
MS.  (App.  Cu9.),         IX  C,  1853. 

3  McLcnn,  250,  Oliio,  1843, 


219, 

270. 

370,  401,  400,  580. 

11;!,  110,  157,103,  105,371,403, 

580. 

207,  COS. 


Ill, 
271, 
301, 
430, 
052. 


II 

II 
II 
II 
II 
II 
II 
«t 


V.         •• 

V.  " 

V.  Byam, 

V.       " 
Do  "Wilt  V. 
V.  Pi.iko, 
V.       " 
Stimpson  v. 


432. 


4        "       01, 
4        "       70, 

1  Story,  300, 

2  "      525,  553, 

MS., 
i> 

15  How..  212. 

3  lil.Jtchf.,  -JiU, 


1844, 


117,  15!>,  180,  191,250,207, 
310,  ;!20,  321,  320,  3.-)4 
305,  3H:1,  390,  309,  420, 
455,  477,  557,  507,  03;), 
007. 

li;:i,  188,  207,  248,  250,  282, 
303,  310,  310,  320,  327, 
455,  471,  510,  51-1,  517. 
527,    557,    033,    04.S,    OOi 


"     184.5, 
"     LSI,-., 
Mass.,  1840, 
"       1813, 
N.  Y.,  1801. 
Mn.ss.,  1851, 
Sup.  (;t..  1853, 
N.  Y.,  1S5C. 


117, 

201, 

354, 

520, 

081. 

320. 

188 

270 

102,  105,  217,  400,  401,  CCl 


322. 

320,  332,  ?H'i,  491,  55,S. 


300,  47.3,  522,  559,  593. 
189,  340,  523,  500,  024. 


Drooka,  v.  Htul 

Brown,  Iloyil 
"       i>«voll 


II 

II 
II 

II 


V.  Diii'l 

V.  ' 

V.  ' 

V.  Shan 
»'.  ^Vri^ 
Brown  ItroH.,  1 

it  Co.  V. 
Itniiiilaj^c  ,t  W 
Brunswick  v.  II 

llrilllliill,   I'lilln 

Hryaii,   .Mr(;jivv 
Hryi'o  v.  Diirr, 
Uiiok  V.  Colli)  ,t 
"    v.  (lill, 
"    v.  Ut.riiiiii 
"     V.  " 

Bull  r.  I'rutt, 
.'liiilanl,  llyarn  r 
Bunlcii  /'.  "Coriiii 
"      (/'oriiiiij^ 
Biirkp,  HoydiMi  ; 
lliirlt'w  ('.  O'Nii'l 
Biiriihaiii  v.  Urov 
"       Dii-tz  ,'. 
Burr  V.  (;owi)onl 
"    V.  (Jrcifory, 
"     McCayr. 
Biirnott  /'.  "I'halo 
"       V.        " 
"       V,        " 
lliirrall  v.  Jcwott, 
IliirrowM  /'.  Wcth 
iJiisH  r.  I 'lit  111 y, 
Byam,  Jtrook.s  v. 
"        Brooks  V. 
"    V.  It.iliard, 
"     )'.  Ividy, 
"    V.  Farr, 
Bynati  V.  Sullivan, 


Cndy,  Sti'phons  v. 

"        StC'VCIKS  V. 

Cahoon  v.  King, 

Caldwell,  Stoplion 
Calvert,  Xesmith 
Carajiliell,  Dohson 
V  ance 
Cansler  r.  Katon, 
Card,  Uoi]fro  v. 
Carey  v.  Collier, 
Carlan,  Stono  v. 
Carpenter,  Taylor  • 


Cnrr  v.  Rice, 

'■•         'I 

C.rrnll  v.  Gambril, 
3 


*■•*»*•..„ 


TAIJLK  OV  CASES,  A. 


9n 


1 

IN    AI.I-IUIIRTIUAI.  OIWKK,  WITH   i(Kn:ttKNl'IM  TO   I'AOrH  WIIKRN    rol'NU. 

1 

Brookt,  ».  Btoll^, 

3  UcIa'iui.  5.'3, 

Uhio,  1845, 

121.  2.M,  204,  280, 
030. 

I0ft,4ei,400, 

■ 

Urown,  Iloyil  v, 

a        "       205. 

"     IH43. 

■ 

"        I'llViill  V. 

1  W.hhI,  .1  Mm.,  :<  . 

Mum.,  in  15. 

■ 

II           II 

:i  W.  L.  .Iimr,  151, 

"       1845. 

■ 

"      V.  Dui'licmio, 

•J  Curt,,  !)7, 

"       18.54, 

501. 

■ 

II      tj_        11 

•i         "              371, 

"       185.5, 

372,  500. 

■ 

II            |)_                M 

ll>  Mow.,  |H3, 

Snp.Cl.,  IH5II, 

372,  5011,  04H. 

■ 

"      V,  SImnnon, 

'Hi  lliiw.,  53, 

1857, 

133,  223,  227,  C30. 

■ 

"       V.  Wii^flit, 

17  Ark.,  ti, 

Ark,,  J85fl, 

201. 

llrinvn  llnm.,  I'lielim,  DoiljfO 

18  I[.)\v.  IT.,  7. 

N.  Y.,  I8S9. 

A  I'll.  1'.                                 ! 

Iliiiiiiliufi'  .V,  WiMiil,  Kx  piirto. 

0  Wlicftt,  1103, 

Sup.Ci.,  1824 

228.  604. 

llriiniwii'k  t',  llol/iilb, 

MS., 

Ohio,  1858, 

345. 

llriiiiiiiii,  Coll'i-i'ii  V. 

.»  M.r,enM,  51(1, 

hid..  INI!). 

Hrynii,    .M''(iii\v  c. 

1  r.  S.  1..  .lour.,  H'i, 

N,  Y.,  IN22. 

Itryi'o  r.  Dorr, 

:i  MeLeim,  58'i, 

Mieh,,  INI5, 

114,  119,  232,  305. 

Itiiiik  r.  C'llil)  4  llcriimnco, 

!l  \.:i\\   Kep..  515, 

N,  v.,  \^l», 

114,   119,  208,  3n;|, 

301. 

"    V.  dill, 

1  M<'l.<nn,  174, 

Ohio,  iHltl, 

405,   570. 

"    V.  llurmiuifo, 

1  Itlalelil".,  :i'J:', 

N.  v.,   IN  18, 

21(5,  207,  300,  4!>l, 

0!)3. 

"      V.            " 

1          "         ;i'.l8. 

1849, 

1n:«,  234,  33.-.,  018, 

OUU. 

Hull  V.  I'riitt, 

1  Conn.,  :i4.'. 

Cl„  181,5. 

338,  .194. 

.Miilliird,  llviim  v. 

1  Curl.,  UKI, 

MiiMi^.,  IN52. 

Uurili'ii  ('.  Coriiliig, 

M.^., 

N.  Y.,  1850, 

309,  3tiC,  481,  501. 

(!oriiiiiK  i;. 

15  How.,  252, 

Bnp.Ct.,  1853 

Fliirkp,  lliiyili'ii  r. 

14      "      575, 

1852 

HiirK'W  1'.  O'Nii'l, 

MS.  (.\pp.  Can.), 

I).  C.,  1853, 

130,  102,  340,  400. 

Diiriiimm  ':  Hruwstor, 

1  Venn.,  h7. 

Vt.,  I82N, 

200. 

Dk'U  J'. 

MS.  (A pp.  CaH.), 

1).  (!.,  1859. 

Unrr  i'.  Ciiwiiortliwnitc, 

4  niateiif., 

Ct.,  I(!58. 

201,  373,  547. 

•'     i<.  ( iro^,'(pry, 

2  I'aiiie,  420, 

N.  v..  1828, 

223,  203,  207,  C30. 

"     McCiiyc* 

(!  I'.'nii.,  117, 

I'a.,  1847. 

Uiinn'tt  ('.  I'Imlon, 

12  .M...  L.  Uep..  220 

N.  v.,  1859, 

370,  080. 

"         V.          " 

I'J  How.  I'r.,   5:!0, 

"       IHCO, 

300. 

"         V.          " 

21      "         "  -1(10, 

"        |H(i|, 

370. 

I^iirrall  c.  Ji'wolt, 

2  Taikre,  1.14, 

N.  Y.,  1830, 

200,  223,  250,  632, 

053,  050, 

iltirnnvH  i'.  WothcroU, 

MS.  (A]ip.  Can.), 

I).  (!.,  1H54, 

427. 

llUMH  1'.  I'litiii'y, 

1 1  Mo.  L.  Hep.,  (;h7 

N.  II.,  1858, 

20.5,  404,  580. 

Byaiii,  Jlrooks  v. 

1  Slorv.  ;i()0, 

Mass,,  1813. 

"        Urooks  V. 

2  St.'-'-,  525,  553, 

"       IS43. 

"    V.  llullard, 

1  Curt.,  1(10, 

"       1852, 

107,  372. 

"    V.  VAdy, 

2  niatehf.,  521, 

Vt..  1853, 

1!I7,  408,  555. 

"    V.  Farr, 

I  Curt.,  2(i(), 

Mass.,  1852, 

181),  190,  275,  051. 

RyasH  I'.  Sullivan, 

21  How.  IT.,  50, 

N.  Y,,  1800, 

too. 

, 

Cmly,  Stephens  i'. 

C 

14  llow.,  628, 

• 

Sup.  Ct.,  1852 

4 

"     Stevens  V. 

2  Curt.,  200, 

R.  I.,  1854. 

0, 

Cahoou  V.  lliufj, 

MS., 

Mo.,  1859, 

27S,  283,  300,  337, 
451,  510,  608,  602 

304,  42S,  41( 

Cnlihvell,  Stephens  v. 

MS., 

Mas.s.,  1800. 

0 

Calvert,  Nesmitli  v. 

1  Wood,  fc  Min.,  Xi 

,       "     1845. 

1, 

Caraiiliell,  Pobsonu. 

1  Suinn.,  31!), 

Me.,  1833. 

7, 

•'        Vance  v. 

MS., 

Ohio,  IS 59. 

("ansler  v.  I'laton, 

2  Jones  Eii.,  490, 

N.  C.,  1S50, 

205,  095. 

Card,  Dodiro  v. 

MS., 

Ohio,  l.HCO. 

Carey  v.  ('oilier, 

66  Niles'  Rep.,  202 

N.  Y.,  1839, 

210,  041. 

Carlan,  Slono  v. 

3  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  :iC(), 

Mass.,  1855. 

Carpenter,  Taylor  v. 

11  raipe,  29;i, 

N.  Y.,  1844. 

11                       u 

3  Storv,  458, 

Mass.,  1844. 

II                 II 

2  "Wood,  k  Min.,  1, 

"      184G. 

II               l> 

2  Sand.  Ch.,  G03, 

N.  Y.,  184G. 

Cnrr  v.  Rico, 

MS., 

"       1856, 

4.34,  449,  625,  035 

i:              i 

4  Blatehf., 

"       1858, 

201,  632. 

C-rroll  V.  Gambril, 

o 
O 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1853, 

281. 

■vhii 


Kr 

WmI^. 

SH?**'^' 

^""wT^ 

m% 

'^W«rv;* 

''^^^^^^ 

*w«4L 

iTm 

Mpf^iy^^nL 

'^^mi 

Ww^y'^~ 

^m 

in 


'^i$^m\ 


■WW'" 


84 


TAIU.K  OF  CASKS,  A. 


IN  ALriiANKTicAi,  oniiKii,  wifii  lit rrnrx  »:M  to  rAOM  wmkiin  rorVD. 


'*.. 


:*<* 


!! 


'H''+l! 


"■«! 


Ctirter  »  Cnrtrr, 
"     H»rK(>iutt  V. 

Canror  v.  Ilral:.t.  M(|(.  Co., 

"       I'.  Hv.lo, 
CnriiMl,  Hcoit  V, 


MH.  Mpp  '*(*•.),        T).  0,  mSA,      139,  SIO,  41t. 

II  Mo.  I,.  I(<'|i,,  tin  I,  Mum.,  iMftN, 


)      I'M )  l:io. 
3  Htory,  4:i'J, 


> 


in  ivr,  Bi.i, 

K  l,aw  It*  p.,  410, 

MS.. 

I  .\.  Mump..  317, 

4  M('r.i>iin,  5'.>il, 

2'i  Mow.,  '.'IT, 

.1  lll:ii<  h.,  'Ji:8, 

:'o  Hi.w.,  -jOH, 


•  'ury,  hiiy  i', 
t!iM"i>  I'.  Mori 'J', 
"    I'  |{.m|ii;.|.i, 

Clminn  I'.  lluHl.,11  Ilfit  Co., 

"       (liMMiyi'iir  r. 

"       t'.  Iliivwiird. 

"      v.S.  l';.<'iirHprlii«('o.,  \\f<., 
Cliniiilirrliii  r.  Iliiiimiii,  'i  llltkri-lir.,  '110, 

i'liniiibiTH,  Kx  p(irt«>,  MH.  (A pp.  Cum.), 

"  Applttoiiii.  "  " 

"  I'lMlllX  V.  2  \Vllr.|l.,  I'i.".. 

rimiiip.  Truim.  (!i).,Shoriimriv.  :il  Vorm.,  lU'i, 
Clmu.llcr  r.  I.nilil.  MS.  (,\pp.  (!iih.), 

('Imillilcl  .V  liiit.'lii'r,  Kx  pnrto,   " 


Clirixiy  V.  Miirpliy, 
C'lui'k  V.  Clurk, 

"      V. 
"      (lri'oiioii(rli  i». 
Clftypool,  Iliiiisr^kiu'C'htt'. 
Clayton,  lliittin  v, 
"       I'.  Htono, 
i'lirliii;fli,  Hurry  v, 
Cluiii  I.  liri'WLT, 


Coato^  »'.  {[ollirook, 

Colib  .t  llcriiianci-,  Uuck  v.  0  i.iiw  lli'|i..  r>l'», 

"     \V(j<»litill'i'.  MS.  (App.  Cum.) 

Cochruiif  V.  Walormon,  "            " 


Cofl't'cn  r.  Uninton, 

Cole,  Kx  parto, 
I'lplcTiinn  V.  Licsor, 

Collier,  Carry  v. 
ColliiiH,  .lolliiro  V. 
SorroU  v. 


"        V.  White, 
Colt  r.  YouD);, 
•'     Yoiiiif^  ('. 
Cornstock  v.  Moore, 
"  riiclpn  V. 

Cotnbstoc'k,  I'liillips  »;. 
Com.  Ini'.  Co.  v  Sfiinett, 


(U*o,  INOO. 

Mum  ,  IM:!,      IN3,  ».rt,  l.'ill.  473,  010,  ftl'.i,  Xn, 

III.'),  fliH,  C'ii. 
Slip.  Ct.,  IN  13,  1H7,  3ai>,  bM. 
M<l,  |H|,'>. 
N.  v.,  Ih.V). 

N,  II..  1H|M,      1(17,  100. 
IimI.  I  Nil),         inn,  Tii,  ARf*. 

Sup.  CI.,  i^.-io,  i7u,  :rj7,  :i7o,  dho,  03S 

N.  v.,  IH.M. 

Siip.Ct,  18,17,    110,  111,  221. 
N.  v.,  IH.VI. 
"     I  Mr.  I,     r.iiT. 

1>.  C,  IH.'.O,       137. 

"       1800. 
I'll.,   IM07, 

Vi..  inr.s. 

1».C.,  IH.-.7,       427,  4:M. 

•'      IH.Mi,      :i;i7. 
N.  Y.,  IHftO,     412,  0iS5,  CflO. 
"       |H,^7,     370,414,  (JOO. 
"       iMm. 
P,  C,  IH.-.M. 
Sup.  Cf,,  IHOl. 
2  Wliiir.  {"Ik!,  400,      I'a.,  Im|H. 
2  I'aiii.',  :iH2,  N.  v.,  IH2«,     170,  208,  200,  404,  038. 

12  Law  Il.'p..  .'Ii;7,  "       I.HHI. 

II  M...  I,.  Itci).,  a'JO,  MiiHM.,  iwriil,      127,  200. 

"       1B55,     101,  UI2.  .121,  32B,  327,  385,  303 

400,  .(oc,  .i,-,i,  .i(i:i. 
N.  Y.,  ISl,',     100,  no.  120,374,  410. 

I  Mil!. 
D.  C,  iHilO. 
"       LSI  I,       138,177,275,201,20.1,305,420, 

Iii-l.,  181!),        1211,  170,  210,  27.3,  376,411,410, 

4M|,  r.OO,  03!),  084. 
n.  C,  1857,      434. 

Ohio,  1851),       210,  210,  281,  311,  345,  357,  370. 
4115,  5  Hi,   002,   COO. 
5(f  NIIoh' Rcjj;.,  202,    N.  Y.,  IS.'tO. 
21  .Mo.,  3;t8,  Mo.,  18,'i,-.. 

4  lilutfhf.,  N.  Y.,  I  h:,7. 

"  "        I85H. 

P.  C,  l.sfiO,       178,  200,  021. 
N.  Y.,  IM.VJ,      102,  321,  302,676. 
"       lH,-.2. 

"       1800,     414,482. 
Irid.,  1818. 


12  How,  I'r,  77, 
25  Uurh.  S.  (!.,  75, 
25  "  75, 

MS.  (App.  Cum), 
1  HlacU,  4:11, 


2  Curt.,  500, 

2  .^.iikI.  C'i.,  5H0, 


4  McLcnn,  5 1 0, 

MS.  (App.  Can.), 
MS., 


MS.  (App,  Cms.), 
2  Blatphl'.,  471, 

2  "      ;t7:t, 

18  now.  rr..  421, 

4  Mi'f.t'an,  .'i.^.'l, 

4          "         SJ.'i,  "       \H\0. 

m  roiin.,  206,  Ta.,  1800, 

Cloth  Co.,                            [^■^•'  1857, 

MS.  (App.  Gas.),  D.  C,  1842. 

M.'^..  Mass.,  1800. 

10  Law  Rop.,  CGI,  "      18.''.7. 

3  W.  &  Serf?.,  200,  Pa.,  1842. 
2  lilatrhf.,  144,  N.  Y.,  1850. 
2  Platc'hf.,  151,  "       1850. 

4  B.  Moil.,  504,  Ky.,  1814, 
4  Wash.,  25!»,  Pa.,  1821. 
8  Liiw  Rt'p.,  413,  Pa.,  1342, 


680. 
380,  515. 


Coimi.soii,  Pomcroy  v. 
Cook,  Kaiiu'.s  V. 

"     I'"orl)ush  V. 

"     Geiger  V. 

"     OilASon  V. 

"     Woo(  1  worth  ». 
Cooper  V.  Giinn, 

"      Isaacs  V. 

"      V.  Matthews, 


170,  174,  31.3. 

271,  282,  381,  332.  389,  300,  40l, 
480. 


Coxn,  Kwpi 

I'liiwli-y,  \\ 

•  Vi'horo  V, 

CrcMMlor  V,  { 

Cn'ttcnilun, 
t> 

Crookor,  V.x 
CroH^  r.  Hii, 

''lllviT  ('.    \V 

Ciimli'll  If.  l\ 
Ciiiitiiii;f|iatri 
Clinic,  II„|,|, 

"      Wooij 


J 


ClII'liMI,    Wl 

CiiNlnnaii,  S 

W 

CiHicr,  Crcs 

Cutter,  l{oi.,| 

"      Whiu 

Cutlitl;^  V.  Mo 


nalioil's  Cnso. 
I'aio  V.  Smil! 

f^ul.v,  Corwiii 

Pan  forth,  Wii 
Paniels,  Hoi]  y 
'•arxt  V.  Urock 
"avid.son,  (,Vri 
f'avid.soti  V. 
n.ivi.N,  Kirior.-<( 
I'.ivi.i,  Kx  i)arti 

"     )'.  n,.ii, 

"  V.  Kciul. 
"  V.  McCo, 
"        V.  I'lihuv 

SteariiPs 
^•ivoll  r.  Brown 


Paw.son  V.  FoIIr 
I^'i.v  r.  Uo.st.  Pol 


«y»n 


TAULE  OP  CASKS,  A. 


8ft 


IN    ALflUMriOAL  OMtiKIl,  WITH   RirMMMt^KII  TO   PAliKII  WIIRRM    niVMD. 


l?Oi»p«»r,  8l.in\  1  1  I'll ,  aiJ, 

('it|H<,  Jinl'oii  I'  MM,, 

Curtiiii  A  M>trtU'it,  Kx  parto,    MS.  (App.  Cna.X 

•*      I'lirkur  V,  4  Mi-U>iiii,  4il'J, 

Conu'll,  ll.iv  V.  I  lllafrlir.,  ftlMj, 

"      V.  HyaU,  MM.  (App.  C.i«.), 

'•       I'nrry  i'.  "         "        " 

Coriiliitf,  lliinlcn  v.  M.H,, 

••     V.      "  .                 la  How.,  36'j, 


"    Troy  Iron  k  Nail  Fno.  v. 


Torwln  «.  D»Ijr, 

Oowportliwikitu,  Burr  v. 

V.  Uill, 

Coxf,  Kwi'r  I'. 

•  'riivvlcy,  Walton  i'. 

('ri'lioro  V,  Norton, 

iVcuMlor  f.  t'lMtiT, 

(7rltti<nilon,  Iturtk'tto  v. 
II  II 

frooki-r.  V.K  [iirto, 

Cro^H  V.  litiniliiy, 

Culver  I'.  Wclili", 

Ciimli'll  K,  I'arkliiirH'., 

(?iitiiiiii;rliaiii,  hruki  v. 

CiirtU,  lloMi'ii  I'. 

"     Wooclworth  V. 
II  II 

riirtltifi.  Wilson  t;. 
Cii.slinmn,  S.  D.,  Kx  pnrto, 

\V.  M.  U.     " 
riiMtcr.  Crc'MHlor  v. 
C'liltiT,  llocd  V. 

"      Wlilttoitioro  V. 
Cutiiiisj  V.  MoyorH, 


Piilioll'M  Hnno, 
I 'ale  r.  Hinlthson, 

Paly,  Corwln  t;. 

Danfortli,  Winnns  v. 
Klin  ids,  Hell  V. 
Purst  V.  Hrnckwny, 
Piividson,  (Jrrrolt  v, 
PaviiNon  r.    ,((wi8, 
Piivii'S,  Kiiiorson  i'. 
Viivin,  V.x  i)arto, 
•'      V.  ]M\, 
"      V.  Koixlall, 
"      V.  Mo(^)rmick, 
"      V.  I'ulnior, 

"      Rtp.irnoH  V. 
P.ivoll  t'.  Brown, 

"       V.        " 

Pawson  V.  Follon, 

Dmv  v.  Best.  Belt.  Co., 
ti  y      11        II      i( 

"  V.  Gary, 


1  lihili'hr,  4117, 
'  v.M  Itow.,  rxt, 

t'.  Ift      "      ».'.!. 
(  ITpton'n  Trudo* 
]  Mkii.,  187, 

4  niat.-i.r, 

M.H,  (  \|.|).  «'nH\ 
4  WuKh..  i^T, 
a  lllulihr.,  440, 
MS., 

"    (App.  Cnn.), 
4  Mfl.«'un,  aoo, 
ft        "       :i3, 
M.^.  (App.  ran.), 
i:i  W.Mni.,  :is.-), 
U  Conn.,  411, 
M.S.  (App.  CuH.), 

tl  t>  II 

a  N.  llamp.,  01, 

2  Wood.  .V  Mill.,  r.'21, 

1  Itlat.'lil'..  :t2'.), 

2  W.  [,.  Jour.,  511, 
MS.  (App.  Cnx.), 


1  Storv,  590, 
1  (lull.,  4'.'»,  478, 
4  WoHli.,  2'iO, 


Sup.01.,  I  US. 

Ohio,  IHIIO. 

1>.  ('.,  IM57,      IDS,  436. 

tllllo,    |N|H. 
N.   v.,    IH»!). 

I».  C„  IH.VI,      307. 

"      IH47, 
N.  v.,  IH.W, 

Sup,  (X,  1H33,  15.1,  315,  35.1,  3*10,  30(1,  30!),  317, 
3.M,472,  484,512,  514,  5CI,  lUiO, 
<IN2. 
N.  v.,  IHIO. 
Hup.  ft,,  1 862, 

I  Hill,  131. 

I  v.  v.,  IHdO,  OS,  314,  Cfifl,  COl. 

t  t..    iH.'iS. 

I».  C.,  IM.',!1,      COT. 

I'u,  IH24 

N.  Y.,  IH.Id. 

"     i.s5;i,    37fl,  nsc,  3C.r 

I>  C.,  lM5:i,      2D7. 
Ohio,  IH47. 
"     |H.J;t, 
T>.  C,  iH.'iO, 
N.  v..  1m:i.\ 

Ct.,   1H.1H, 
I).  C.,  IH47, 
"       1  M.-.5. 
N.  II.,   IHIJ), 

MaM.,  1H17. 

"      |H5t». 
Lft..  IS  I.-.. 
D.  (!.,  IM5H, 

"      1H5H, 

"       lH5:i. 
Mum.,  Ihii. 

"      IKUt. 
I'a.,  1818, 


143,  143,  400,  C:0. 
201,  527. 
121,  :t30, 
137,  3U0. 


43,y 
600,  OlS. 


680,  680. 


D. 


1  Opin.,  032, 

12  Ahli.  I'r.  2.17, 
(  r|itoii'H  Troilo- 
/  Mks.,  187, 

M.S., 

11  Ohio,  402. 

MS.  (App.  Ca«.), 
II        II         11 

3  Rtorv,  70S, 
MS.  (.Vpp.  Cas.), 
H  X.  I  lamp.,  500, 

2  U,  T.,  riC.G. 
2  Brock.,  298, 


1822,  212,  630. 

N.  Y.,  1.S01,     117,  417,  C87. 

I  "     ISOO. 


IHOO. 

Oliio,  is.'.a. 

"      1H42, 
D.  C,  lH.-,7. 

"      l.S.-)S. 
Mass.,  18  15. 
r>,  C,  1.S59, 
N.  II.,  \HM, 
n.  I.,  185.3, 
Vft.,  1827. 


202,  C94. 

450. 

035. 
201. 
375,  410,  481,  68J,  C.>f9. 

334,  .130,  S.VI,  305,  455,  617,  510, 
620,  000,  051. 
MS.  (App.  Cm.),         T).  C,  1859, 

1  Wood,  .t  .Mui.,  53,  Mass.,  1845,     308,  432,  401,  510,  517,  638,  634, 

048. 
3  W.  L.  Jour.,  151,         "  "        182. 

2  Wasli.,  .'ill,  Vft.  1P08,  5!)r). 

0  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  330,   Miixs.,  1853.     385,  400. 
M.S.,  N.  Y.,  IS.-j-t,     299. 

"  "       18.-.9,     127,  1C4,  510. 


■C! 


WMW  -^  V 


R 


# 


TAULK  OK  CASKS,  A. 


ix  AirNAMrnou  ommm,  witn  nan  'twit  to  rAsn  wbim  ronm 

iMr,  OfXMl/wr  r, 

1  nil.',  i.r,  mii, 

N.  Y.  \»M, 

){        ..        -, 

M.S., 

V.J.,  iNAi. 

"       "      ». 

M 

"    jiaa. 

"            "            Vi 

5  Wttll  Jr.,  3«a, 

••    iptfta. 

"             V, 

WM. 

N.  v.,  iHftH. 

tl    l,       11 

M 

N.  J.,     IHSO, 

103,  3(1  A, 

54*, 

617. 

■■A  i'ong.  Hub.  Co.,  Ooott- 

y«ur  1. 
Ii.iv  1.  llurl»liorn, 

3  iltiiUlit',  U9, 

N.  v.,  iHr.ii. 

MR, 

11  I ,  IH5:i, 

lOT. 

••    V,            " 

M 

"      lUfVI, 

I3rt.  413. 

6R0 

•'   1'.          " 

N 

"      |H.1ft, 

3:12,  3U 1, 

408 

"  llwrl^li'irn  i'. 

lOTIow.,  at!. 

Hup.  (It,  INAII 

"   I'.  Kiiywiinl, 

W      "      30H, 

IH.'.T 

"  JihImiii  I'. 

MK, 

N.  Y..  iMi-H. 

"  1'.  I.yorm, 

•'  V,  N.  K.  <'iir-S|>rlri((ro., 

•  t 

I.II.,  IHIIO, 

nto. 

3  nirtHif,,  IH  170 

,  N,  Y..  IHH 

317,  401 

"  V.  Niwiirk  I.  il.  Co., 

1  Hliii.hf,,  tl'jH, 

"      IN.-.O, 

loi',  no, 

133, 

171, 

310 

336. 

••   i:  Hiiltnmn, 

MH, 

M.I..  1 »:.!», 

137,  3IH, 

54U. 

"  Hiivilitm  1'. 

•1  lllat.'lif,,  W, 

N.  Y.,  ixirt. 

"  I',  (riiiiin  Rub.  Co., 

•I  Hiiii.'iii:.  4HM, 

••        1  H.Ml, 

325,  480, 

648, 

670, 

048 

60A. 

II      y^             11                 II             II 

'JO  How,,  'J in, 

Hup.  Ct.,  lN,'i7 

5111. 

ItiMin  '.  MiiMon, 

W       "        ll»H, 

IM.-.7 

,  134,  230, 

208, 

273. 

Idxlcilik,  y.x  |>nrto. 

M.S.  (,\pp.  Cum.), 

I).  (;.,  IHflO. 

153, 

]>iy>'iiir,  llalii'iH'k  V. 

»t                II                 tl 

"       IHftll. 

Ik-fri'iioi,  [.iiiiKilou  V, 

1  I'aliio.  20.1, 

N.  Y..  IH23. 

l)uliiiii>  i;  8(?i)lt, 

(iilpili,  4H',), 

I'll.,  1M34, 

11:1,  119, 
334,  3111, 

207, 
U53, 

328, 
654. 

243, 

39 1,  200, 

V"u\*  V.  b'  (Moro, 

I  Miirlin,  207. 

Ln.,  IHll, 

457. 

l)i'titiujml,  Winniii  t'., 

1..  How.,  :i;io, 

Sup.  Ct..  1H53 

Ift-rlfy,  I'liltc  II. 

r>  .Mi'Irf'aii,  :i2H, 

oiilo,  Ih:.2. 

• 

"  '    Klory  i: 

4         '•        l"!0, 

"       IH4(1. 

Drrrlriirt'P,  i'citilKme  i*. 

4  WiiHli,  2ir., 

I'u.,  IHIH. 

Dt'ltllolil'H  ClIHI', 

4  opiii..  ;i:in, 

l.sit. 

505,  (171. 

'\    llvVWA, 

4  .\iii«r.  I„  J.,  1H8, 

r«.,  iHr.i, 

253,  BOO. 

I)i>viil,  'r,\ lir  i>. 

1  ('o.l..  Ki'p.,  30, 

I,n..  1H4S. 

I)i'\v(  v,  Alili'ii  1'. 

1  siorv.  :i;iii. 

Miinn.,  IH4fl. 

Iff  Wilt  )'.  llrodkn, 

M.S., 

N.  v.,  IHiii, 

174,  049. 

1»(;  Yiiiin^f,  KcpliiiKor  r, 

Ill  Wh.'nt,,  ^M, 

Siip.rt.,  iH'.'S. 

Ililllo^tlC,   I'olllllM'k    t', 

4  Wiisii ,  &;(«, 

I'll.,  IH-Jfi. 

"                  "           V. 

2  r.'t..  1. 

.Sup.  Ct.,  IH29 

T>i('kiiiHiiii  r.  Hull, 

II  I'i.k..  217, 

Mush.,  1S33, 

200,  431. 

Itii'tz,  l'!x  imrtf, 

M.S.  (.\pp.  CaH,), 

I>.  (!.,  iNliO, 

020. 

"    t'.  Hiiriili;itn, 

It        II 

"       lH,-.9, 

429,  451. 

Klxou,  Kx  piirto. 

II        II 

"      1«(10, 

155,  ■123. 

"     V.  Moyor, 

4  WuHh.,  Grt, 

Pa.,  1821, 

303,  :tio. 

333, 

338,  343, 

353,  602, 

590,  i;3l. 

])(i))son  V,  Catiipljcll, 

1  .'^iiiim.,  .110, 

Ml'.,  IH3.3, 

590. 

l>'Ml(fi)  t'.  Oiiril, 

MS., 

Ohio,  IHliO, 

190,  387. 

Dorr,  Ilryco  t'. 

:i  MrLi'an,  582, 

Mich.,  1815. 

I>(MiKli"rty  e.  Vim  Kon^rnnd, 

1  Hoir.  ("h.,  liH, 

N.  v.,  IH39, 

348. 

l)c)iiH'laKM  ('.  niakiiitdti, 

MM.  (.\pp.  Can.), 

1).  (\,  1859, 

143. 

J)()Wiiiiij.',  Sitiilii  )'. 

M.S., 

Manx.,  1850. 

l)rak('  ('.  ('iiniiiiijflimn, 

M.S.  (A pp.  Ctts.), 

I).  ('.,  IH.-..''>, 

138. 

L>ucii('«no,  Brown  v. 

2  Curt.,  97, 

MaHH.,  1854. 

"                    "        V. 

2     "       371, 

"       1855. 

"                  "        V. 

19  How.,  183, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

Diulloy  »'.  Mayhow, 

3  Cotnx.,  9, 

N.  v.,  18-19, 

109,  208, 

225, 

220, 

380, 

600. 

Dunbar,  (iodclycar  v. 

3  Wall.,  .Ir., 

N.  .1.,  lHi;i. 

"       1'.  Marilen, 

13  xN.  Hamp.,  311, 

N.  II.,  1812, 

202,  432. 

Diinklcc,  Hill  V. 

M.S.  (Apj).  (Jns.), 

I).  (!.,  lS.->7. 

I';i|)liil'rt  ('tiHi\ 

1  Opin.,  332, 

1820, 

128,  656. 

I'litciior,  Loveridge  v. 

M.S.  (A pp.  C«H.), 

I).  C,  18C1, 

Dyer  v.  Ricli, 

1  Mc'to.,  180, 

Mass.,  1810, 

490. 

l)y8on,  l']x  parto, 

MS.  (A pp.  Can.), 

1).  C,  1860, 

020,  021, 

628, 

000, 

CG3, 

674. 

"      t'.  Gunibrill, 

II        II 

18G1, 

141,  022. 

Dwiglit  V.  Applcton, 

1  N.  Y.  L.  Obs.,  105, 

N.  y.,  1843, 

213,  683, 

639, 

G43, 

044. 

M 
11 


1'.    If.. 


V. 

II 
II 

V.  Jor 

V.         ' 

II 
II 

V.  Kr. 
V.  Wi. 

Kvcrnon  *  1{ 

Kwcr 

V.  Coxi 

Kyro 

V.  Iligb 

PalliHK.  CJril! 
Furisli  &  Kee 

TAIU.K  OK  CASKS,  A. 


a? 


W   AU«A»at|l'AI.  OHOIIN,  WITH    HNrSIIHSllUM    tu    I'«'.»fi    M  «••■  fWmtk 


■^v.. 


I     '  <»  Oct.,  rt«raon  ». 

I  H 'iHik, 

•'       I'.  Kli'liiinl*, 
lUrlo,  JiHlkirm  v. 

"      «',  I'tiK", 

"     V.  M«wjrt»r, 

"    Thfl  WmH.  Mm.  Co.,  v. 
laUNi,  Otinatar  v, 
**       KVMM    «. 

"  "        ». 

Kildy,  Urnmi'. 

hMiiiiiiKU  I'.  Ill|rln<l)i, 

"  I',    Ml'VtT*, 

K<lwar<li),  AilntiiM  v, 
"        V,  Iti-'lmrilii, 
••        WiMHlwortli  w. 

KlilrMtff,  llliktichiint  v. 
IHIithoi|M',  Ullilxi »'. 

"        I,  Ui)lH>rlM)ii, 

"        I', 
KliiHT  f.  I'l'tiru'l, 
KllHwnrth,  I'ri'iiil'iN  v, 
Kly,  Hmilh  i'. 
"        "     t', 
KinvrMon  t*.  Dnvieii, 


"         "   *! 

Krni>rv,  II  x  niirto, 
KmiiU'lt,  Wiiltiicy  v, 
Kvitnrt'  (/'iiMc, 
"      V.  c;iiitiiibvr8, 
"      V.  Kittuti, 


V. 


II 


"      1'.  Ilottick, 


"  V.      " 

"  V.  Jordan, 

"  V.        " 

"  V.  Kromor, 

"        v.  VVlMHS, 

liviTRon  .V  Rieard,  Ex  porto, 
luviT  V.  Coxi', 
\']yto  V,  Uigb«o, 


FiilliH  1'.  Grimth, 
I''iirish  k  Keoler's  Cnse, 


3  dlorjr,  41% 

MM. 

Mm!'(A|>p,  Cm.\ 

1  Urwiil.,  tf, 

«  N.  liiimp.,  477, 

4  Mmoii,  I, 

;i  Willi ,  .If., 

'J  JiiiiKM  Ki|.,  -lOM, 

I'l  1. 1;,  <!.,  xii, 

3  Whxiii.,  451, 

3  WmkIi  ,  44:i, 

7  wiituit.,  :i.'iii, 

'i  lllltlrlir.,  Ail, 

Dl  III.,  21.-1, 

10  "   ao7, 

MR 

Wrl'uli*.  Mill, 
.INViknI.  .«  Mill,  rill. 

4  Wii«li ,  5M  I, 

I  Willi.,  Jr..  :i;i7, 
M.S.  (A|i|*.  C'liH), 

I*  tl 

M.'^., 

•Ill  MiiiiK-,  4;i(), 

Mir,  I'm.  Oir,,  :(5, 
ft  M.l,i>aii,  7»1, 

ir>  iiiiw.,  i:i7, 

:«  Stnrv,  7llM, 
3  Ulutirlir.,  1, 


R.  I.,  1M4. 

MM*,,  IMO^ 
U.  II,  I  NAP, 

M«N«„   IMIIO. 

N.  II,  M.'ll, 
Mum.,  IH'JA, 

I'll..  I  HI)  I, 

N.  c,  inae. 

IV,   I  Mill. 
Hup,  l!l  .IMtt. 
I'll.,   IHIH. 
Hti|i,  I't.,  IH21 
VI.,  IH.VI. 
III.,  IHftl, 

'■     IH6I, 
MitMH.,   IHIH. 
Ohio,  I  Hilt, 
MiiMM,  IH47. 
I'll.,  IH'JII. 

"      IHI'J. 
I),  i;.,  IH.10. 
"       IM.'iH, 
N,  v.,  IHfiO, 

Mi».,  inrL-i, 

I'll.,  I. SHI. 

Ohio,  iHin. 

Hiip.  Ct.,  IHVI. 

MllHH.,    IH»,'i, 

N.  Y.,  1 8  IS, 


in.  4»A,  441,  413. 

140,  3HU.  aUM,  4IU,  437,  431. 

301. 

10ft,  170,  IM,  3.11.  343,  3110,  aSO, 

4.11,  0«lt,  ft03,  Oft  I,  )iu;i. 


6  now.,  437, 
11    "      6H7, 
MS.  (.\|.|..  CiiK.), 
Iialcl.,  :iii:i. 

7  oiiiii.,  i:i:i, 

'i  Wash..  ir>, 
Tot.  0.  C,  -iTi, 


8up.0t,  IH17. 
"        IH50. 

n.  (;..  iH,-,i), 
I'a.,  ih:ii. 

iHftft, 
I'll.,   IH07, 
"     IHKJ, 


3"Whoot.,  461,  Sup.Ct.,  .'818, 


3  Wnnh.,  44.1, 
7  Whout.,  350, 

3  WiiMli.,  -108, 


7  Whout.,  4.'')3, 

1  Ilrock.,  UIH, 
9  Cm.,  111!), 
Pot.  ('.  (;.,  2 1  ft, 

2  Wash.,  ;il2, 
M.^.  (.Vpii.  Cas.), 
•I  Wanli.,  187, 


I'll.,  IHIH, 
Sup.Ct.,  1822, 

Ph.,  1818, 


Sup.rt.,  1822, 
Va.,  IHI.1, 
Sup.Ct.,  ISl.'), 
I'll.,  IHIG, 
"     IHOii, 
I).  C,  lH-)5, 
Ph.,  1H2I, 


22  How.  Pr.,  205,      N.  Y.,  1801, 


P. 


"Wripht,  .10.1, 
7  Opin.,  .100, 


Ohio,  1833, 
1865, 


.' '  ' 
304,  340. 

131,  301. 


08,140,  118,  4(10,008,  030,073. 
l\\r>,  I2H,  lioi. 
204,  2211,  220. 


101, 1. SO,  210, 3ftt>,n77,  cm.    ■ 

l:il,  175,207,  2.".7,  2114,  :iO|,  lUlft, 
402,  ft02,  OOI,  r.n,  527,  033,  052. 
008,  008. 


440,  Oil. 

r.2  I. 

60 1,  625,  040. 

02,  10.-.,  151,  181,  IHO,  197,  241, 

2iH,  2!iO,  21IH,  a02,  :i2s,  :t:i3,  341, 

312,  ai'.l,  :i5ft,  4:10,  ttlO,  604,  608, 

62.5,  .'.!»!,  6'.)5,  03H,  07H. 

lO.-i,  I'.I.S,  302,  32H,  :!i;i,  31*!,  347, 

310,  130,  470,  601,  600,  600,063, 

070,  070. 

2.S7,  353,  520,  C31,  079. 

130,  175,  286,  200,  350,  353,  520, 

032,  079. 

130,231,286,287,  290,  290,  299, 

303,  301,  341,  353,  430,  600,  050, 

C7H. 

280,  290,  299,  341,  313,  079. 

113,  327,  141,  408,  053,  HOC. 

07H. 

312. 

301,  305,  444,498,078. 

181,  254,  422. 

212,  377,  030,010. 

02,  469. 


201. 
153. 


'•*^     " 


.Vw.s%""" 


8;=; 


'7^'ii,, 


teN! 


'^Wwtarw-' 


li   L 


1     W>^w»,w- 


Vw^^ 


TABLK  OF  CASES,  A. 


I.V   AI.I'IIAUETICAI,  OUDKIl,  WITH    KI'.FKKKNCKS  TO    I'AilliS  WIIKKE   FOUND. 


Ct-4 


Farley  r.  N.  S.  0 lingo  Co., 
J''iirr,  liyiun  r. 

l"'illlill;rtii||,  I'ufk  ('. 

]''cli,  St('|ili('iis  i\ 
Fi'iV'u.soii,  I'arkur  v. 
iVrrutt  v.  A  twill, 

"     Atwi.lr. 
Forry,  l'aj,'o  v. 
Fetritlgo  t>.  Mfrdiant, 

"        V.  Wells, 
Fisko,  DoHt.  Mfg.  Co.  V. 

"      Lrooka  v. 

"  "    I'. 

"      ^f()Ol^y  V. 
Flickeiit,'i'r,  Smith  V. 
Fo^.%  McDoiigiil  V. 
Fdlluii,  Dawson  v. 
Ful.som  r.  Marsli, 
Footo  v,  Silaby, 


V. 

II 

V. 

II 

V. 

II 

V. 

II 

bil 

shy 

Forbes,  Walker  v. 
ForbuHh  v.  Bradford, 

"        V.  Cook, 
Foss  V.  Richardson, 
Foster  V.  Mooro, 
Fowlo,  Pierpont  v. 
Fox,  Treadwell  v. 
Fraiicais,  Hobbs  v. 
French  v.  Rogers, 

Fry  it  Soeloy,  Ex  parte, 
Fultz,  Ex  parte. 


MS  (App.  Cas.), 

1  Clin.,  •_'r,(), 
I)  Wend.,  44, 

2  lilatclif.,  37, 
1        "         407, 

1  "        ir.i, 

2  "       a:), 

MS., 

4  Abb.  Pr.,  IT)!!, 
13  How.  I'r.,  ['M, 
•2  Mas.,  ll'.i, 
M.S., 

15  How.,  212, 
2  Mas.,  1 1 2, 
MS.  (App.  (,'a.s.), 
2  liosw.,  :t>S7, 
2  Wash.,  311, 
2  Storv,  10(1, 
1  lilat  hf,  445, 


542, 
545, 
2U0, 


r.  C,  lS5t), 
Mass.,  1H.-.2. 
N.  Y.,  \b:\2. 

"   ISIO. 

"   IH4!». 

"   1810, 

"  lH4(i. 
Mich.,  1.S57. 
N.  Y,,  1M.J7, 

"  1857, 
Mass,  1820. 

"  1851. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853, 
Mass.,  1820. 
D.  (;.,  1843. 
N.Y'.,  1858. 
Pu.,  1808. 
Mass.,  1841, 
N.  Y.,  1849, 

"  1850, 
"  1850, 
"  1851, 


428. 


683,  591,  C45. 


413,  G85,  000. 
274,  413,  085,  GOO. 


3  Dlatchf.,  507,      "  1850. 
14  How.,  218,     Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 
20  How.,  200,378,     "   1857. 
M.S.  (App.  Cas.),    D.  C,  1801. 
11  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  471,  Mass.,  1850, 

10  "     004,   "   1857, 

11  "     070,   "   1850, 

1  Curt.,  279,        "   1852, 

2  Wood.  A  Min.,  23,  "  1840. 
M.S.  (App.  Ca.s.),  D.  C,  1859. 
10  How.  Pr.,  507,  N.  Y.,  1800. 
M3.,  Pa,  1851, 


MS.  (App.  Cas.),        D.  C, 


1859, 
1853, 


{)9,  103,  358,  458,  C27,  C43,  C44. 

184,  234,  248,  335,  344,  42.5,  480, 

404,  40.5,  520,  570,  502,  Oil,  <J7u 

132,  134,  176,  OCo,  090. 

272,  330. 

184,  250,  309,  332,  490,  570,  693, 

500. 

300. 


38,5,  394,  397. 

185,  277,  42.3,  450,  478,  601. 

200. 

189,  276,  351,  350,  392,  "^97. 


155,  258,  317,  437,  400,  505,  541, 

014,  010,  024,  059,  002,  009,  071. 

002. 

136,  140,  142,  30G,  351,  496,  614, 

660,  674. 


(lil)liH  V. 

(libsou  \ 

"      t 
"      I 

"  V 

'*  V 

"  V 

"  V. 

"      r. 

(•iflbni,  I 

tfill,  Ihicl 

"    Cow 

Ciillolt  r. 

tiladdiiig, 

11 

Gloii.  Mfg 
Uoddurd  ( 

(Jooihvin, 
Uuodyeur 


Goodyear  i 

^  Ifub.  Co., 

Goodyear  v. 

"         V. 
II 

■'        V. 

II 

an 


o. 


^'n 


O.irr,  Momttr. 
(iale'.s  Case, 
Gaiiilile,  Sjiain  v. 
Gaiiibril,  Carroll  v. 
"        Dyson  v. 
Gaiison,  Chamberlain  v. 
Garcll}',  I'ootli  v. 
Garner,  Meriinack  Mfg.  Co. 
Garrett  v.  David.son, 
(iatling  V.  Ncwall, 
G.'iulon,  Leuioino  v. 
Gavit,  Knight  v. 
Gay  v.  Cornell, 

Gayler,  Wilder  v. 

It  II 

"     V.        " 


Ger'ney,  King  v. 
Geiger  v.  Cook, 
Gebbcrd  v.  Bagot, 
Gifcbs  V.  Ellithorpe, 


MS., 

3  Op'n.,  594, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 


2  ]51atchf.,  279, 

1  lilatohf.,  247, 

V.  4  K.  D.  Smith,  387, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

9  Iiid.,  572, 

2  E.  D.  Smith,  343, 
Mir.  Pat.  Oir.,  04, 131, 
1  Blatclif.,  500, 

1    "   511, 
1    "   597, 

10  How.,  477, 


Ohio,  1860. 

1840, 

D.  C,  1855. 

"  ]Hi,3. 

"   1801. 
N.  Y.,  1851. 

"   1847. 

"   1855. 
D.  C,  1857, 
Ind.,  1857, 
N.  Y.,  1854. 
Pii.,  1840. 
N.  Y".,  1849, 


1849. 
1850. 


320. 


292. 

127,  310,  333,  340,  513. 


14.5, 151,  159,  160,  163,  IGG,  268, 
GOG,  069. 


MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

3  Watts&Serg.,  266, 

4  Blatchf., 
MS.  (A np.  Cas.), 


Sup.  Ct.,  1850,  107, 112, 155,  156,  158,  160,  103. 
'    175,  179,  462,  598,  599,  COl,  661, 
664, 
D.  C,  1S5C. 
Pa.,  1844,         202. 
N.  Y.,  1857,      380,  515. 
D.  C,  1859,      G2S. 


Oorliam  v. 
Gould,  Back  I 
"     V.  Bail 

"      Little 

"  II 

"      Wash 

Goulding's  C 

Goulard,  W( 

Grant,  Korn( 

''      V.  Mai 

"     V.  Rav 


Gray  v,  Jame 


"    V.  Russ 

Green,  Ilazar 

"      Wrigh 

Greenough  v. 

II 

Greenwood,  I 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


39 


IN-    ALI'IIAUKTICAL  OltUKU,  WITH   UEKKUKNCES   TO   I'AUKS  WUKUli   l-OLND. 


•l^fBiil^' 


(!il)t>H  t<.  Johiii«(>n, 
(iiliMou  V.  liariiiinl, 
"         V. 

"      V.  Belts, 

"      v.  Cook, 

"      V.  (iilTord, 

"      V.  Harris, 
"      V.  Uichurds, 
"      V.  Van  Dre.Hsar, 
"      I'.  Woodworth, 

GilVoril,  liibsou  c. 

(Jill,  Uuck  V. 
"    CowiHTthwaito  v. 

Gillotl  V.  Kcttlo, 

UlaiUliiig,  StovL'US  V. 
II  11 

Glou.  Mfg.  Co.,  Siekloa  v. 

(Jixliiard  r.  Lyman, 

"       Stt'ia  u. 

(loiKhvin,  llyaii  v. 

Uumlyear  v.  liisliop, 

'•        V.  Bi)iiriio, 

"        V.  (Jlialloo, 

V.  Day, 

"         V.     " 
II 

II 


MS.(.Vpp.Cas.), 
1  Itlatflif.,  :t88, 
7  How.,  UJO, 
1  Blatclif.,  lO:?, 
"        14-t, 


/: 


1 
1 

Pat 


520, 
107, 
No.  :if(!, 


V. 

V. 


"  Day  V. 

Goodvcar  v.  Day   &  Cong. 
Rub.  Co., 

Gooilyeur  v.  Dunbar, 
"        V.  McBurnoy, 
"  "         V. 

''       V.  Matthews, 
"      and  N.  10.  Car  Spg. 

Co.  V.  I'hulps, 
"       V.  Railroads, 

"         'Warner  v. 
Gorliam  v.  Mixtor, 
Gould,  Backus  v. 

"     V.  Banks, 

"       Little  V. 

"  "      V. 

"      'Waahburnt). 
Gotilding's  Case, 
Goulard,  Wolfo  v. 
Grant,  Kornodlo  v. 
'      V.  Mason, 

"     V.  Raymond, 


Gray  v.  James, 


II      !,_      II 

"    V.  RussoU, 
Green,  Hazard  v. 
"      Wright  V. 
Greonough  v.  Clark, 

"  Stnrtevnnt  v. 

Greenwood,  Ilotchkiss  v. 
"  V. 


Di^'., 
1  llliilchf.,  .'):!•.', 
8  raiife.  111'.', 

1  UlMtvhr.,  52!), 
4  McLean,  HI, 
M.S.  (.\pp.  Cas.), 

3  Ducr,  G2  I, 
17  How.,  117, 

2  Cui-t.,  008, 
M.S., 

1  1  I'ick.,  2(;8, 
1  Mc.VUitt.,  82, 
'.i  Sunui.,  514, 

4  Blalclii:, 

3  "  20(1, 
3   "    208, 

1  "  565, 
MS., 

2  Wall,  Jr.,  28:!, 


MS., 

■  3  Dlatehf.,  449,^ 

3  Wall,  Jr., 
3  Blatchf.,  32, 
11  Cush.,  509, 

1  Paine,  300, 

•  3  Blatchf.,  91, 

2  Wall.,  Jr.,  35G, 


D.  0,1  SCO, 
N.  v.,  1818, 

Sup.  ct.,  I8;rt. 
N.  Y.,  1810, 
"   1850, 

"  1850, 
"  1840, 
"  1815, 
"  1850, 
"  1810, 
"   1850. 

Oliio,  1810. 

1).  C,  1859. 

N.  y.,  1854, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

U.  1.,  185G. 

N.  J.,  1850. 

Ma.xH.,  1833, 

Cal.,  1850. 

Mass.,  1839. 

N.  Y.,  1800, 
"  185.5, 
"  1855, 
"   1850, 

N.  J.,  1850, 
"  1852, 
"   1852, 


N.  J.,  1850. 

N.  Y.,  185G, 

N.  J.,  1801, 
N.  Y.,  1853, 
Mas.s.,  1853. 
Ct.,  1814, 

N.  Y.,  1853, 

N.  J.,  1853, 


292,  298,  429,  451. 
122. 

400.  558. 

158,  103,  ICG,  244,  28.1,  321.  329, 

384,  001,  C07. 

324,  329,  559,  070,  080. 

327,  328,  383,  558,  014. 

10(i,  107,  020. 

3'Jl,  391!,  559. 

22  1,  229,  204. 


273,  31G,  411. 


••C 


MS.  (.Vpp.  Oas.).    D.  C,  184G. 
1  Am.  L.  Jour.,  543,  Mass..  18-19, 


201. 


113,  115,  404. 
208,  404. 
r',2G,  272,  380. 
220, 

23i),  339,  342,  408,  589. 
314,  331,  400,  420,  443,  448. 
95,  112,  151,  108,  245,  200,  272 
280,  302,331,351,  303,  437,  143 
514,  GOO,  014,  019,  024,  028,  073 

405,  4C8. 

102,  381,  388,  398. 
112,  245,  403. 

355,  525. 

114,  119,  216,  385. 

191,  190,  303,307,421,  474,485, 
512,  548,  582. 


7  How.,  798, 

8  Wend.,  502, 

2  Blatchf.,  105, 

2  "    302, 

3  Story,  122, 
2  Opin.,  572, 

1*^  How.  Pr.,  04, 
4-  Blaekf ,  57, 


Sup.  Ct.,  1848. 
M.  Y.,  18:'.2, 

"   1851. 

"  1852. 
Mass.,  1844. 
1833, 

N.  Y.,  1859. 
Tnd.,  1835 


I  L.  Int.  &  Hov.,  22,  N.  Y^.,  1828, 
6  Pet,  218,  Sup.  Ct.,  1832, 


Pet.,  0.  C,  394,         Pa.,  1817, 


"        "    476, 

I  Story,  11, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

II  II 

I.  II 

11  II 

4  Mefjean,  456, 

II  How.,  248, 


"    1817, 
Mass.,  1839, 
D.  C,  1847. 
"      1854. 
"      1853, 
"      1860. 
Ohio,  1848. 
Sup.Gt.,  1850. 


188,  275,  335,  356. 
120,  IGl,  645. 

612. 


256,  486,  612. 

150,  191,  242,  302,  339,  343,  346, 

347,  482,  588,012,  622,  647,  050, 

(!54. 

95,  155,  130,  231,  302,  338,  341, 

342,  355,  436,  519,  556,  631,  636, 

650. 

430,  583,  589,  590. 

98,  103,  209,  357,  358,  G2G,  643 


135,  137,  139,  G73. 


W^^y 


mi^' 


TT 


■^i 


■*•*.»» 


^•i 


siywwwww 


^ta^W-'A: 


i4 


TAIJLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


IN   ALI'IUIIETIOaI,  OUDKU,  with   UKt-KllKNCKH  TO   I'AllKH  WIIKIIB   lOlND. 


Urc^jorv,  Hiirr  v. 
(Jrillitli,  KalliM  V. 
(JroviT  \  linker  Sew.  Mudi. 

("(•.  r.  .Slout, 
Guild,  Siuviri  i'. 
<  liiiiii,  l'(i()|)i'r  I), 
Uuyuii  i'.  tJCITfll, 


IIiii>;lit,  Tlioinpson  V. 
IhiiiK  s,  Kii^j:^  r. 
UhII,  Hiinvll  ('. 

"     Du'lviiisoa  V. 

"    I'ills  V. 

"        "     »'. 

"     V.  Wiles, 

"        AVooihvortli  )'. 
Iliiiiloiilici'k,  Ai'iiisiroiig  i'. 
Iliilldrk,  I'lirkei- c. 
Iliinlesty  r.  Smitji, 
llaniioM  r.  Itird, 
lliii|ii'f.  Mciiik  r. 
iiuri'is,  (iilisoii  ('. 

"        Nicliols  V. 
Iliirl^linni  ('.  |)iiy, 
lliitlirld,  I'iirkiT /'. 
Halimwiiy  r.  Koiicli, 
llauHskucclit  ('.  Claypool 
lliiwi'S,  U'llura  ;'. 
Jlawkins,  Uk'ott  v. 
Ilawiey  /'.  Haf,duy, 
llawiMlli,  Parker  v. 
Ilaydi'ii,  Kx  parte, 
Ha  UK'S,  lilaiiclmrd  v. 
Hays,  Jk'llas  i: 
llayward,  ("lialFeo  v. 
'•  Day       V. 

Ila/ard  r.  (jreen, 
Head,  Stevens  t'. 

'■     )'.     " 
Heath,  Hildreatli  v. 

"      V.  Wrif^ht, 
Hciliior  i,'.  liattin, 
lloiiio  V.  Appletoii, 
Jleiiirich  v.  Liitiier, 
IleiiriqiieM,  Howard  )'. 
Henry,  Kx  parte, 
Henry,  Hovey  v. 
Herbert  v.  Adams, 
lierniaucc,  Buck  v. 
"  "     V. 

"  "     V. 

Hcrriet,  Kingslcy  v. 
Herring  v.  Lellingwell, 
Hcttick,  Evans  v. 
"  "     r. 

Hiatt  V.  Twotney, 
Jlibbard,  I'lx  parte. 
Hicks,  Kicliardsou  v. 

"      V.  Sliaver, 

"      Williams  v. 
Iligbee,  Eyre  v. 
Higgins,  Smith  v, 

"  "      V. 


2  Palno,  426, 

Wright,  3U;!, 

I  MS, 

1  (iail.,  48.5, 
4  H.  Mun,  59  I, 
1  Ulutehl'.,  244, 


N.  Y.,  182S. 

Ohio,  i«3:i. 

N.  Y.,  1800, 

MaHH,  ISKI. 
Kv,  1844. 
N:  Y.,  1847, 


CCS. 


210,  233,  260,  C50,  CO  I. 


II. 


1  IT.  S.  L.  .To.,  H5,  5G3,  N.  Y,  1822. 


MS.  (.Vj.)..  ("a.s). 

1).  C,  1805. 

1  Ma.x..  147, 

Mass.,  1818, 

11  IMek.,  'J  17, 

"       1833. 

2  Ulalehr.    •J'.".), 

N.  Y.,  1851. 

3  Ulatehf.,  201, 

"       1851, 

2        "         1114, 

"       1851, 

184,219,235, 
350,  G71. 

249,  250,  259,  333, 

1  W.  .t  M.,  248,  :!80 

,  Mass.,  181(5. 

:i.\.  v.L.  ub.-*.,  4;;, 

N.  v.,  1H44. 

MS., 

I'a.,  1858. 

3  hid.,  :vj, 

Ind.,  18;')!, 

20.3. 

22  \Ven<l.,  li:J, 

N.  v.,  1839, 

107,  202,  263, 

354. 

3  Kd  ■  (Jh.     '"", 

"        is:i7. 

1  Ulafhr,  '    ^ 

'■       1,S4G, 

MS.  (.i|,p.  L.i.s.j, 

]>.  C,  iHaL 

1!'  How.,  211, 

Sup.  Ct.,  185G 

126,  IGO,  326, 

549, 

4  McLean,  01, 

Ohio,  IK  If). 

2  W.  A  M.,  (i;{, 

Mass.,  184(1, 

218,  487. 

1  Black,  431, 

Sup.  Ct.,  18G1 

300. 

M.'^.  (A pp.  (!aH.), 

I).  C,  \ 859. 

2  A.  J..  Jour.,  319, 

AVi.«.,  1849. 

MS.. 

N.  Y.,  1855, 

584,  588,  675 

4  .McLean,  370, 

HI..  1848. 

MS.  (Aj.p.  Cas.), 

]).  C,  18G0, 

154,  249,  311, 

503,  610,  070. 

6  W.  L.  .lonr.,  82, 

N.  H..  1848. 

5  S.  &.  Rawie,  427, 

I'a,  1819. 

20  How.,  208, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1.S57. 

a                t> 

1857. 

MS.  (A pp.  Cas.), 

H.  C,  1847, 

489,  611. 

9  Venn.,  17  1, 

Vt.,  1837. 

19  Wend.,  411, 

N.  v.,  1838, 

202,  527. 

MS.  (.Vpji.  Cas.), 

I).  C.  1841. 

3  Wall.,  .Jr., 

!■•  .  i«(;i, 

275,  482. 

27  renu..  517, 

1    .^    IH,.'', 

204,  280,  457, 

G19. 

4  Blatchf., 

>"  \  , ;  <57, 

91,  211,214,  : 

{79. 

6  McLean,  345, 

(.-•  "      '.S^   , 

258,  48G,  515, 

523,  571,  CUO, 

3  .'^and.  S.C,  725, 

Jv'.    \'       '    jL 

MS.  (A pp.  Cas.), 

]).  C,  :,„-.G, 

137,  138. 

3  W.  L.  Jour.,  153, 

Mass.,  1846. 

4  Mason,  15, 

"       1825, 

Ill,  150,  162, 

279,  653 

9  Law  Kep.,  545, 

N.  Y.,  184G. 

1  Blutchl'.,  322, 

"       1848. 

1         "        398, 

"       1819. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,   1854. 

11         11         ii 

"       18G1, 

281,  292,  307. 

3  Wash.,  408, 

Pa.,  1818. 

7  Whesit,  453, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1822. 

IDev.  AIJat.Kq.,  31; 

),N.  Car.,  183G, 

201,  694, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1).  C,  1857, 

277,  352. 

MS.  (A])[h  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1854. 

11         11         11 

"       1801, 

418,  429,  4^2 

2  Vorin.,  36, 

Vt,  1829. 

22  How.  Tr.,  205, 

N.  Y.,  18G1, 

MS., 

"       1856. 

it 

"       1857. 

TAIU.K  OF  CASES,  A. 


41 


IN    AI.l'lIAItKTICAI.  OIIUKU,  WITH    UKKKllKNCKS  TO    I'AOKS    WIIKIIK    KUfM). 


Hi^'K'"'*)  S'oitl*  ''• 

M.S., 

N.  Y.,  1850. 

"            "      r. 

It 

"       1800. 

"        ypurkiiiaii  f. 

1  Itlatehf.,  205, 

"       1810. 

"                "         (', 

■2        ••         2!l, 

"        1840. 

"        r.  Stronjr, 

•1  llliiekl'.,  IS'.', 

Tnd.,  1M30, 

1C4,  201, 

062. 

llililri'ulli,  KiliiiimilH  V. 

Itl  111.,  2 If., 

HI.,  1H.54. 

"         V.  lloaih, 

MS.  (App.  Caa.), 

1).  C,  1811, 

00,  97,  I'J 

18,  144,   1.50,   177, 

213, 

424,  410, 

155,  409,005,028, 

059, 

001,  ()05, 

072,  083. 

"         V.  Turuor, 

17  HI.,  184, 

HI.,  185.'-.. 

100,  204. 

Hill,  Hull  V. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1851. 

••    r.  Uiiiiklfo, 

t(                41                 ti 

"      18.'.7, 

298,  200, 

450.      • 

"    V.  TliucriiKT, 

i.T  hid.,  :ir.i, 

Ind.,  IH.IO, 

IGi). 

Kilo,  MiilCcniaii  i'. 

C  lud.,  l^.S, 

"     18.-.5. 

iiiil)l)H  V.  Kraiu'iiis, 

11)  Ilow.  I'r.,  0G7, 

N.  Y.,  1800, 

274,  4U, 

C91. 

lliij,%  Eiiiursoii  /'. 

•2  Uluteht'.,  1, 

"        1845. 

"      V.  Kmerson, 

0  How.,  KH, 

Sup.Ct.,  1847, 

132,  .:i3, 
511,  518, 

257,  487,  .190,  60.3, 
051,  058,000,  090. 

504, 

"        V.           " 

11  How.,  587, 

Sup.Ct.,  1850, 

,  235,  257, 
03  i,  05':, 

410,  494,  503,  504, 
008. 

612, 

Ilolbrook,  Contos  v. 

2  Sand.  Ch.,  580, 

N.  Y.,  184.5. 

Ilok'ombo,  Story  v. 

4  MeLean,  ;!()(!, 

Ohio,  1847. 

Jldlilcii  r.  (lurtin, 

2  N.  llanip.,  (11, 

N.  H.,  1819. 

1G4,  1C7, 

199,  691,  G5a 

ildlliiiiil,  Potter  V. 

MS., 

Ct,.,  1858. 

lluUiday,  Klicum  i'. 

Hi  I'eiin.,  :M7, 

Pa.,  18.-.1. 

"         i:  Ulioom, 

18       "      .1U5, 

"     1852, 

132,  500, 

523,  529. 

Ilolzalb,  I'.nmswick  V. 

MS., 

Ohio,  l.s.W. 

Hopkins  r.  liarniiin, 

MS.  (.\pp.  Cas.), 

I».  C.,  1854, 

135. 

ll(i|ikiiis  V.  1,1'wis, 

MS.  (App.  Cms.), 

1).  (!.,  18.59, 

136. 

lIotc'hkiHS  V.  Groenwood, 

4  MeliOan,  If)!!, 

Ohio,  1848, 

194,  453, 

478,  479,  489,  514 

, 

"          V.             " 

11  How.,  218, 

Sup.Ct.,  1850, 

,  254,  474, 

478,  489. 

"        V.  niivor, 

5  Denio,  :U4, 

N.  Y.,  1848, 

122,  250, 

302,  339,  628. 

"        Rich  .'. 

10  Conn.,  4(19, 

Ct.,  1844. 

Hovty  V.  Iloury, 

3  W.  L.  Jour.,  15:?, 

Mass.,  1845, 

183,  282, 
072. 
131,  183, 

301,  432,488,571, 

605, 

"     V.  Stevens, 

1  Wood,  k  Min.,  290, 

"      1840, 

291,  334,302,390, 

309, 

■102,  432, 

511,  521,528,013. 

"     V.       '• 

3  Wood.  &  Min.,  17, 

"      1840, 

218,  131, 
082. 

351.  473,  522,  544, 

633, 

Howard,  Ames  v. 

1  Sunin.,  482, 

"      183.3. 

"        V.  llfiiriquos, 

a  Sand.  .S.  C,  72.5, 

N.  Y.,  1851, 

C89. 

IIowo  r.  Abliott, 

2  Storv,  199, 

Mass.,  1812, 

187,  254, 

301,  484,  488,  550. 

"        J[lUlt  1'. 

MS.  (App.  Cns.), 

P.  C,   1855. 

"      v.  Morton, 

i;i  Mo.  L.  Uep.,  70, 

Mass.,  1800, 

18G,  33.3, 

357,  370,  564,  OGG 

1, 

"      ?'.  Scarinjr, 

19  Ilow.  Pr.,  14, 

N.  Y.,  l.MOO, 

98,  348, 

41,5,  091. 

"     1'.  Underwood, 

MS., 

Mass.,  1854, 

314,427, 

4;!4,  GOO. 

TToyt,  Ex  parte. 

MS.  (Api>.  Caa.), 

1).  (.;.,   1800, 

all,  441, 

Oil. 

"      r.  McKenzie, 

3  liarl).  Ch.,  :!20, 

N.  Y.,  1848, 

104,  221, 

202,  458,  476. 

"      Sto|ilu'iison  v. 

M.S.  (App.  (V-), 

1).  C,   1854. 

Iliiiison  r.  I'atten, 

1  Hoot,  la 

Ct.,  1789, 

357. 

"       Saillier  v. 

2  Curt.,  0, 

Me.,  1854. 

liiiline,  I'arkcr  v. 

7  W.  L.  .Four..  417, 

I'a.,  IS49. 

ilumiihrey,  Peti'rson  v. 

4  Abb.  Pr..  a94. 

N.  Y.,  1857. 

•'          "Wintcnnute  v. 

10  W.  L.  .Tour.,  52, 

Ohio,   1851. 

Hunt,  Bedford  r. 

1  Mason,  a()2, 

Mass.,  1817. 

"     ?'.  I  [owe, 

MS.  (Aj.p.  Cas.), 

J).  C,   1855, 

97,  145,  : 

152,  606,  COS. 

Hunter,  Allen  j'. 

G  McLean,  a03, 

Ohio,     1855. 

"       Youn,!;  ?'. 

2  Seld.,  20.1, 

N.  Y.,  18.52. 

Huntington,  ^Iorri3  v. 

1  Paine,  348, 

"       1824. 

"           Rudderow  v. 

3  .Sand.,  S.  C,  252, 

"       1849. 

"           Toeso  V. 

23  Ilow..  2. 

Sup.  Ct.,  1859 

1^ 

Huntley,  Cross  r. 

13  AVond.,  385, 

N.  Y.,1835. 

Hussey  i'.  McCorinick, 

MS., 

HI.,  1859, 

284,  546, 

620. 

"      V.  Whitoloy, 

t( 

Ohio,  1801, 

11.3,  169, 

404,  464. 

Hutcliinaon  v.  Meyers, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.C.,  1801, 

278, 

"           Wliipple  V. 

4  Blatehf., 

N.  Y.,  1868. 

m 


w- 


W:h 


v.^wi^^ 


<Ly¥%>. 


3    ■fil 


m 


vw 


.J± 


^^W^i*W^ 


n  -Hi 


42 


TABLK  OF  CASES,  A. 


IN   ALi'lIAllKTICAL   OUr)KU,  WITH   HKFKIIKNCK.H  TO   I'AOIIS    WIIKHK    »'UUM). 


ITyntt,  Cornell  r. 
IJyilc,  Carvor  v. 
Tylur  V. 


Iinlay  t'.  Nor.  k  Wor.  IJ.  11., 
iMunes  V,  Coojier, 


JiiekHon,  Ex.  parte, 
Juf.'obH,  K.\  parto, 

"        Ulan.  (Jiin-Stk.  Fac.  f, 
Jaciiue.><,  Jdllio  i'. 
JiiKt^iT,  Many  II. 
JuiiiuB,  Gray  v. 

"  "     V. 

"        Lnidloy  v, 
Jumt'son,  I'ilt.s  v. 
Jniiru'v,  K.x  piirlc, 
JcllVi'y,  McCluro  v. 
JeroiiK',  »\l('(  'orinick  i>, 
Jcwutt  k  Itodt,  K.x  purto, 
Jowett,  liuirull  I'. 

"       Rotors  V. 

.Tillaon  v.  WiiiHor, 

JohtiHon,  (libba  v. 

"        Novins  V. 

"        V.  Root, 

"         Smith  V. 
"         Turner  v, 
•'         William.?  v. 
.Tollio  V.  Jao(|iioH, 
Jiiliill'o  V.  Collins, 
Jones,  Adani.s  v. 

"       Justice  V. 

"      Livin^rston  v. 

"       Morryiield  v, 

"       North  V. 

"       V.  Thome, 

"       V.  Wetliercll, 

"       Wieker.shaff  v. 

"       Wilson  V. 
Jordan,  Evans  v. 

"  "      V. 

"       V.  Overseers  of  Poor, 
Judd,  Woolsey  v. 
Judkins  v.  JCarlo, 
Judsou  V.  Cope, 


V.  Day, 
V.  Moore, 


MS.  (App.  Ca.M.), 
1«  Pot.,  01  :i, 

•i  Biutuw:,  :!U8, 


p.  C.  1«C(I. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1.S12. 
N.  v.,  ISOl. 


I. 


MS., 

4  Wash.,  259, 


Ct.,  is:)8, 

Pa.,  1821, 


J. 


MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

II  II 

2  Blutchf.,  CO, 
1        •'         CI  8, 

1  ''         :!72, 
Pet.  C.  C,  :t9 1, 

•no, 

MS.  (Api'.  Cas.), 
1,1  liarli.  S.  (!.,  iilO, 
MS.  (App.  Ca.'*.), 
K  Ind.,  7!), 
:{  lilatchf.,  ISC, 
MS.  (.Xjip.  (;a,s.), 

2  I'aiKc,  i;tt, 

12  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  ;!:;t), 

MS.  (A J)]).  Cas.), 

II  II 

3  Watehf.,  80, 
MS., 

4  Blatchf., 

2  Cra.  C.  C,  287, 
2  Uosw.,  1, 

1  lilalelif..  CI 8, 
21  Mo.,  .•i:!,S, 

;i  Wall.,  .Jr.. 
M.^.  (.\pp.  Ca.s.), 
iJ  Wall..  .Ir., 

2  Curt.,  HOG, 
4  Blatfhf., 

1  N.  Y.  L.  Obs.,  408, 
Ms.  (App.  Cas.), 

2  Wliar.  Diff.,  413, 

3  Blatehf.,  227, 
1  lirock.,  248, 
0  Cra.,  109, 

4  Ohio,  294, 
4  Duer,  379, 
7  Grcenl.,  9, 
MS., 


"      &  Goodyear  v. 
Rubber  Co., 
Justice  V.  Jones, 


KanowTS,  Reutpen  v. 
Keeue  v.  XA'heatley, 


Un 


i 


D.  C,  18.10, 
"       1809, 

N.  Y.,  1847. 
"  1850. 
"   1843. 

Pa.,  1817. 
"  1817. 

]).  C,  18C0. 

N.  Y.,  185.1. 

I).  C.,  1847, 

Ind.,  1850. 

N.  Y.,  185G. 

1).  (;.,  i85;t, 

N.  Y.,  18;t0. 
.Mass.,  \H-,H. 

1).  (;.,  1850, 

"   1800. 

N.  Y.,  181:!. 
Mass.,  1858, 


102,  309,  387,  440,  613,  634. 
207,  388,  398,  575. 


143. 
2C1. 


135,  409,  C60, 


140,  152, 


294,  305. 


N.  Y.,  1858. 
D.  C,  1822. 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

"   1850, 
Mo.,  1855, 
Pa.,  1859. 
]).  C,  1850. 
Pa.,  1801. 
Mass.,  1855. 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

"   1843, 
D.  C,  1855, 
Pa.,  1848. 
N.  Y.,  1854. 
A'a.,  181». 
Sup.  Ct.,  1815. 
Ohio,  1831,   481,  499. 
N.  Y.,  1855. 
Me.,  1830,   200. 
Ohio,  1800, 


178,  278,  283,  304,  319,  309,  423 
451,  610,  619,  524,  504. 


104,  21.3,  221,  202,487,  04:! 
108,  204,  695. 


25.1,  470,  045. 
177.  294,  300,  480. 


It 
<i 


N.  Y.,  1851. 
Ohio,  1800, 


4  Blatchf.,  N.  Y.,  1857, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.),        D.  C,  1859, 

K. 

1  Wash.,  108,  Pa.,  1804. 


9  Am.  L.  Reg.,  33, 


1860, 


283,  284,  287,  304,  307,  311,  3.10, 
304,  441,  457,  472,  672,  003,  009, 
030. 

258,  31.1,  440,  451,  480,  490,  513, 
510,  521,  571,  611,  636,  631. 

227,  369,  373. 

130,  140. 


100,  104,  117,  150,  102,  174,  177, 
209,  212,  214,  222,  255,  250,  2C:!, 
300,  477,  609,  610,  627,  641,  642, 
645,  646,  692. 


Kittle  V.  Morrii 
Kneass  v.  Seliii 


Knight  I'.  Gavil 
Krenicr,  Evans 


larnod,  Sargent 
Larowo,  Ex  \)in 
Latta  V.  Shawk, 


TAP.LK  OF  CASES,  A. 


43 


IN    AM'lIAIIKTKnii   OUDKU,  Willi    IlKKHItKM'KS   TO    I'AUKM    WIIKItk:    I'OirSO. 


Kt'lly,  I-lpiilncott  t'. 
Ki'l.'^Vy,  l.iliii'  i\ 
Kiiuiior,  Kx  purti', 

KonduU,  Dnvld  v. 
"        V.  WiiiMor, 

KrpIiiifriT  V.  Do  Young, 

KiTiioillo  r.  (irjiiit, 

Kiii'liuiu,  McDonnick  v, 

Kiilli',  llillott  t'. 

Kidd  i:  .SpoiK'O, 

Kiiii,',  Anion  V. 
"      r.  (ludiioy, 
"      r.  U.  StiUoH, 

KiiiKsliiiiil,  McClurg  v. 

Kiiigsloy  V.  Ilorriet, 

Kiii>*mau,  Purkhurat  v. 


V. 


u 
u 


u 

V. 

It 

V. 

tl 

V. 

li 

Kiltlo  V.  Morrinm, 

Kncuss  V.  kScliuylkill  Bnnk, 


V. 


Kniglit  t'.  Gnvit, 
Kromcr,  Evans  v. 


Lndil,  Clinndlor  v. 
Laidloy  r.  JuincH, 
Lnirb's  Case, 
Landjjran",  vStokcB  v. 
Langdon  v.  Do  Groot, 

Lamed,  Sargont  v. 
Larovvo,  Ex  jiarto, 
Latta  V.  Shawk, 

Lateliom,  Mullikon  v. 
Leach,  Kx  parte, 
Le  Clere,  Dennis  v. 
Lee  V.  Blandy, 

Leflingwoll,  Herring  v. 
Leiper,  Simpson  v. 
Lonioino  v.  (iauton, 
Le  Hoy,  Tatliam  v. 

"  "         V. 

"       V.  Tutliam, 

"       V.       " 
Lewis,  Davidson  v. 
"      Hopkins  V. 
"      Lowoll  V. 
Liesor,  Coleman  v. 
Lillio  V.  Kolscy, 
Linton,  Ex  parte, 
Lippincott  v.  Kelly, 
"        Rich  v. 


I  W.  L.  Jour.,  513,    Pa,  1844. 
MS.  (A  pp.  CaH.),         D.  C,  1H58. 
"  "  "      1811, 


2  n.  I.,  r.06. 

•21  How.,  :f.".', 

1(1  Wlioat.,  :t3H, 
4  Illacki:,  :,i, 
MS.  (,\pp.  Cmh.), 

3  Diiur,  024, 
MS., 

2  Gray,  370, 
MS.  (.\pp.  t'as.). 


It.  I„  IS.-iM, 
Silj).  Ct.,  1858, 
"       1825, 
Iiid.,  lM:t5, 
J).  U.,  1853. 
N.  Y.,  1H54. 
"        1851», 
Mass.,  18,")4. 
1».  C,  1850, 


i:!7,  138,  150,  25:i,  250,432,  610, 
GIO. 

05,  07,  140,  467,  601,  C20,  Cl'.i. 

li:i,  370,  580. 

2U1. 


10  .Mo.  L  Hop.,  0:!1,  (!t.(;iins.,1857, 

1  How.,  202,  Sup.  Ct.,  1843. 
MS.  (App.  (!as.).         I).  C,  LS.Vl, 

2  llaLst.  Ch.,  000,       N.  J.,  1847. 
j2Iliatvl.f.,  72;8N.  I  jj   y    .„  ^ 
}     Y.L.OI.M.,  75  70,  p-  '^•'  '"'^• 

2  matfhl".,  70,  '•       1848. 

2        "         78,  "       1848. 

<  I  Blatelif.,  488;   8  )       „       ,„,„ 
1  X.  ^'.  L.  01)S.,  140,  f  '"''''• 

18  How.,  289,  Sup.  Ct.,  1855, 


373. 

418,  444,  480,  400. 
281,  530,  093. 

135. 


2  Curt.,  475, 
4  M'ash.,  9, 


MasH.,  1S55, 
I'a.,  1820, 


4       "       lOG,  " 

Mir.  Pat.  Off.,  04, 131,  " 


1821, 
1840, 


101,120,158,  170,222,  280,  497, 

G2G. 

185,  483,  500,  523,  CC3. 

155,  215,  231,  250,  341,  430,  482, 

504,  632,  G40. 

217. 

114,  233,257,300,371,  421,504 

650. 


Pet.  0.  C,  215, 

"     18 IG. 

li 

ft 

MS.  (App.  Gas.), 

D.  C,  1857. 

11                il                U 

"      1800, 

95,  141,  143,  419,  616. 

5  Oi)in.,  725, 

1820, 

109. 

17  Barb.  S.  C,  008, 

N.  Y.,  1853. 

1  Paine,  203, 

"       1822, 

130,  308,  353,430,455, 
671,  032. 

517, 

520, 

2  Curt.  340, 

Mass.,  1855. 

MS.  (App  Cas.), 

D.  C,    1800, 

15.3,  18G,  193. 

MS., 

Ohio,    1859, 

190,  283,  318,345,347, 
513,  51G,  600. 

440, 

472 

7  Blackf.,  13G, 

Ind.,  1844. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C.,  1800, 

435. 

1  Mart.,  297, 

La.,  1811. 

MS., 

Ohio,  18G0, 

108,  180,  190,  207,284, 
441,  503,  610,  603,  658 

295, 

311, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C.,  1801. 

2  Whar.  Dig.,  414, 

Pa.,  1848. 

2  E.  D.  Smith,  343, 

N.  Y.,  1854, 

110,375,376,  685. 

MS., 

"       1840, 

653. 

2  BlMtchf,  474, 

"       1852. 

14  How.,  15G, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1852 

184,  200,  474,  484,  553, 

591 

22  How.,  132, 

"        1859 

ISO,  472,  553,  595. 

MS.  (App.  Gas.), 

D.  C.,  1858. 

11        II         11 

"      1850. 

1  Mason,  182, 

Mass.,  1817. 

MS., 

Oliio,  1859. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1858, 

419. 

a           tl            11 

"     18G0, 

137. 

1  W.  L.  .Tour,  513, 

Pa.,  1844, 

248,  633,  COO. 

26  .Tour.  Er.  Inst.,  13 

(3d  Ser.), 

"    1853. 

>^(: 


Hf^>-.^.- 


Vcvr^w. ji. 


TAIW-K  OF  CASKS,  A. 


IN   AI.I'IIAUKTIOAI,  ORUKB,  WITH    UKKKBKNCItH  TO   I'AdKH    WIIKIIB   FOUND, 


Little  t'.  Gould, 

»t  4t  it 

"     t'".  Hall, 

"      I'ark  r. 

LKtlcIli'ld,  OiT  V. 

Livin^Htun,  v.  Jonci*, 

'•  f.  Van  Iiigon, 

"  V.  " 

"  V.  Wooilwortli, 

Locke,  lli'U  ('. 

Lognii,  Sunders  v. 

Loriiif,',  Till  limn  v. 
liowber,  Till  ham  v. 
"  "       V. 

Louden  v.  Blrt, 
],i)Ulli.  Savory  v. 
J-ovciidgo  1).  Putebor, 
Lowell  V.  Lewis, 


Lullier,  lllenrich  f. 
Lyman,  (ioddard  v. 
Lyouii,  Day  v. 


Jfc Alpine,  Tloyd  v. 
Meliiirney  v.  (ioodyear, 
"         (ioodyear  i'. 
MeCay  v.  Hiirr, 
Me(^liire  r.  .rellVey, 
MeCliirg  i',  Kliigslund, 

McCormick,  Davis  v. 
"  IIuHsey  V. 

"  V.  Jerome, 

'•  V.  Kelcluim, 

V.  Manny, 
V.  Seymour, 
V.  " 


II 


"  V.  Seymour, 

"  Sevmour  v. 
"  ■  •'         V. 

"  V.  Talcott, 

"  Wilder  V. 

McCullogh,  HoU  V. 
McDonald's  Case, 
JfeDoiij^al  ('.  Fogg, 
Mcl^owell  r.  Meredith, 
Jlelilroy,  Miller  v. 
MeFall  v.  AVilson, 

McGaw  V.  Bryan, 

MoKenzie,  Hoyt  v. 
]Mclvernan  v.  Hito, 
MeQuewan,  Bloomer  v. 
Mnckay,  I']x  parte, 
Mad.  Riv.  R.  R.,  Simpson  v. 
Mann,  Kx  parte. 
Many  v.  Jaggor, 

"     ircCormick  v. 


2  Blutehr.,  105, 

2  "       :it;2, 

18  How.,   |i!H, 

3  \Va.«li.,  l!)<i, 

1  Wood,  .t  Mill.,  i:t, 

3  Willi.,  dr., 

1  I'liilie,    ITi, 
l»  .lolin,  r.07, 
Ifi  llmv.,  5  Ki, 
8  Paige,  7r(, 

(  3  Willi.,  dr.;  9  Am.  [ 

■(      h.  U..g.,  475,        ) 

5  N.  Y.  1,.  Obs.,  207, 

2  Itliitchr.,  lO, 

4  Itlalelil'., 
4  Ind.,  5G0, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 


N.  Y.,  1851,     378,  C2fl, 

"       1852,     211,  li2G,  (;i2. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1855,  378,  177,  045, 
I'll.,  1HI3. 
N.  II.,  1845. 

I'a.,  1801,    102,  108,  240,  200,  ;il9,  387. 
N.  v.,  1811,   223,  21.3,  37!»,  055,  050. 

"   1812,   197,  328,  404,  419,  4!»,s,  570,  C37. 
Sup.  (!t.,  1853,  101,  134,  236,  239,  208,  500. 
N.  v.,   1840. 

I'll.,  1801. 

MaHH.,  1845. 

"   1847. 

"   1857. 
Tiid.,  1853, 
D,  (J.,  1859. 

"   1801, 
Mii.su.,  1817, 


6  MeLeun,  315, 
14  I'iek.,  208, 
MS., 


Ohio,  1855. 
Mass.,  183.3. 
La..  185U. 


IGO. 

141,  148,  C20, 

129,  231,  241,  307,  33.3,  338,  342, 
352,  130,  444,  513,517,  625,  03J, 
U37,  C5C,  682. 


M. 


3  MeLean,  427, 
11  Ciish.,  5r.9, 
3  liliitelif.,  32, 

0  I'eiin.,  147, 
8  Ind.,  79, 

1  How.,  202, 

2  Brock.,  298, 
MS., 

3  lilatchf.,  486, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

0  MeLean,  539, 
MS., 

2  Biatehf.,  240, 

MS., 

3  Blatchf.,  209, 
16  J  low.,  480, 

19  How.,  90, 

20  "   402, 

2  Bl.itchf.,  31, 
MS., 

1  Opin.,  170, 

2  Bosw.,  3S7, 
4  Wliart.,  311, 

1  Am.  L.  Ileg.,  148, 

6  Blaekf.,  200, 
1  1  U.  S.  L.  Jour.,  82,  ) 
I   88,  582,       ) 

3  Barb.  Ch.,  320, 
6  Ind.,  428, 

14  How.,  539, 
MS.  (App.  Cas), 
6  McLean,  003, 
MS.  (Ap)).  Cas.), 
1  Blatchf.,  372, 


Ohio,  1844. 

Ma.^.s.,  1853,  125,  327,  463,  624,  625 

N.  Y.,  1853. 

I'll.,  1W47, 

I  lid.,  1850, 

Sup.Ct.,  1843, 


Va.,  1847. 
111.,  1859. 
N.  v.,  1850, 
I).  (!.,  1853, 
HI.,  1855, 
N.  Y.,  1850. 
"   1851, 


94. 

108,  20.5,  095. 

155,  198,  400,  510,  005,  648,  G;T, 

672. 


II 

II 


1851, 
1854, 
Sup.Ct.,  1853. 
"    1850. 
"   1857, 

N.  Y.,  1846. 
Ohio,  1858. 
1812, 

N.  Y.,  1858, 
Pa.,  1839, 
"  1839. 
Ind.,  1842, 

N.  Y.,  1822, 

"  1848. 
Ind.,  1855, 
Sup.Ct.,  1852. 
D.  C,  1860, 
Ohio,  1855. 
D.  C,  1860, 
N.  Y.,  1848, 


6  McLean,  539,  111.,  1855. 


172,  408. 

145,  289,  314,  420,  448,  594. 

181,  189,  277,  505,  523,  545. 

2^C>,  275,  301,  350,  302,  42(..  433 
544,  000,  673. 

301,314,  420,  443,  472,  544. 
237,  250,  251,  351,  545. 


108,  190,  277,318,357,304,37.?, 
487. 


149. 
205. 
202. 

105. 
228,  054. 

106. 

186. 

475,  486. 

291,  334,  344,  354,  42.5,  4.J2,  437 

511,  522,  636,  598,  683 


Many  i:  Sizer, 

"     Sizi-r  i: 

Marnli,  Kx  pai 

Miin-y  "  Tioii 

Mardi'ii,  liiiiili 

M.ii'hIi  '.  ildliii 

"      l''oi.-i(im 

Marvliall  /■.  M, 

.Mui'Mn,  Mi'iiiK  I 

MU.HUI1,  i'eiin  i;, 

"        Urant 

"        V.  TmIIii 

.\I,i.<mry,  Itiook. 

MuttllOW.H,  Coo 

"       V.  s: 

"  AVa, 

i>  11 

Jfiiiile,  Kx  ()artt 
Mayer,  Piu'lps  i 
Mayhew,  Diullo 
.Miiyaanl,  Kx  \»i 

Mayor,  fn-.,  S.  Y 

II 

Mee,  Marshiill  v 

JteiluH  ('.  Silsbec 

Meiick,  I'ariridg 
>•  II 

II  II 

Mproor,  Smith  v. 
MiTrliJiiit,  I'Vtrid 
Jlcrciliih,  McI)o| 
MiTriam,  KitlU 
Merrill.  Orr  r. 
MerrilleM  r.  .lor 
Mcrriin'k  .Manuf 
Meyers,  ''iittlng 
"        Kdmuni 
"        Hulchi 
V.  Turn. 
Middlesex  Co., 
Miller  i'.  McKIro' 
Millett  r.  Snowdi 
Mini's  Assigiieo 
Mitchell  ?'.  Hard; 

Sickles 

Mix  V.  Perkins, 

Mixter,  (iorham 

Monk  V.  Harper, 

Moody )'.  Fiske, 

Moore,  Comstock 

"       Foster  v. 

"      Jud.son  V. 

Moroy,  Ciino  v. 

Moditt  V.  (iarr, 

Morrill  v.  Worthi 

Morris  v.  Barrett, 

"      V.  Iluntinj. 

Ifcrso,  Bain  v. 
"     V.  O'ReUly, 
"      V.        " 
"     O'Roilly,  V. 

Morton's  Case, 

Howe  V. 

Mowry  v.  Barber, 


^*99%i. 


TAIW.K  or  CASKS,  A. 


4.') 


IN   AU'lUIIKTlCAti  OttUKR,  WITH   RXriHKNOKH  TO   VAdVS   WIIKUK   FOUMt). 

jmUj* 

%n  • 

•'■*' 

^»Ss%^., 

Many  i:  Sl/or, 

MS.. 

Mass.,  1S19, 

181,  230,  295,  391,  448, 

637. 

'^•^.   ^   ■ 

"       ,Si/.t,T  1'. 

1(1  IIiiW,,  !)H, 

Sup.  Cl„  1853. 

^J  ^"m^h^H 

^         V 

Miirsh,  Kx  jiiirto, 

MS.  (Ai-p.  c;«H.), 

It.  C,,    l.HtiO, 

251,  490. 

S**^.^'* 

Miiif.v  "  Til  liter, 

It              u 

"        IHC.O, 

9.S,  US,  152,  284,  020. 

K)i«f 

Miinlfii,  I)iiiil)iir  V. 

U  V.  Ifamp.,  311, 

N,  ir„  IHI2. 

■gfc-^jv  1 

Jlilisll   1'.    ilillill>,'S, 

7  Ciish.,  :',■>■>, 

Mass.,  1851, 

GS9. 

'^^^^Jl 

Wfta^. 

"       Kolsolii  ('. 

'2  Sliiry.  100, 

"          IMII. 

•^l'   t^M^Blk.  ^^J^^^^^hA  Kl^^^^^^^l 

Miirsliiill  /•.  Mi'i>, 

MS.  (App.  Cas,), 

1>.  C.,  1 853, 

297,  311,  420,  448,  606, 

083. 

Mar»,in,  liciiiiott  v. 

C  Mo.,  MW, 

Mo.,  INK). 

jlllrtOll,   J'lMII  w. 

20  Mow.,  I9S, 

Hup.  Ct.,  1.S57. 

^^^m^w^/uS"  ^ 

"        CJraiit  1'. 

1  ],.  Inl.,fcll..iv.,  22, 

N.  v.,   IH28. 

^^^fL.^iwi'*,' 

"       r.  'ralliiinn, 

1  lllatelil'.,  r.2'J, 

H.  I.,   1850, 

030. 

^'^'isjm^UMim^^ 

Miisiiry,  Ilroiik.  W.  L.  Co.  v. 

2.''.  Ilarli.  S.  (;.,  HO, 

Nf.  Y..  1857. 

i^^SfevMIUj/lB 

MiitthcwH,  Cipopor  r. 

H  Law.  Hep.,  4i:i, 

Pa.,  18  12. 

"         UoDilyour  I'. 

1  I'aine,  300, 

Ct.,  1814. 

CSndCi^^^EH^M^^B^^^I 

"         )'.  SkiiUm, 

MS. 

Ala.,  1800, 

197,  444. 

#SMkCMSi^H 

"         AV'ailu  u. 

5  di.in.,  220, 

1849. 

^^PILLl  iT"'-"'^ 

II              It     t,_ 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

U.  C,  1850. 

^^Emrkii^.  ^'- 

Mniilo,  Kx  parto, 

11             11 

"      1853, 

253,  421,  474,  490 

Lm^mm 

Mavi'i-,  IMi.'IpM  I'. 

15 1  row.,  ifio. 

Sup.  CI  „  1853 

Maylimv,  UwWvy  v. 

3  Coins.,  !), 

N.  v.,  1849. 

Muyiianl,  Kx  parto, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1).  C,  l.s.57, 

478. 

^EPMJ^il:  i..  . 

Muyur,  itc,  N.  V.,  Uanaora  v. 

MS.. 

N.  Y..  185(5. 

11                                      y^              11 

2:t  Mow.,  4H7, 

Sup.  (.'1,.,  1859 

240. 

i<J^mllTrsWK^M 

Moo.  Marshall  v. 

MS.  (App.  Ca, 

1).  C.,  1853. 

^SOisMjWMSM 

Mi'llii^  ''■  Sil^^lii''', 

4  Mason,   lO.S, 

Ma.-'s,,  1825, 

92,  338,  445,  650. 

^li^zNlsmi  mTttS 

MeiR'k,  rartriilgo  v. 

2  Sand.  »'h.,  '!22, 

N.  Y.,  1840. 

*^'C?«S^ 

^nHLA^Llr^^H^^A^^XA^H 

s."*    *W.^      '    (•  ,„ 

»                     "           V. 

2  Ilail).  Ch.,  101, 

1817. 

1/     jNC^ 

II                              11                ,;, 

How.  App  Cas.,  r),|7 

,      "        1818. 

%4J^ 

*5*'**'v 

MorivT,  Rniilli  ?'. 
MiTcliMiit,  I'VtridKO  v. 
MiM'ciliih,  Mi'DowuU  I'. 

4  \V    li  .lour     11) 

Pa    1810 

j'^^LLl^ 

maiUmiKC.  ■"  • 

4   Mil)    I'r    150 

N.  Y.,  1857. 

4  Whart.,  3 11, 

Pa,,    1839. 

Sjf'^^Xi 

%|ifkyy^| 

Mi'rri:im,  Klttlo  v. 

2  Curt,,  475, 

Mass.,  1845. 

^■'^^^Ha 

-Jsi^wr* 

» 

Morrill,  Orr  v. 

1  Wood,  .t  Mill.,  37C 

,  Me.,  1810. 

'^'■"^'^^b^^^TBM 

MorrilicM  r.  Jones, 

2  Curt,  300, 

Mass.,  1855, 

206. 

Menim'k  Miinnf.  Co.  I'.  Garner,  4  K.  D.  Siiiitli,  387, 

N.  Y.,  1855, 

116,  273,  411 

%,u.  i^^^PIBBM 

Meyons,  ''uttiiif,'  v. 

4  Wash.,  220, 

Pa.,  1818. 

■'        Kilummls  v. 

1(!  III.,  207, 

111.,  1854. 

^  "  '^<>^^'^4J  ^aif    '^HRHHH 

"        lliitchinaon  v. 

MS.  (A]ip.  (las.). 

1).  C„  1801. 

fe;^i^^Affl|Jfri/  ,'  ■  Ji^^^M 

"        V.  Tumor, 

17  111.,  17'J, 

Ill,  1855, 

204. 

'  ^^^^^srIbI 

MiiMloscx  Co.,  Wliipplo  v. 

MS., 

Mass,,  1859. 

Miller  )'.  McKlroy, 

1  Am.  Ti.Rcg.,  198, 

Pa.,  18;i9, 

211,  358,  377. 

VibiM^^i^'linii^^SHHH 

Millolt  i:  Snowdcn, 

Mini's  Assinnco  v.  Ailams, 

1  W.  L.  Jour.,  240, 
3  AVall.,  Jr., 

N.  Y.,  184.3, 
Pa,,  1801, 

103,  359,  410,  58.3,  611 
128,  017. 

/Mw  iN 

Mitchell  V.  Barclay, 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1800, 

281,  387,  395,464. 

«*jJ^KjLj' 

"        RicklcH  V. 
Mix  )'.  Perkins, 

3  niatchn,  548, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

"       1857. 
D,  C,  1859, 

3;iW!»r!A    l^V, 

95. 

^^^NiH'ffff^ 

Mixter,  (iorham  v. 

1  Am.  L.  Jour.,  543, 

Mass.,  181,9. 

Monk  V.  Harper, 

3Kdw.  Ch..  109, 

N.  Y.,  1837, 

103,  221,  202. 

j4  of^ /WC^^sOBBBII^Bl 

Moody  V.  Fisko, 

2  Ma.son,  112, 

Ma.ss,,  1820, 

105,  181,  187,  502,  521, 

520,  63.' 

/Wj^|gf~Wby^^TTi^ff^^^^ 

Mooro,  Comstock  v. 

18  How.  !'r.,  421, 

N.  Y.,  18C0. 

"""j^ijVL  i  [  ^i^^w**  f"M|i'^EM 

"       Foster  v. 

1  Curt.,  279, 

Ma.ss.,  1852. 

^sSSSriiiiiffl 

"       Jtidson  V. 

MS., 

Ohio.  1800. 

Moroy,  Case  v. 

1  N.  Ilamp.,  347, 

N,  II.,  1818. 

^'^^h!3^KmsjO 

Moffitt  V.  (Jarr, 

MS., 

Ohio,  1800, 

108,  501,  530,  616,  625 

663. 

Morrill  ?'.  WorthingtoD.. 

14  Mass.,  389, 

Mass.,  1817, 

104,  052. 

W'Un^V-B^L      1^^^ 

.      ^i^^J 

mi^^w^ 

Morris  v.  liarrett, 

MS,, 

Ohio,  1858, 

108,  318,  440,487,603, 

524,  575 

1   1^ 

"      V.  JIuutiagton, 

1  I'aino,  348, 

N.  Y.,  1824, 

92,  97,  415,  456,  507, 
650,  653,  693, 

590,  012. 

jfcujJL     i     W 

iy|^i0ii 

Mcrso,  Bain  v. 

MS.  (App.  Ca?.), 

T).  C,  1849. 

•!WBf^g|OTj 

^'      ^^^'^^'-* 

"     V.  O'RcUly, 

6  Pa.  L.  Jour.,  501. 

Pa.,  1848, 

122. 

' "  -'-i^^Sd 

^h^y^y^^ 

"      V.        " 
"     O'Roilly,  V. 

MS,, 

16  How.,  62, 

D.  C,  1849, 
Sup.Ct,  1853 

380,  396. 

Sif^^ 

fciJ^W."   '^~  "^^   v«'  *^    V- 

Morton's  Case, 

8  Opin.,  269, 

1856. 

'  152,  481,  600,  530,  594 

"  '-Sf ijfcj^ 

■  ^V**^*  ^  ,  ta^    "-^   *-^    \*  ^ 

"        IIowo  V. 

MS., 

Mass.,  1859. 

4          ■    ■ 

>iw*w*4 

Mowry  v.  Barber, 

MS.  (App.  Cos.), 

D.  C,  1858, 

98,  153,  607. 

%rfLJ  j 

"^^'<^^^||^ 

■L;  i               rvW 

iiiiiUTT/ 

- 

%|^^g 

"tQS^w 

'tjWuWww.,. 

^L  ^^^' ^BrB^L, 

I  ww«-3w~;-—  i 

4(1 


TAHLK  OF  TASKS,  A. 


ii 


I. LI 


IX    Al.l'll  VIIMh'M,   (lUUKIt,  WITH    URrKKKNCKH    ID    l'Aiil.;i    VV  lli:lll   rOUNa 


NfoviT,  PUon  r. 
Miillikrii  i:  liiitcliom, 
MiiriMiiii,  l'!x  iiarlo, 
Miir|ihy,  ('lirlHty  v, 
Miirry,  llull  v. 
Miixi'iin  Kiiir  Cu.  v.  Amor. 

Iliiir  Co. 
Mycra,  ItcilxTt*  v. 

"      V.  'riiriiiT, 


4  Wimli ,  rt«, 
7  llla.kr.,  i:i(l, 
MS.  (.\|i|..  CiiM.), 
12  How.  I'r,  77, 
lU  runii.,  Ill, 

i  4  lllulohf., 
1.1  Mo.  r,.  Hep 

n  n.,  170, 


190, 


Pa,  1921. 
IikI.,  IHtl, 

I>.  «'.,   lHf.ll, 

N.  Y..  l.SMJ. 
I'll.,  I.'^IM. 

N.  Y.,  185H, 

MiiHH.,  IHGU. 
111.,  1HS5, 


203. 
UO. 


30S. 
204. 


N. 


Nat.  nk.  Nolo  Co.,  Tupimn  v.    MS.,  N.  Y.,  18(11. 

Nut.  .St.  (limm'Co.,  I'lirloy  v.    M.S.  (App.  Coh.),  P.  ('.,  I^jO. 

NcjriiK,  Hli«M  I'.  8  MiiMM, '10,  MaHH..  IHll. 

N.'smitli  r.  Calvort,  1  W 1.  A-  Miri.,  Ml,  Masn.,  1H.|5, 

Ncviimr.  .lohtiMon,  :i  lllaicjif.,  80,  N.  Y.,  1h5:I, 

Nfwall,  (lallitiK  ('.  !»  I  ml.,  572,  Iii'l.,  1H57. 

Ni-wnrklml.  Kill.,  (lo.,  Pay  r.    1  IllalohC,  0'J8,  N.  Y.,  IM.'.O. 

N.w Casllo  A  Fr.  T...  U.  H,  )  (.j,,,^,     ,„,„^.,,f   o-.M,  M.I.,  1.S50. 

\\  inaiis  r.  |  i        i         i 

N.  E.  (Jar  Spg.  Co.,  riinlToo  v.  MS..  N.  Y.,  I85.t. 
"                Dayt'.        3  Ulatclif.,  164,  179,      "       l.H.Vl. 
"               V.  Union 
Pub.  Co., 

MS.  (App.  Cos.), 


K..1,  221,  2<'.l,  2(i7,  29:i,  0:tO. 
101,  107,  22«,  200,  3S0,  (iii7. 


4  lilatchf., 


[  M.S., 

21  How.,  88. 
^4Hiatolif., 


MS., 


N.  l'!.  .StTi'W  Co.  r.  Sloan, 

Ni'wiiiaii.  K.x  parto, 

N.  \'.  .fe  Itik.  IJrass  Co.,  VTa 

tiM-ljiirv  liniss  Co.  r. 
N.  Y.  \.'K.  U.  H.,  WinatiH  1', 
N.  Y.  ().  P.  Comb  Co.,  I'op- 

pcnliuiiHcn  V. 
N.  Y.  (1.  I'.  Comb  Co.,  Pop- 

pciihouwii  V. 

XT  IT  •.  rr      I.  T>    -ii'-  (  31  .Tour.  Fr.  Inst.,  | 

N.  Y.  &  liar.  R.  U.,  ^\  mans  v.  j      ,,.,„  ^.„,  j^^,^ ,_       } 

Nowton's  Cnne,  2  Opin.,  571, 

Nichols  V.  llarri.'*,  MS.  (Ajip.  Cuh.), 

"      V.  RiigKlL'fl,  3  I'iiy,  II 5, 

Noali,  Snowileu  r.  1  liojik.  Cii.,  347, 

Norlli  V.  .loiit'S,  4  Itlatchf., 

Norton,  Ciflioro  v.  MS., 
Norw.  fi  Wor.  U.  tt.,  Imlajr  v.  MS., 

Noiir.sf's  Ca.><i',  1  Opin.,  575, 

Nour.-ic*  r.  Allen,  MS., 

Nyo  I'.  Itaymoud,  10  111.,  153, 

Nymuu's  Case,  3  Opin.,  440, 

o. 

OakvilloPinCo.,  Amor.Co.r.  j  ?]  ™^,'*  j/'j;^""'  j-ja}  Ct.,  1854, 


"   1857, 

407. 

I).  C,  185:1, 

M.I,  145,  207, 

300,  420 

"   1H5',I, 

490. 

N.  Y.,  1858. 

Slip.  Ct.,  1858 

N.  Y.,  1858. 

"   1858. 

"   1855. 

isrtit. 

144. 

]).  C.,  1H54, 

2H!),  299,  07  1. 

Cl.,  l.so.s, 

120,  212,  :i57, 

41.'-.,  030. 

N.  Y.,  1825. 

"   1857, 

11.1,  380,394. 

"   185.1. 

Ct.,  1858. 

1822, 

149,  .1(51. 

N.  Y.,  1858, 

208,  270. 

111.,  1854, 

20.1, 

, 

1839, 

117,319. 

Odiorno  r.  Amcsbii.  Nnil  Fno.,  2  Mason.,  28, 
Troy  Iron  &  Nail  Fac.y.  17  How.,  72, 


"      V.  Wiiikloy, 

Carlo  V.  Ege, 
O'llara,  Ex  pnrto, 

"        V.  Ilawos, 
Olcott  V.  TIawkin.s, 
Oliver,  Ilotchkiss  v. 
O'Xii'l,  Burlew  v. 
O'Reilly,  Morse  v. 

"  V.       " 


2  Gall.,  61, 


Ma.-s.,  1819,  279,  C07 
Snp.Ct.,  1851. 
Mas.s.,  1811, 


4  Wash.,  584,      Pa..  1820, 
MS.  (App.  Ca.s.),    1).  C,  1800, 

"      "         "  1859, 
2  Am.  L.  Jonr.,  319,  Wis.,  1849, 

5  Iienio,  314,      N.  Y.,  1848. 
MS.  (App.  Cas.),    D.  C,  1853. 


6  Pa.  L.  Jour.,  501, 

MS., 

16  How.,  62, 


Pa.,  1848. 
D.  C,  1849. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853, 


180,  281,  298,  .149,  355,  3G1,  4J0, 

411,  455,  507,  625. 

100,  111,  159,  207,  389,  G53. 

154. 

2S9,  028,  674. 

106,  317,  471. 


152,  249,  250,  258,  200,  330,  .11,^ 
351,  350,  422,  419,  485,  505,  .108, 
629,541,594,  015,  017,  019,034, 
059,  G03,  G09,  G72,  681. 


O'Reilly  ,..  Hi 
Urr,  Kx  part.' 

"     1',   Jllnl(^(T, 

"    r.  f,itt|..||i 

"   '■.  .M.'rrill, 

"    Itaililx.iio 

UvL'Moor*  of  I 


I'ac.  ^rnll  .S.  & 

l'a;fi',  Kiirlo  V. 

"     V.  Forry, 


"     »'.  fJoorif 

"     I'hillipH , 

r.iino,  Vaiinoni 

Paliiior  (',  Alltin 

'        I'avis  V. 

"       Sono  u. 

I'ark  I'.  I.itllo, 

I'arkor  t'.  Itaink 

"      V.  Urant, 

"      t'.  Uijflor, 

"     ,r.  Corl.iii 

"     'v.  Ferj^ii. 

"      «'.  Mall(K' 

"      t'.  Hatllol 

"      V.  Jfawoi 

"      V.  Hiilmo 


V.  Perkin 
Porry  r. 
V.  Si>ar.s, 


"      WoodcocI 

rarklmrst,  Cundc 

"  V.  Kin 


Kmsm 
Parsons  v.  Uarnar 

"       Sanders 

Partridge  v.  Menc 

"  V.        " 

"  V.        " 

.'atton.  Blunt  v. 

''      Hudson  V. 

"      Sloat  V. 
*<  ii 

V. 

Ponrco,  Smith  v. 
Peek  V.  Bacon, 

"  V.  Parrington 
Pcudloton,  Van  II( 


|?*t 


TAlir.r.  OF  TASKS,  A. 


IM  Ai.i>ii.\u»:riuAt.  ()itti»:it,  with  iiKrGiiK.vcKit  to  v.\ovm  wukhm  roi'Ni). 


•r^i 


Cnclllv  •'.  f rnlth, 

Ma.  (App.  Cm^  ), 

P.  C,  UM, 

2H0,  208,  418. 

Orr.  1 

;\  piirli', 

tt                          M 

"      iH.Mt, 

475. 

"   f. 

llikilKi'i*, 

7  I.IIW  n>\>.  I1J5 

MilM*.,    1M4I, 

,T,MI,  401,  514,  02.1. 

"   I'. 

liitlli'lli'lil, 

1  WiHiil.  ,V  Mill., 

in. 

N'.   11,    IHJ.V 

:im:i,  :too,  ;i',mi,  4oa. 

"    r, 

M.-rrlll, 

I       1. 

:i7"1,Mm..  ihhi. 

271,  aau,  380,  4U2. 

"    It 

itililiono  V. 

6  Mi-IiKiin,  131, 

Midi.,   IH.'iO. 

UvirHoera  of  Poor,  Jonlnn  i'. 

4  Ultlo,  'iU  i. 

I» 

Uhlo,  IHItl. 

PllC. 

^fiiii  a.  a.  Co.,  aickios  r. 

4  TUfttohf , 

• 

N'.  v..  1  S.-.7. 

Vtw, 

Karlo  t'. 

6  N.  liump.,  77, 

N.  II.,  |h;h. 

II 

V.  Forry, 

MS., 

Mluh.,  IHil, 

2^0,  277,  .m,  n51,300, 
4:1 1,  4:i'.»,  4H7.  501,613, 
6ti:i,  035,  082. 

372, 
610, 

417, 

520, 

• 

11 

r.  (icorKia, 

Ma., 

N.Y.,  mo, 

5u:i. 

II 

I'liilliim  V. 

24  How.,  150. 

iSiip.ct..  iHt;o 

r.vinn 

,  Viiniiai)i  V. 

1  IIitrriiiK.,  <ll>, 

lU'l.,  I8;ij. 

IVilmor  ('.  Alliin, 

MS., 

N.  Y,,18.'.4, 

584,  075. 

1 

DiivU  V. 

a  llr.M'k.,  20S, 

Vii.,  I.s:i7. 

II 

Hono  V, 

28  Mi».,  5:11), 

Ml..,  18.-.!). 

['Mik 

V.  Mtllc, 

n  WiiMli..  IIM), 

P.I..  lHi;i, 

10.".,  307,  333,  340,  370, 

4.V1, 

031. 

I'lirkiT  1'.  liiimkor, 

<i  McLean,  '!:!!, 

Ohio,   1 «.'.'), 

llt7.  23.S, 

II 

1'.  Hraiit, 

MS., 

Ph.,  IH.MI, 

2<;il,  302, 

II 

V.  HIk'Ut, 

MS.. 

"      18.'i7, 

207,  210,  205. 

II 

V.  ('orliiii, 

4  McLi-an,  402, 

Ojiio,  IHI.S, 

220,  234, 

II 

r.  FiTt^iiHon, 

1  lllat.-lir.,  107, 

N.  Y.,  I.Hi:i, 

30s, 

11 

t'.  llitlliK'k, 

MS., 

P:l.,  18.-),S, 

lo.s,  ICO. 

11 

r.  Ilutllolil, 

4  Mi'Li'iiii,  01, 

OIlio,   1815, 

320,  403. 

It 

V.  Huwortli, 

4      "       :ivo. 

111.,   IHl.S, 

1  •!,-.,  l.SM,  207,  20.''.,  341, 
584,  :>HH,  (MS.  (l.'i.s. 

3C0 

674, 

11 

V.  Ilulmo, 

7  W.  li.  Jour,  417, 

Ptt.,  1840, 

220,  2:14.  30,-.,  3C.2,  410 

421 

442, 

471,  518,  574,  503,508 

II 

1'.  PorkiuH, 

MS.. 

"      1818. 

234. 

II 

Porry  v. 

1  Wooil.  A      ill.. 

281 

,  MiiHH.,  18IG. 

11 

V.  Sourrt, 

MS., 

Pft.,  1850, 

132,  248,  272,  384,385 
405,  522,  520.  574. 

392 

400, 

V.  Stilos, 


"  'Woodcock  V. 
ParUhurst,  Cundoll  v. 

"  1',  Kinsman, 

11  y^          a 

"  V.           " 

"  V.           " 

"  V.           " 


"  Kinsman  v. 

Parsons  v.  Barnard, 

"       Sanders  v. 
I'artridgo  t'.  Menck, 

"  V.        " 

"  V.        " 

?atton,  Blunt  v. 

''      IIud.son  V. 

"      Sloat  V. 

"  "     V. 

Ponrco,  Smith  v. 
l\'(.'k  V.  Bacon, 

"  V.  Parrikigton, 
Pcudloton,  Van  Hook  v. 


5  Mufjoan,  44, 


Ohio,  1849, 


1  (iall.,  438, 
MS,  (App.  Cas), 

2  Ilalst.  Ch.,  000, 


Mnos.,  1813. 
]».(;,,  1847. 
N.  J.,  1847, 
(2Blutc.hf.,72;8N.  )^  y    ,„,„ 
I  Y.  L.  Ol.M.,  75,  70,  p^-*"  ^^'^^' 
2  Blatchf.,  70,  "       1818, 

2        "         78,    •  "       1848, 

1        "         488,  "       1840, 


18  now.,  289, 
7  Ji.hn,  141, 
MS,  (App,  Cas.), 
2  Sand,  ('h.,  022, 
2  Uarb.  Cli..  101, 
How.  Ajip.  Cas.,  5 
2  Paine,  303, 

1  Hoot,  133, 

4  W,  L,  Jour.,  49 
24  Jour.  Fr.  Inst, 
(3d  Sor.), 

2  McLean,  170, 
18  Conn.,  377, 
9  AVcnd.,  44, 

1  Blutchf.,  187, 


Rup.Ct.,  1855. 
N.  v.,  1810, 
1).  C,  1859. 
N.  Y.,  1840, 
"       1847, 
17,     "       1848, 
"       1828. 
Ct,  1789. 
,     Pa.,  1840. 
25, 

"    1852. 
Ohio,  1840. 
Ct.,  1847, 
N.  Y.,  1832, 
"       1846. 


100,  132,  IHO,  214,250,283,303, 
301,  3().S,  317.  1IH,  450,472,  400, 
611,  618,  620,528,574,  598,008, 
034. 


225,  229. 

122,  209. 

173. 

300,  401. 

94,    100,  102,  121,  107,  280,301, 

314,  335,  302,  421,  125,  433,  443, 

44.8,  453,  470  407,598,  020. 


228,  052. 

374, 

410,  087. 

100,  272,  374,  683,  088. 


i^'r«.;i 


=^^;?»" 


v;^s 


fl«»««. 


■in***- 


1'!WW>'i.^..- -1 


Br"l 


106. 

200,  200,  294,  051. 


S«w 


'WWw^-... 


ri'tiilli'toti  Van  Hook   t>. 

I't'luliT,    V,\   |Mllll', 

ri'iiiK'l,  KlmiT  i: 
i'viiitut'k  n.  Dialii^uo, 


Ml\  I'. 
"        I'lirkiT  V, 
Perry  r,  CJoriioll, 


TAHLK  OV  CASKS,  A. 


I.**  AI.I'lUiiimOAI.  ORUKR,  WITH    HRIRUKM-KH  TO  PAIIKS  WIIKKK  rolNIt, 


3  ninMif.  NA, 
MS  (App  t'liM), 
•lu  Miiliii',  t:iu, 

4  WiMh.,  038, 

a  Tot.,  1, 

I  Opln.,  fli. 
MS.  (A|>i>.  CaR.), 

as, 

Wh!'(App.  Cnn.), 


"      t'.  Parker, 
PffrTM,  Wliraloii  r. 
IVU'rnou  r.  llimijilirey, 

"        r.  WtiiMicn, 
I'cttllioiio  r.  Pi'iriinfuf, 
Plinlnn,  Uiirnott  v, 

V. 
"  "         V. 

riidiiH  V.  (;<miHfo(.'lc, 

riu'lpn  r.  Mayor,  IQ  How.,  100, 

"      TfOHo  i\  I  McAlliH.,  17, 

''     1)0.1^.- 1  Co.  1'.  Brown  )  ,«  i|,.^v.  Pr,  7, 

Pliil.  A  Tr.  11.  U.  )'.  SlimpHon,  1 1  Pot.,  418, 


N.  Y.,  mm. 

I).  «!..  iMtll,       2:.ft,  47ft. 

Ml'.,  IHAA. 

Ph.,  iH'Jtt,  M,  |S2,  son,  20.1.  :iOI,  .11.1,  .i;i.1, 

:i:iM,  .110,  lift,  47H,  r»i»ii,  coh,  «jno. 

Blip.  Ct.,  1820,  lia,  117,  I4!l,  17.-1,    Hh,  'jfi,  213, 

:ii.i,  tftft,  (io:i,  U17,  i;5(,  u&i. 
i7'.Mi,  cai. 

l». «!.,  iH.ia. 

Pa.,  1H4M. 

It,  C,  IHI7,      1.1H,  11.1,  I4ft,  ini,  'Ji  J,  2HH,  200, 

:io(i,  III)..,  M-i,  :i:i'.»,  4jr»,  40:1,  o»i.'., 
«7;i. 
1  Wood.  A  Mill.,  2H1,  MiiNH.,  lH4n,     3ho. 
8  Pot.,  601,  Sup.  Ot.,  ih:j», 

4  Al.l..  I'r,  .-lOl,         N.  v.,  IM.-.7,     37n,  414. 
3  M.'l,.'iiri.  2IH,  Uhi..,  |H|3,       .151,  627,  r.«7,  071. 

.1  Wash,  215,  Pa.,  1H|M,  l;io,  2«5,  2U0,  203,  ;!04,  405,  631 

12  M...  I,.  U.p.,  220,  N.  Y.,  IH.-.O. 
10  Mow.  I'r.,  r.:i(),  "       18(10. 

21       "       "     100,  "       IHtll. 

hiM.,  IHH,        324,  087. 

N.  Y.,  IH5.1. 


4  MiLuan,  35;t, 


Slip.  Ct..  1852,  175, 
Cal,,  1855. 

N.  Y„  1H59,     nn,  24(1,  340,  002,  0C.1. 


Hiip.Ct.,  1810,  2.**2,  284,  201,  203,  200,305,  31*; 

:iti,  5i:t,  (ii.s,  (i2:i. 

MS.,  Olilo,  1858. 

4  M<-r,fim,  5'_'',  Iiiil.,  I.MIO,        niT. 

21  Mow.,  15lt,  Slip.  Ct.,  iHfJO,  ;t|(i,  355,  42.1,  603. 

M.S.  (A pp.  (Jmh.i  1>.  C.,  l.Miil. 

2  Wdod.  k  Mill.,  :!3,  Mmhh.,  18  Id,      103.  120,  101,  211,  214,  221,  37: 

0I1,(!I2. 

riorsoii  V.  Kaglo  Screw  Co.,     3  Story,  402,  R.  F.,  1844,      01,  2.12,  570,  607,  072,  073. 

3  Illutdif.,  220,  N.  Y.,  1S51,     01,  2.15,  'J-^o,  2s:i.  2h|,  :!(I|,  IIO 

4l:i,   118,   1(12,  520,  COO,  081, 

.1  Blftlfhf.,  201,  "      1854,  107,  Ki.H,  :;j-.,  .|,-.:i,  .i;»7. 

15  Hurl..  .S.  C.,  .110,         "       lK5:t,  118,  l'>:,,  H\H,  215,   102,  408. 

C  Mcl.i'aii,  558,  111.,  1855,  180,  .L'.l,  ;i50,  54:1. 

2  Story,  000,  Mo,,  1843.  100,  10.5,  178,  182,  188,502,501, 

610,  543,  580,  680.008,  001,  G70. 

4  "W.  L.  Jour.,  40,  Pn.,  1840. 
M.S.  (A pp.  Van.),  I).  C..  1842,  MO,  138,  150,  059,  000. 


PlillllpH,  Boll  V. 

"        V.  Ci)inl)Htock, 

"  V.   PllR"', 

Pierce,  Sliowcleii,  r, 
l'ier|nmt  ('.  Foulo, 


PittH  V.  Hull, 

"  V.     " 

"  V.  .Tainoson, 

"  I'.  Woinpio, 

"  V.  Whitman, 


Plynipton,  Sloat  v. 
Pomoroy  v.  ConniHon, 
Poinl,  Stiiiii)Hon  V. 
I'oppc'iiiiuii.sen  V.  Falko, 


2  Curt.,  502, 
MS.. 


Popppuhouaon  v.  N.  Y.  0.  T.  }  x,a 

Cmil.  Pn  f  M»., 


MasH.,  1855. 
N.  Y.,  ISO  I,  1 15,  120,  217,  219,  38*!,  650,  017, 
022. 

"  May,  1858,  210,  2;i9,  240,  .110,  31.5,  318,  :iT.1, 
381,  30.5,  4J5,  615,  6-10,  660,001, 
035. 


Coiiil)  Co., 
Portor,  Vaiiffliani  v. 
Potter,  Arnold  v. 
'•      V.  Holland, 


"     V.  WiLson, 
Pottle  t'.  Thomas, 
Powers,  Webb  v. 
Pratt,  Bull  V. 
Prentiss  v.  Kllaworth, 

"       St.  Joha  V. 


"  July,  1859,  172,  409. 

Vt,  l.'^41. 

D.  C,  1800. 

Ct.,  1858,  113,  157,  18,5,  193,  252,  .110,  352, 

387,  30.5,  403,  513,  6I(!,  500,  50i. 
015,  018,  025,003,  070. 

N.  Y.,  1800,     451,  607. 

Ct.,  1838,  202. 

2  Wood,  .t  Min.,  497,  Mas.s.,  1847. 
1  Conn.,  342,  Ct.,  1815. 

Mir.  Put.  OU;,  35,       Pa.,  1840,         108,  224,  205,  CCG. 
MS.,  N.  v.,  1»53. 


10  Verm.,  200, 
MS.  (App.  Cu9.), 
MS., 


M.S., 

12  Conn,,  50.5, 


Vrinnlv,  Hi 
iToiity  r.  J 

"       V. 

"       V. 

Pultw  V.  Ik 
Putney,  till 

Qiiliiturd,  T 


ItailroiidH,  ri 
"        .s 

"         W 

It 

Itiiiikin,  Tynf 
Uhuhoiii,  r.  .\( 


Rnfhlwin"  c.  fl 
Haw.son,  I'.'x  p 
Hayrnoiid,  h, 
"        Ch., 
"        fJrai 
„      "        ^'.vo 
Rodlleid,  CasM 
"       Siiilivl 
lli'din^'ton,  Uii 
Hoed  v.  Cani.H 
"     V.  Ciittei 


DXt 


"    Van  N, 
IlfeveH,  |)(.|| 
K'Htoii,  Whipi 
Heiiifjeii  i:  Kai 

Rlieora,  Hollid 

"     V. 

Rico,  Carr  v. 

"        "     V. 

RIcJi  Byor  r. 

"    V.  /lotchkii 

V,  Lij)piuc(i 

Riclinr.is,  Kdwni 
"  <':i 

'ilOHO 

Riclinrdson,  I';at; 
i.'o..^ 

"iiipr,  Calioon.  V. 
liitter  V.  .Sprivll 
^"■"■k  Hatha wa 
lloljort.s  )'.  Myer, 

"         V.  W..nl, 
ii'il'ort.son,  Kllith 

nn;'crs»-.  Abbott, 

I'Vorici],  r. 

«'.  Jeuc'tt, 


"z^^ 


iiKfi4 


TAUM'.  OF  CASKS,  A. 


4U 


IN  ALrMARmrKMr.  oromi,  with  uitkukncu  tu  i'aukm  wiikiik  rt>i'Ni>. 


Prlniflo,  f«'lili'n  >•■ 

I'rutity  I'.  Uutr)(lu^ 

"      V,         " 


V. 


I'ultu  V.  Derby, 
Tutnoy,  Uui»  v. 

Quliiturtl,  Tliomnii  v. 


ItallroailH,  (iftrxlv'  iir  v. 

"  Htiiiipnon  V. 

"         Wilton      V. 

"  "  V, 

Hmikln,  Tynon  v. 
ItutiMuiii,  r.  Mnyur,  kc,  X. 


It  11  li 

Rntlihonn  v.  Orr, 

Ifiiw-iiiii,  V.x  imitf, 
UaytiKitKl,  l<.,  I')x  imrto, 

"        Cli.,         " 

"         (Iraiit  r. 

"         Nyo  V. 
Rodlk'lil,  Ciis"  »'. 

"       Sullivan  I'. 
IlciliiiL'tDM,  Wiiilerniuto  c 
UiM'd  c.  (^anisi, 
"    V.  Ciiltor, 

"    Van  NoHtrnnd  v. 
Ri't'ViH,  Del  mold  r. 
Ri'iiton,  "Wiiiiiiilo  J'. 
Ui'iitniMi  r.  Kaiiowrs, 

Rliccra,  Ilolliday  v. 

Uiec,  Carr  r. 

"        "     V. 
Rich  Dyer  t;. 

"    1'.  IIotchkiflH, 


17  Hurl..  R  C,  46H,  N.  V.,  ISB4. 

1  Htory,  6im,  Miuiii.,  1n4I,     1117,  S6l. 

10  I'ut.,  :i:tii.  Hup.  ci,  \nri,  im7,  6'ii. 

2  Hlcirv,  I'J'J,  Mann.,  IH12,     an,  2MI1, 

&  M«il.unn,  a'jH,  Ulilo,  iN&i,      01,  lUI,  120,  3U,  321,  470,  CIO, 


II  Mu.  L.  Itop.,   ;H7,  N.  II,,  180H. 


Ma. 


Y. 


6  Diicr.,  «0, 


2  Wull.,  Jr.,  nr.rt, 
1        "        nil, 

1  "  1!I2. 

2  Wiuir.  DIk.,  110, 
MS.  (A pp.  Can.), 
M.S., 


t'.    2.1  TTow.,  '1M7, 
r>  .MrLrail,  l.'ll, 
MS.  (.\pp.  (!uH.), 


0  Pot.,  21R, 

Ki  III..  ir.:i. 

4  MrLoaii,  fi'.'O, 

1  I'aliu',  -111, 
MS., 

H  l,a\v  Hop.,  410, 
1  Story,  &!)0, 

1  WVnd,  424, 
4  Aiti.  I,. .Idiir.,  188, 
MS.  (App.  Ca.s.), 
1  Wattli.,  IGH, 

10  IVnn.,  347, 

18     "        406, 

MS., 

4  liliit.'lif., 

1  Mile,  l.SO, 

10  (Niiiii.,  100, 


„        Ti     •       .»  (20  .Iipiir.  Kr.  Inst.,  ) 

"   «'•  Lil'P'"'--"".  j      3d  Sor.,  i:i,  f 


RieliMnlH,  Kdwanlfl  »'. 

"        (lilisnn  V. 
Ridmrdsoii,  KamcH  v. 

"  FoHH  v. 

"  r.  Hicks, 

RiiifT,  Cahoon,  V. 
Hitter  V.  Sorn.'ll, 
Uoacli,  Hathaway  v.     * 
Uok'rtrt  )'.  Myer."!, 

"         V.  Ward, 
Robertson,  Kliithorpe  v. 
"  "  V. 

Roftcrs  r.  Ahbott, 

"      Froiicii,  i: 

"     V.  Jcwull, 


"WriKht,  690, 

MS., 

MS.  (App.  Cn8.), 

1 1  Mo.  I-.  Hep.,  (!70, 
MS.  (App.  Caa), 
MS.. 

2  liliilehr.,  379, 

2  AVood.  .t  .Min.,  03, 

13  Mo.  L.  Hep.,  390, 

4  McLenn,  r»05, 

MS.  (App.  Caa.), 

MS., 

4  Wash.,  514, 

MS., 

12  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  339, 


N.  Y.,  1866. 


N.  J.,  IH.-iO. 
IV,  IHIT. 

"     IMH. 

"      181H. 
I),  v.,  1H.-.3. 
N.  Y.,  1H60, 


fliip.  nt„lH6f). 

Mii'li.,  IH.'iO, 

1).  0.,  iHiiO, 
"  IHOI, 
"       IHOI, 

Sup.  Ct.»  1832. 

111..  iH.'il. 

Iiid.,  1841). 

N.  v.,  1M25. 

Ohio,    IH.OO. 

Md.,  IHI6, 

MaHH.,  1841, 

N.  Y.,  1828. 
I'a.,  1861. 
I>.  C,  \h:,1. 
I'a.,  1H04, 

"     1851, 

"     1862. 

N.  Y.,  1860, 

"        186H, 

MasH.,  184U. 

Ct.,  1844, 

Pa.,  1863, 

Oliio,  1831. 
N.  Y.,  1845. 
D.  C,  1869. 
MasH.,  is.-io. 
1).  C,  18,'-.  I, 
Mo.,  1859. 
N.  Y.,  1862, 
Mas<.s.,  1810. 
"      1800, 

Mich.,  1849, 
D.  C,  1868. 
N.  Y.,  1859. 
Pa.,  1S2.'-., 
"     1861. 
Ma.«B.,  1858, 


9.1,90,  no,  210,  23R,  210,  305. 
:illO,  316,  422,  4J7,  1 1 1,  4 49,  4.'.4, 
4M0,  600,  6ir.,  618,  bU,  629,  642, 
UOO,  048,  049,  059. 

158,  103,  568. 

4!I0. 

119. 

141. 


173,  211,  187,  683,  042,  041. 
217,  249,  3;i'.t,  421,  446  005,059, 
083. 


230,  333,  338,  34.S,  402,  454,  400, 
670,  695,  030,  049. 
351,  360. 


121,  229,  279,  4C1, 

104,  303,  308,  440,  400,  474,  099, 

083. 


140,  292,  312,  674. 

103,  108,  600. 

104,  150,102,170,211,214,222, 
266,  010,  040. 

432,  471. 


207,  398. 
170,  081,  044. 


VW.. 


^v^v,^;^,, 


»»«^1 


AAi. 


'S 


,'fl 


iK'i 


TAni.K  OK  CABKfl,  A. 


IM  ALl'lluil  III 

VI,  uuiikit,  v^nil   lurt:!!!- SI)  1    i'l  I'AflM  WHIU  rOl'HUi 

1U)ffpni,  ^ilrii|w>in  c 

4  rtlntfhr, 

n.  iMft 

"      W'.iiHtworlU  V. 

3  W.hmI.  M,  MIn., 

l35,MiiM,,  IMIT, 

Iluul  t .  Hull, 

4  MoUmi,  117, 

Ulito,  iHMt,       07,  1  tn,  INM,  314,  347, 
OUJ,  bHU. 

341,  30-1, 

"    Jiihiimin  V, 

MS. 

MitM.,  IH40. 

ItiHiii'iiii,  WilMin  V. 

1  Hiuti'iir,  n, 

N.  V,  iHlft. 

"         V, 

4  How,  till), 

Hiip.Ct.  iHlft. 

IliiiixK,  K\  \mrtf, 

MS  (,Mi|.  «'ii»), 

1)  (!,  iNAi,    lan,  laa. 

UiuMurow  r.  lltiiitiiiKton, 

a  Smi.l.  H.  (!.  'ift'J,     N.  Y.,  I«li»,     im. 

ItiitfK  I'.  Iliiint'ii, 

M.S  (.\|i|>.  Ctu), 

I).  (.'.,  IHSS,      IH)«. 

liiiKKU'N,  NiolioU  V, 

U  iiiiy,  14ft, 

Cf..  IHOM, 

"        I'rotity  V. 

1  Kliiry,  BOH, 

Miinx,  IH41. 

•t            II      y_ 

10  ivt.,  3:m, 

Hull  I't ,  IH41 

l«                     ••          y. 

2  Hlory,  M>l», 
M.S.  (A|.|..  Can), 

MikXN,   IHI3. 

'*       r  Young, 

I).  C,  IHM,      11.1,  44§. 

nu«iioll,  (Irny  v. 

1  Xiory.  11, 

MiiKN.,  In:ii). 

U|uii  I'.  UiKHlwin, 

U  Huiiiii.,  61 1, 

"       lH:it»,      1.11,194,473,600,631, 

664,  cot, 

^ftiMIiT  I'.  If  MlNon, 
Ht.  .Iiilin  I'.  1  (>ritiMii, 
HiiliMlniry,  StijilieiiH  v. 
H.iiiiui'l  t'.  Ili'rt(ur, 
Huudurx,  Kx  purto, 

"      t'.  I'lirnonii, 
Sun(I.TH..ii,  IJ.  S.  Uoll  Ti-1 

Co.,  r. 
Bninlford,  Wilnon  v. 
HarKfUt  v.  (,'iirlur, 
"      t'.  I.nrncd, 

"         t'.  HlMjffUVO, 

Siivory  t'.  Louth, 
Htiwiii  V.  Uuild, 


n. 

ariirt,  fl,  M.>.,1«S4, 

MH.,  N.  v.,  iH.'il, 

MS  (App.  Cm),  II  C,  iMfift. 

•-'I  llarl..  H.  C,  lua,  N.  Y.,  lM5tl, 

MS  (App.  I'im.),  1).  C,  1801, 

(  Am  '{('K,  'ns,  J 

M.'-i  CiiH.),         I).  C,  \»M), 

I  3  Dimwiu.,  184,  N.  Y.,  H64. 

10  How.,  Of),  fiiip.Ct.,  1860. 

11  Mo.  I.  Ui'p.,  Cil,  Mima,  IB.VS, 
a  Curl.,  :uo,  "       lHr>.\ 

a   "    .'■..■..I,  11.  r.,  iH.'..'j, 

M.'^.  (App.  Cim.),        I).  (".,  18.-.1I, 


1  Uull.,  483, 


MllHM.,  1H13, 


U63. 


110,  itl,  320. 

ati7,  :<o:i,  647. 

273,  370,  413. 
141. 

lOS,  227,  240,  200,  387,  COt,  0715 
308. 


387,  473. 

101,  ]]!»,  337,  303,  3U8,  380,  6J1. 

:ii»;i,  coij. 

117,  1:20. 

106,  101),  313,  301,  370,  418,  571;. 

060. 


Sawyer,  Hurtholomow  »'. 

M.«<., 

N.  v.,  1869. 

"      KarUt  c. 

4  MaHon,  I, 

Manx.,  1823. 

S4'liti..tTroy  It.  It,  Wiriann 

V.  2  Dial. '111-.,  279, 

N.  v.,  1861. 

Sihiiyl.  Umik,  Kuinimh  c. 

4  WiiMJi.,  !), 

I'a.,  1820. 

"                    "        V. 

4       "       100, 

"     1821. 

Scliwcid'T,  Struvo  v. 

4  niutclif., 

N.  Y.,  18,17. 

Sootl.    ll.'illllO  1'. 

Gilpin,  48!), 

I'll.,  1h;i4. 

Hi'oviiii',  Wctiiioro  v. 

:i  I'Mw.  Ch.,  6ir., 

N.  Y.,  1H.»2. 

Scuddor,  Van  Hook  r. 

j  Cili'd    .'{    McLi'ini, 

/  i:tH;  :i  story,  1:12, 

1      "        1813. 

flen(fravc,  .''nrj^ont  v. 

2  Curt.,  O.')!!, 

U.  r.,  1866. 

Ht'iiriiitr.  IIdwo  V. 

1!)  How.  I'r,  U, 

N.  Y.,  18ti0. 

Mi'iir.f,  I'aikor  v. 

MS., 

I'a.,  1850. 

Sody'H  <'iiM(>, 

2  Opin.,  62. 

1H27, 

420, 

477 

Suolcy,  J'.'x  parte, 

MS.  (App.  CuH.), 

D.  0.,  1853, 

MO, 

152, 

18.5, 

200,  300,  312,  42(5 

4:i;t, 

490, 

496, 

674. 

II             «i 

II            11 

"       1800, 

003 

"     V.  IJonn, 

11            II 

"     1801, 

SI.-), 

007. 

Ren)crt'8  Cnso, 

1  Opin.,  050, 

1850, 

211, 

0.12. 

ScldcTi,  Kx  pnrto, 

MS.  (App.  ("as.), 

"      18fi|, 

137, 

610. 

"      r.  I'ringlo, 

17  Harl).  H.  C,  468 

N.  Y.,  1804, 

12U. 

"       .'Jiiiitli  r. 

1  Itlatdif.,  476, 

"       1849. 

ficnnctt.  Com.  lus.  Co.  v. 

37  I't'iin.,  205, 

Pa..  18C0. 

fet-rrfll  1'.  Collins, 

4  Uiutuhr., 

N.  Y.,  1857, 

239, 

310, 

395, 

467. 

"       V.          " 

MS., 

"       1H5H, 

616, 

618, 

666. 

"    Ciiiyon  V. 

1  lilatehf,  244, 

"       1817. 

"    Rittpr    V. 

2         "       370, 

"       1862. 

Boymour,  McCormiok  v 

MS., 

"       1860. 

Il»yin<mr 


m 

N 


^hnnjifHL 
>*'"«r,»  It7f 

Wliiivi-r,  II 
."•littw  V.  C 

HtoriMHti  (• 

"       S 

"     w 

•*'liflrwo«l  I 
Mhri'ovo  I'.  I 
Wiiiip*  i-,  j(, 


"      V. 

"  V  OJ. 

"  v.Mi 

"  f.  I'a 

"  •'.  Tl, 

"  .'.Till 

I 'ad 

-.  •'•  Vol 

"•"'iimri,  Hatfi 

JJil-lxo,  Mi.||,„ 
BiMiy,  ].•„„[„  , 

'•      , 
'•  II 


"    V.    » 

„.,  FootoL 

Silver,  Stri.«t  r\ 

SmipMoii,  Kx  ,,.[ 

V.  l.'ut 

"        V.  sul 

"        V.  U'.f 

;;  •'•  u-,is„J 

\\'il.»iOtl, 

..  "      t*.  Woo.iti 
S'zcr,  Many  ,,. 

"    V.        " 

^}nU>H,  .>fattlio^ 
■:<'■"',  S.  K.  s,.rl 
f^loat,  ( i rover  .fef 

m,'  M.u.J,.  (-0. 
Sloat  V.  I'attun 


f     .1  *'■  ^  '3'fn[)to| 
''""111,  Jl.  (!    i.\\ 

V.  Ltowniul 


TAIll.K  OK  CASKS,  A. 


ftl 


ALTNAMmCAl.  tiNDtll,  WITH  MrMKMOM  TO  fAIIM  WHUIM  rUUHD. 


•  r,. 


iMBKHir,  Mti^'onnlt'k  v. 

•  "  I'. 

li  ■•  y 

tt  y  II 

"  V,  " 

fhnniKm,  llrown  t'. 
Sliiir|i  Uillii  I'll,,  Hiiillh  V. 
Hliiivir,  llli'kii  i>. 

.HlillWf  I'.  ('UO|K)r, 


"i  lll.a.'hr,  340, 

:i  iii'.iti'hr,  aoii, 
III  How,  4N0, 

10  How,  w, 

'i»  I  low.,  fift, 

3  llliili'hr   b4A 
MM,  |A|i|)  Cita.), 
1  V»l.,  'JU-J, 


Hlwivvk,  UtU  V.  MR, 

Hlwriimii  II,  Cliiim.  Trana.  Co.,  Ill  Wmt,,  \(IX 


HIinrwiiiHl  I'. 

"        WlUnii  |.. 

"      Wooilwtirth  V, 
Slwrwimil  I'.  Mlii'rmim, 
ri|iri'i>\ii  I'   L'liitiMl  Hutoa, 
Siikli**  V.  Uurtloii, 


MS  (Aii|».  Can), 

1  lluktrlil'.,  t,M\, 

8  Si.iry.  171. 

MS.  (A|i|).  Cm.), 

MS., 

8  Dlatchr,  535, 

MS., 


N.  V,.  MM. 

"      Hai. 
"      l»A4. 
Hup.(;i.,  Iha:i, 
'•       JUftil, 
"       IH47. 
N.  v..  IMftT. 
I).  C,  IHtll. 
Hii|i.Ct.,  IN33 

Ohio,  I  Rao, 

Vt.,  IMftM, 
l>.  I!.,   IHtll). 

N.  v.,  IN50. 

MlkKM.,    IHU. 

IJ.  r.,   IHIIK, 

I't.nmK.,  IH.'iK, 
N.  Y.,  »H5«, 


.1  lUiiiflif.,  nis, 

4  UlatuUr, 
4       " 
4       " 


"  V  illoii.  Miiniir.  Co., 

••  V.  Miii'lioll, 

"  V.  I'.t.v  Mall  S.  a  Co., 

"  I',  'I'liii  I'ulla  Co., 

"  V.  Tillfiton, 

"  Wiiili. ,1  Mux. Rtonin  I  ,n  ,,  .,„ 

I'mk.  Co.,  V.  [10  How.,  410, 

t',  Viiun^N,  3  Itlati'lif,  'J0.1, 

Kllimnn,  Hatiin  v.  :i  Wiill.,  Jr., 

.SiUbi'i',  .Mi'liiiM  V.  4  MiiMiin,  lOH, 

WiUhy,  FiKitu  V.  I  lllutciil'.,  4 15, 

"       V.  1  "       fil'i, 

1  ••  045, 
a  "  2(10, 
14  How.,  'J  I  a, 


II 
II 
II 


"    V.    " 
"         Kooto  V. 
.^ilviT,  Street  V. 
Simpson,  Kx  piirto, 
"        V.  Lii'Mor, 

V.  Mu.l  lliv.  U.  U., 
"        V.  W'ilnoti, 
"        \Vil.soa  V. 
"  "      V. 

SlnRor  V,  Wiilmsioy, 
•'      Wli'korstmiii  v. 
"      V.  Wllnon, 
"      Wllnon,  V. 
"     1'.  Woo.stor, 
Si/rr.  Many  v. 

"   1'.      " 
.<kiiti'M,  Matthows  v. 
."^loan,  N.  K.  Sorovv  Co,  ?'. 
Sloat,  (IroviT  k  Itakor  Sow- 

iii:,'  Macli.  Co.  v. 
Sloat  f.  I'littou, 

••    V.       " 

"    V.  riymiiton, 
.''malhvood,  Iloan  »'. 
Smith,  II.  C.,  Kx  parte, 

"      11.  L., 

"     V.  iJowning, 


20  iiow.,  2'.»n,  :i7a, 

.H  lllatclir.,  f)07, 
UriKhllv,  W, 
MS.  (App.  Can,), 

3  WImr.  Dit',  111, 
I!  Mi'Loaii,  iii):i, 

4  How.,  701), 
MS., 

D  How.,  100, 

M.S, 

MH,  (App.  Chb.), 

MS., 

MS.  (Anp.  CoH.), 

4  llliiti'hl., 

MS., 

Hi  How.,  08, 

MS., 

MS.  (App.  Gas.), 

[  M3., 

4  W.  L.  Jour.  40, 
1  24  .lour.  Vt.  In.st., 
[      2.'.,  ;i«l  S(>r., 

4  \V.  1,.  .lour,  40, 

2  Story,  lll.S, 

MS.  (App.  Cos.), 
>i  11 

MS., 


93A,  337,  34l,«a.1,  Wi. 

•i\u,  n\,  0(0,  ttou. 


t)1,  on,  l-iM,  141,  301,  41)1,  44.\ 
161V,  4U0,  004,  1113,  dii,  1161,  u&a. 


100,  330,  AlU. 


307. 

I  OH, 

171, 

4r>i>, 
llil, 

101. 

:iHit, 
:i:ii, 
21!  I, 
&U8. 


"       1H37. 

N.  J..  iH.ld. 

N.  v.,  IH..7, 
"       lH.'i7, 
ex.,  IHill, 
N.  Y.,  IH37, 

Sup.  Ct.,  IN50, 

N.  Y..  IH.'.a,     303,  401,  073. 
I'll..  IHtll. 
MaNM..  IN25. 
N.  Y.,  IHU). 

"         iH.'iO 

"      ih:.o. 

"        IHOI. 
Biip.Ct.,  IH02, 


24(1,  :»J4,  601,  n07,  C!»3. 

2:iH,  253,310,  337,  3UH,  433, 

4H().  073,  004. 

172,  40H. 

277,  3(13,473,0011,  013,  07  J 

304,  1107. 

Oili). 

0U8,  073. 


i  i. 


>%*v 


M 


IH.-,,  240,  316,  405,  520,  022,  070, 
(I'.MI. 


1H57, 

251,  332,  070, 

504. 

N.  Y..  IH50. 

I'a..  iHlfi. 

l».  C.    IHtll, 

163,  154,  103. 

I'a.,  ISIH. 

220. 

Ohio,  IM.-,.-., 

107,  237,  310. 

.Slip.  Ct.,  IH45 

107,  323. 

La.,  IHIO. 

8il).(;t.,  IH40 

Mil.,  1H59, 

201,  6(15,  500, 

505. 

I).  C,  IH50, 

N.  v.,  1S5H, 

000. 

I).  C.,   |H(JO. 

N.  Y.,  IH57, 

380. 

MasH.,  IHIO. 

Sup.  Ct.,  IH5.1, 

134,  210,  007, 

090. 

Ala.,  18(10. 

I).  C,  18.J3. 

N.  Y.,  l.%0. 

Pa.,  181(1, 

172,  408. 

1    "     1852, 

30.1,  000. 

"     184G, 

058. 

Mas.*.,  1843. 

I).  C.,  I8(;0, 

423,  4.S0. 

"      18.13, 

254,  474. 

Muss.,  1850, 

155,  177,  180, 

27.'),  300,371,437, 

««*.• 

t^'^9^''^' 


m^ 


mm 


484,  611,  020,  540,  003,  034. 


,Ww«i^w 


■.»ii--^- 


62 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


Ilv 


''•OOIH." 


IN   ALl'UAUETICAL  OUDGII,  WITH   REr£tt£.\0£S  TU  TAOKS  WIIKRE  FOUND. 

Smith  V.  Ely, 

6  McLean,  7G, 

Ohio,  18»a, 

350,  505,  608,  528,  040,  588 
590,  592,  0J9,  071. 

63C 

ii      J.      i> 

15  riow.,  i:t7, 

Sup.  ct.,  1.S5; 

,  222,  347. 

"      r.  I'"lickcni?er, 

MS.  (,\pp.  Ca.M.), 

V.  c,  iHi;i, 

138,  143,  288,  418,  027. 

"       lliirdfHty  i: 

a  liid.,  J"J, 

Iml.,  1851. 

"       r.  Iligifing, 

M3., 

N.  Y.,  1H50, 

238,  309. 

It          ■■•               u 

(1 

"      1857, 

190,  239,  281,  a;!7,  361,139, 
601,512,  518,621,  539,  001, 

4 '57, 
020. 

"       V.          " 

It 

"       1859, 

240,  039 

(1      J.        II 

II 

"       1800, 

190. 

"      r.  Johnson, 

4  Blatrh';, 

"       18.^8, 

180,  379. 

"       r.  MiTPur, 

4  W.  I,.  Jour.,  49, 

Pn.,  18  JO, 

118,  252,  614,  018,625,602,060 

"      0'l{k'llyr, 

MS.  (Aj.p.  Can.), 

1).  C,  1853. 

"      i'.  i'ourco, 

2  McLean,  170, 

Ohio,  1840, 

180,  334,  350,  35.5,  361.  436,442 

46,5,  471,  499,  056,022. 

"      r.  ScMon, 

1  Blatchf.,  475, 

N.Y.,  1849, 

12.3. 

"      r.  Sharp  Uiflo  Co., 

8       "         5-15, 

Ct.,  1857, 

400. 

Sniithson,  Dalo  v. 

12    M,l).  T^r,  2;!7, 

N.  Y.,  I8C1. 

"        iStownrt  V. 

1  1  niton,  119, 

"       1850. 

Sijowden.  Millett  v. 

1  \V.  L,  Jour.,  210, 

1811. 

V.  Noah, 

1  iiopk.  ch.,  an. 

N.  Y.,  1825, 

347,  409,  494. 

"             V.   I'CL'CO, 

MS.  (A pp.  Cas.), 

I).  C,  1801, 

141,  149,  312.  418,  630,676. 

Bduo  r.  rainier, 

28  Mo.,  5:!!», 

Mo.,  1859, 

166. 

Bpnin  r.  (lainhjp, 

MS.  (.\pi:  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1855, 

277,  422. 

Sparkman  c.  iliggin.i. 

1  Blatclif.,  I'O-), 

N.  Y.,  184G, 

91,  144,  177,  301,  40/),  403, 
479,  005. 

442, 

"            V.          " 

2  Blntohf.,  29. 

"       1810, 

100,  114,  172,  371,  403. 

Sjicar  I'.  Abbott, 

M:'.  (.Vpp.  ('•us.), 

D.  C,  1859, 

130,  289,  419,  028. 

"      Amosk.  Mfg.  Co.  ]'. 

2  Sand.  S.  ('.,  590, 

N.  Y.,  18.19. 

"     r.  iHw.iTt, 

MS.  (.\i)p.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859, 

98,  147,  148,  020. 

Sponc'o,  Kiilil  V. 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1859. 

Spencer,  H.x  i)arto, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1>.  C,  1859, 

136,  140. 

8perry,  Dlako  r. 

2  N.  Y.  L.Obs.,  251 

,  Ct.,  1843. 

Sjjragne,  Kx  parte. 

MS.  (Ai)p.  Cas., 

D.  C,  1859, 

624. 

Allen  V. 

1  lilatehl'.,  5(i7, 

N.  Y.,  1850. 

''        Blauchnrd  v. 

:j  Sumn..  279, 

Mass.,  1838. 

II                 II 

(  3   Snmn.,    5;!5;    2 
}      Story,  Kil, 

!•      "       1839. 

"        Stono  V. 

1  Story,  270, 

R.  L,  18.(0. 

St.  John  r.  Prentiss, 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1853. 

StnalH,  Thompson  v. 

15  Wend.,  395, 

"       1836. 

Stanley  v.  Whipple, 

2  McLean,  35, 

Ohio,  1839, 

232,  279,  29.3,  308,  334,  466, 
527,  686,  590,  622. 

491, 

Slenrnos  r.  Barrett, 

1  Mason,  153, 

Mass.,  1810, 

227,  282,  338,  491,  654,  695 

V. 

1  I'iek.,  -143, 

"      1823, 

212,  279,  462,  507. 

"        V.  Davis, 

MS.  (.\  pp.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859, 

451. 

Stein  V.  Goddard, 

1  McAUis.,  82, 

Cal.,  1856, 

107,  112,  160. 

Stellman,  Day  i'. 

MS., 

Md.,  1859. 

f?tepliens  v.  Caldwell, 

MS., 

Mass.,  1860, 

585,  075. 

V.  Felt, 

2  Blatchf.,  37, 

N.  Y.,  1846, 

232,  492,  664. 

"        V.  Salisbury, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

7).  C,  1855, 

145,  216,  258,  306,  427,  487, 

512 

Stei)honson  r.  Hoyt, 

a                   it 

"      1854, 

145,  427. 

Stephens  v.  Cady, 

14  IIow.,  528, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1852, 

170,  174,  208,  313, 

Stevens    v.     " 

2  Curt.,  200, 

R.  L,  185-1, 

101. 

"         V.  Gladding, 

17  How.,  447, 

Sup.  Ct,  1854 

101, 170, 174,  221,  262,  313, 

057. 

102. 

641, 

II         ^._          11 

2  Curt.,  608, 

R.  L,  1 856, 

"         V.  Head, 

9  Verm.,  174, 

Vt,  1837, 

164,  202,  464,  652. 

"                         "        V. 

19  Wend.,  411, 

N.  Y.,  1838. 

"         ITovey  v. 

1  Wood.  &  Min.,  290 

,  Mass.,  184G. 

"       V. 

3             "            17, 

"       1846. 

Stewart  r>.  Smithson, 

1  Hilton,  119, 

N.  Y.,  1850, 

116,  376. 

Stiles,  Parker  v. 

5  McLean,  44, 

Ohio,  1849. 

Slixnp.sou  V.  Bait.  *  Siis.  R.  R 

,  10  How.,  329, 

Sup.Ct,  18,j0, 

189.  502,  696. 

"        V.  Brooks, 

3  Blatchf.,  456, 

N.  Y..  1850. 

219,  285. 

PUiL  &  Tr.  R.  R.  v. 

14  Pet,  44  j, 

Sup.Ct,18iO. 

Stiiiip.s( 


II 


Stokes  V 
StoUey, : 


Stono,  C] 

"       V. 

"  1'. 
"  W 
"       AV 

Story  V.  U 

"     V.  D 
Stowo  V.  '1 

Street  v.  Si 
Stron;,-,  lii^ 
Struvo  r.  S( 
Stuart,  Spei 
Stintevant  ; 
Sullivan's  C 
Siillivun,  Bv 
"        v.. 

Siiydam  v.  E 
Swan,  Barst 


Taggort,  Bat 

if  ■ 

Tnlcott,  McC\ 
Talmann,  Ma| 
5'atliam  v.  Lc 

"      Lo  rI 

"      V. 

u 

Tntham  v.  Lol 
"      V.  Lof 

"      ■"•       . 
Taylor,  Bakerl 

"      t;.  Car 

"       V. 
"       V. 

Teese  v.  Hunt| 
"     V.  Phelp 

The  Falls  Co.,  L 
ThoR^ashingAl 
Thistle,  Berg  i ' 

"  V.  U.  iL 
Thomas,  Ex  pa 
"  Pottle 
"  V.  Qui| 
"  Stowe 
"       ».  WeJ 


TAHLE  OF  OASES,  A. 


:,'.] 


IX   ALI'HAIIKTK'AL  OHDKll,  WITH   UKKKUKNCKM  Ti)   I'ACIKS  WllEIUS  FOUND. 


2  Tiirt.,  502, 
1  Wall,  ,lr.,  ICl, 
V.  IlonerH,  4  UlaU'lif., 

V.  West.  ChoH.  R.  II.,  4  How.,  ^80, 


SliuipHon  I'.  I'lmil, 

"        t'.  Tlio  llnilromlB, 


Btokcs  1'.  Lmidgrnir, 
Stolloy,  Itlooiner  v. 

"       Brooks  V. 

"       Wilaou  V, 

"  "     V. 

"  "     V, 

Stono,  Clayton  v. 

"      V.  Cailiin, 

"      1'.  Sprngii(>, 

"      Wooil\Torth  V. 

"      Wyeth  V. 
Story  V,  llolcombo, 

"      V.  Dcrliy, 
Stowo  V.  ThoiniiS, 

Stroot  V.  Silvpr, 
Slrtrng,  IliKK'i'S  "• 
Stnivo  I'.  Sehwodlor, 
Stuart,  Hpcar  i). 
Stiirtovuiit  )'.  Grecnougli, 
.Sullivan's  Oaso, 
Sullivau,  Byass  v. 
"        V.  lludflold, 

Suydatn  v.  Day, 
Swan,  Burstow  v. 


Tagport,  Battin  v. 
"  "     V. 

Tnlcott,  McComiick  v. 
Talmunu,  Mason  v. 
Tatham  v.  Lo  Hoy, 

"      Le  Eoy  v. 

"      V.      " 

"  "      V. 

Tatham  v.  Loring, 
"      V.  Lowber, 
"      V.       " 
Taylor,  Baker  v. 
"      V.  Carpenter, 
"       V.  " 

"      V.         " 

"        V.  " 

Tcese  v.  Huntington, 
"     V.  Phelps, 


17  Barb.,  S.  C,  C08, 

5  McLean,  l.")H, 

3  "        52:{, 

4  "       272, 
i         "        275, 

6  "        1, 

2  Paine,  :iH2, 

3  Mo.  I.,  llop.,  .ICO, 
1  yti.ry,  270, 

3  "      741), 

1  "      27:i, 

4  McLean,  300, 

4         "        IGO, 

2  Am.  Law  Reg.,  210, 

Brijrhtlv,  '.to, 
4  lilackY.,  182, 
4  Blatcbf., 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

it  it 

Opin.,(;ilp.'aKd.,lC8, 
21  How.  Pr.,  50, 

1  Paine,  441, 

2  Blatchf,  20, 
MS.  (App.  Caa.), 


Ma.ss.,  ISIjj, 
Pa.,  1847, 
Ct.,  ISiV.», 
Sup.  Ct.,  1845, 

N.Y.,  185.1, 
Ohio,  1850. 

"      1845. 

"      1847. 

"      1847. 

"     1849. 
N.Y.,  I8l!8. 

•'        1850, 
R.  I.,  1840, 
Ma.s8.,  1845. 

"       IS  10, 
Ohio,  1847, 

"     18 IG, 
Pa.,  1853, 

"     1840, 
Ind.,  18;!(!. 
N.  Y.,  1857, 
D.  C,  185U. 

"     1800, 
1818, 
N.  Y.,  1800. 

"  1825, 

"  184G, 
D.  C,  18G0. 


470,  584,  075. 

220,  2;i:!,  234,  493,  004. 

118,  119,  2t;9,  000. 

175,  192,  243,  3':i,  327,  V.fiS,  150, 

005,  013,  (!18,  023,  057,  0G2,  07  J. 

273,375,  084,  089. 


C84,  688. 
484,  554,  692. 


09,  104,  193,  210,  3C0,  41 1',  03", 

041. 

377. 

174,170,208,300,  47G,  010,  Oil. 

091. 

194,  350,  354,  447,  528,  597. 

214,  379,  G43. 

98,  MS,  G03. 
505,  012. 

130,  2G.3,  353,  379,  389,  398.495, 
504,  509,  513,  520,  G32,  05G. 
Ill,  159,  1G3,  402,  499,  587,  CC4. 


T. 


2  Wall ,  Jr.,  101, 
17  How.,  74, 
20   "   402, 

1  Blatchf.,  529, 
MS., 

14  How.,  150, 

2  Blatchf.,  474, 

22  How.,  132, 

5  N.  Y.  L.  Obs.,  207, 
2  Blatphf.,  49, 
4  Blatchf., 

2  Blatchf.,  82, 
11  Paige,  293, 

3  Storv,  458, 

2  Wood.  &  Min.,  1, 
2  Sand.  Ch.,  603, 

23  How.,  2, 

1  McAllia.,  17, 


Pa.,  1851. 
Sup  Ct.,  1854. 
"   1857. 
II.  I.,  1850. 
N.  Y.,  1849, 

Sup.  Ct,  1852. 
N.  Y.,  1852, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1859. 
Mass.,  1845, 
N.  Y.,  1847, 

"       1857, 

"       1848. 

"       1844, 
Ma.ss.,  1844, 

"       1840, 
N.  Y.,  184G, 
Sup.  Ct.,  1859, 
Cal.,  1855, 


The  Falls  Co.,  Sickles  v. 
Tlie  Washing  Mac.  Co.  v. 
Thistle,  Berg  v. 

"      V.  U.  States, 
Thomas,  E.x  parte, 

"       Pottle  V. 

"        V.  Quintard, 

"       Stowe  V. 

"       ».  Weeks, 


4  Blatchf. 
Earle,  .S  Wall .  Jr., 

MS.  (App.  Caa.), 
Dev.  Rep.,  130, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
12  Conn.,  565, 

5  Duer,  80, 

2  Amer.L.  Reg.,  210, 
2  Paine,  92, 


Ct.,  18G1. 
Pa.,  18G1, 
D.  C,  1800. 
Ct.Clms.,  1856, 
D.  C,  1860, 
Ct.,  1838. 
N.  Y.,  1855, 
Pa.,  1853. 
N.  Y.,  1827, 


128,  183,  244,  371,  45G,  489,  531 
592. 

230,  200,  270,  335,  43S,  456,  179 
552,  553. 

128,  157,  627. 

128,  158,  283,  618. 
102,  398. 

115,  129,  409,  687. 
115,129,  37'    no. 

116,  129. 

129,  272,  410,  683,  687. 
220,  345. 

110,  226,  261,  310,  337,  422,  A?A, 
449,  480,  515,  618,  520,  629,  035, 
681. 

164. 

114,  692. 
186. 

204,  281. 

379,  381,  389,  445,  453,  520,  680. 


^Ljy*^- . 


'^^: 


«!:^' 


ill 


% 


,iy*«.*^ 


*m 


9lb 


■-■- 1-- 


'^\^. 


<^^ 


ifi?35 


.^-i-1^' 


m 
•^4 


y^^wy 


jijT 


XVwi^WWv., 


W;^to»t--'^V. 


II 


I|Ih, 


if 


M 


«t 


TAIJLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


IN   AM'HAUKTU 

'\h   OltDKIl,   WITH    IIKPKIIK.VCKS   TO   PAdKS  WIIERK   FOUND. 

Tlioiiison  V.  WinclioHter, 

ir»  I'irk.,  2 It, 

Mass.,  1W37, 

100,  373,  481 

Tlioiiipsim  V.  Ilaifjlit, 

lU.S.I,..I.mr.,95,5G3,N.  V..  1H22, 

228,  59G,  G03 

V.  .StaalH, 

15  Wend.,  .IDS, 

"       183G, 

481,  499. 

Tliorno,  Joiic'H  v. 

1  N.  y.  L.  ( »1.H.,  408 

"       1843. 

ThiuTmcr,  Hill  v. 

]:i  Ind.,  .151, 

Ind,  185!). 

Tilliimii,  Mx  |)iirto, 

M.S.  (A PI).  Cus.), 

1).  C,  IHCO, 

625. 

TillcHoii.  Sicklos  V. 

4  Watc  d".. 

N.  v.,  1857. 

Todd,  HickiR'll  V. 

6  McLean,  230, 

Ohio,  1851. 

TKiiilinsoii  V.  Diitlol, 

M.S., 

N.  Y,,  1857, 

227,  229,  230, 

686. 

Toiijiiiii  /■.  N'at.  Hank  Noto  Co 

,  MS., 

"        1.8G1, 

395. 

Torrcy,  Tracy  v. 

2  lilatchf.,  275, 

"       1851. 

Tracy  r.  Torroy, 

2        "         275, 

"       1851, 

101,  335,350, 

367, 

397, 

538. 

Treuclwell  a.  liladon, 

4  Wash,  703, 

Pa.,  1827, 

93,  144,  248, 

279, 

29G, 

301,  3 

313,  44,5,  507, 

592, 

597, 

650 

"        V.  Fox, 

M.S.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1869, 

2G1,  476. 

Trfittcr,  Maroy  v. 

1.             It 

"      18(iO. 

Troylron&Nail  Fac.  v. Corning,  1  lUatclif.,  'lOT, 

N.Y.,  1849, 

123,  29.3,  294, 

306. 

V.       " 

14  How.,  1U3, 

Sup.  Ct,,  1852 

125,  1G3,  4G2, 

465. 

M 

'.15      "      451, 

"        1853 

"               r.Odiorno.n     "      72, 

"        1854, 

12G. 

Tryon  r.  "Whito, 

Pot.  C.  C,  !)(5, 

N.  J.,  181.5, 

495,  585,  590. 

TucltcT,  iicoch  V. 

M.S.  (App.  Cus.), 

1).  C,  1800, 

Titcl,  Tyler  v. 

0  Crn.,  :!24, 

Sup  Ct.,  1810 

Turner  v.  Johnson, 

2  Oa.  C.  C,  287, 

D.  C,  1822, 

200,  338,  526. 

"       Ilildrcathv. 

IT  111.,  184, 

111,  1855. 

"       Meyers  v. 

17    "    17a, 

"    1-55. 

"       "Wiison  V, 

7  Law  Hep.,  527, 

Md.,  184,5. 

K                     11 

4  How.,  712, 

Sup.Ct..  1845 

Tylor  V.  Doval, 

1  Codo  Rep.,  30, 

La.,  1848, 

18.3,  421,  471, 

489, 

528, 

OIL 

"     r.  llydo, 

2  lilatdif.,  308, 

N.  v.,  1851, 

245,  295,  694. 

"     V.  Tuol, 

G  Cra.,  324, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1810 

110,  159,  G52. 

Tyson  v.  Kankin, 

M.S.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1853, 

417. 

Twomey,  Hyatt  v. 

lDev.iBat.Eq.,315 
•        IJ 

,  N.  Car.,  1836. 

> 

Undcrliill,  Wood  v. 

5  now.,  1, 

Sup.Ct.,  1846. 

Underwood,  llowo  v. 

MS., 

Mass.,  1854. 

Uuiou  lUib.  Co.,  Day  v. 

3  Blatchf.,  488, 

N.  Y.,  185G. 

"                      "     V. 

20  How.,  21G, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

"              Judson   & 
Goodvear  v. 

4  Blatchf., 

N.  Y.,  1857. 

Union  iUil).  Co.,  N.  E.  Car 

Sjijr.  Co.  V. 

4       " 

"     1857. 

United  States,  King  v. 

10  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  C31 

CtChns.,  1857 

. 

"            Slireeve  v. 

MS., 

"       1859. 

"            Thistle  ('. 

Dev.  Rep.,  130, 

"       1856. 

BeU  Tel.  Co. 
V.  Sanderson, 

-  3  Blatchf.,  184, 

V. 

N.  T.,  1854, 

317,  397. 

Vanco  t;.  Campbell, 

MS., 

Ohio,  1859, 

190,  246,  311, 

435,  ' 

157, 

516. 

"      V.          " 

MS., 

"     18G0, 

28L 

Van  Drcssor,  Gibson  v. 

1  Blatchf.,  532, 

N.  Y.,  1850. 

Van  llook  v.  Pendleton, 

I       "         187, 

"       184G, 

.130,  332,  383, 

391, 

558. 

"           V.           " 

2       "         85, 

"       1848, 

286,  287. 

"         V.  Scuddor, 

Cited    3    McLean,  j 
438;  3  Story,  132,  j 

"       1843, 

117,  319,  567. 

• 

Van  lugen,  Livingston  v. 

1  Paine,  45, 

"       1811. 

"                        "           V. 

9  John.,  507, 

"       1812. 

Vannani  v.  Paine, 

1  Hiirriug.,  Go, 

Del.,  1832, 

499. 

Van  -Xostrand,  Douglierty  v. 

1  Iloff.  Ch.,  G8, 

N.  Y.,  1839. 

\i  V.  Ostrand  r.  Reed, 

1  Wend.,  42  1. 

"       182S, 

200,  694. 

Vougliau  r.  Porter, 

]<;  Venn.,  2(!G, 

Vt.,  1844, 

121,  203. 

Vaught,  Bloomer  v. 

Cited  1  Blatchi:,  529, 

La.,  1850. 

Wado  V. 

"  V. 
Wal(!li,  R 
Walker  v. 
Walton  V. 
Ward,  Jta 
Warner,  1 

"        V. 

Washburn 


Washinjf  J) 

Wash.  A  A 

Co.  V.  Sic 

Watorby  Bi 

Brk.  Brs. 

Waterman, 

Watson  V.  I 

M'ayno  v.  AV 

Webb,  Culv( 

"       V.  Pc 

Weed,  Wood 

^Veeks,  Thou 

AVoiss,  Kvani 

AVellnian  v.  1 

Wells,  Fetrid 

Weniplo,  Pittj 

AV'estchester  1 

AVothorell,  Bj 

"  11 

Wotmoro  v.  sl 

Wheailey,  K{( 

Wheaton  v. 

Wheeler  Boai 

Whipple  V.  Ill 

"     V.  Mif 

"     V.  rJ 

"      Stanl 

White,  CoUina 

"       Tryon] 

Whitman,  Pitll 

Whitney,  Blan 

"      V.  Cil 
Whitney  v.  En 


Whittemoro  r. 


Wickershaff  v.\ 
Wickersham  v.\ 
Wilbur  V.  Beecl 
Wilder  v.  Ada 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


53 


IN   AU'IIABKTIOAL  OKIiKIl,  WITH    UKFEUENCKS   TO    I'AOKS   WIIKIIK   FOUND. 


■■<9V$^: 


w. 


Wodo  V.  Matthews, 

"     V.         " 
■Wnlcli,  Ex  parte, 
WiilkiT  V.  Forbes, 
Walton  V.  Crawley, 
Ward,  Iloborts  v. 
"Warner,  Ulan.  (iun-Stk.  Fac.  v. 
"      V.  Goodyear, 

"Washburn  v.  Gould, 


6  Opin.,  'J20, 
MS.  (App.  Caa.), 


3  Blatcbf.,  4  JO, 

4  McLean,  665, 
1  Blatchf.,  258, 
MS.  (App.  CaH.), 

3  Story,  122, 


1849, 

I).  C,  1 850, 
"  1H57, 
"      1801, 

N.  Y.,  1850, 

Mich.,  184D. 

Ct.,  1848. 

D.  C,  184G, 

Mass.,  1844, 


151, 
l.i6, 
42;j. 
149, 

in. 


417. 

139,  142,  143,  332. 

290,  429,  452. 

161,  274,  412,  085,  C89. 


"Washing;  Mach.  Co.  v.  Earlo, 
Wash.  &  Alex.,  Steam  Pack.  ) 

Co.  V.  Sickles,  f 

"Watorby  Brs.  Co.  v.  N.  Y.  &  ' 

Brk.  Urs.  Co..  \ 

Waterniuu,  Cochrane  v, 
AVatsou  V.  Bladen, 
Wayne  v.  AViiiter, 
Wobb,  Culver  v. 

"       V.  Powers, 


Po.,  1861, 
Sup.Ct.,  1850, 


3  "Wall,  Jr., 
10  How.,  419, 

MS., 

MS.  (App.  Caa.), 

4  Wash.,  580, 
6  McLean,  344, 
12Coim.,  441, 
2  Wood.  &  Mill.,  497,  Mass.,  1847, 


l.-iS,  18.1,  28.1,  238,  297,  442,  447, 

548. 

Ill, 

257,! 

:i21, 

40(i, 

657, 

104, 


106, 


118,131,  159,  107,  2n0,  232, 

282, 3o;i,  ;!05,  3i;t,  310,  :tii>, 

360,389,424,412,  447,  401, 
491,  517,620,557,  658,  052, 
601,  004,  082. 
404,  6U1,  682. 

124,  407. 


N.  Y.,  1858,     239,  310,  369,  457,  516,  619,  533 

D.  C,  1841. 
Pa.,  1820, 
Ohio,  1853, 
Ct.,  1838. 


Weed,  "Woodworth  v. 
Weeks,  Thomas  v. 
Weiss,  Evans  v. 
"Wellinan  v.  Blood, 
Wells,  Fetridj;o  v. 
Weinplo,  Pitts  v. 
Westchester  R.  R.,  Stimpson  v. 
WcthoreU,  Burrows  v. 

"  Jones  V. 

Wetmoro  v.  Scovillo, 
Will  aloy,  Keene  v. 
Wheaton  v,  Peters, 

Wheeler  Beach  v. 
Whipple  V.  Hutchinson, 

"     V.  Middlesex  Co., 

"     V.  Renton, 

"      Stanley  v. 
White,  Collins  v. 
"       Tryon  v. 
Whitman,  Pitts  v. 
Whitney,  Blanchard  v. 

"      V.  Carter, 

"WTiitney  v.  Emmett, 


1  Blatchf.,  165, 

2  Paine,  92, 

2  Wash.,  342, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
13  How.  Pr.,  385, 
6  McLean,  558, 

4  How.,  380, 

MS.  (App.  Cus.), 
11    u 

3  Edw.  Ch.,  615, 

9  Am.  L.  Reg.,  33, 
8  Pot.,  591, 

24  Penn.,  212, 

4  Blatchf., 
MS., 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
2  McLean,  35, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
Pet.,  C.  C,  9G, 

2  Story,  009, 

3  Blatchf.,  307, 
Fes.  on  Pat.,  2ded., 

130, 
Bald.,  303, 


334,  479,  520,  596,  680. 
145. 

99,  162,  194,  252,  359,  378,  416, 
645. 


N.  Y.,  1846. 

"  1827. 
Pa.,  1809. 

I).  C,  1866,   444,  4Z0. 
N.  Y.,  1857. 
lU.,  1855. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 
D.  C,  1854. 

"   1855 
N.  Y.,  1842,  262,  458. 
Pa.,  1800. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1834, 


Pa.,  1855. 
N.  Y.,  1858, 
Mass.,  1859, 
1).  C,  1854, 
Ohio,  1839. 
D.  C,  1860. 
N.  J.,  1815. 
Mo.,  1843. 
N.  Y.,  1858. 

I  Geo.,  1809,       591,  636. 


103, 150,  208,  213,  215,  220,  26C. 
475,  020,  638,  640. 

172,  17.3,  381,409. 
370,  524,  634. 
135. 


"WTiittemoro  v.  Cutter, 


III 


1  Gall.,  429, 


478, 


Pa.,  1831, 


Mass.,  1813, 


1813, 


WickershafT  v.  Jonea, 
Wickcrsham  v.  Singer, 
Wilbur  V.  Beceher, 
Wilder  v.  Adama, 


2  Whar.  Dig.,  413,     Pa.,  1848. 
MS.  (App.  Cas.),        D.  C,  1859, 
2  Blatchf.,  132,  N.  Y.,  1850, 

2  Wood.  &  Min.,  329,  Mass.,  1846, 


130, 1-14,  150,  182,  224,  231,  248, 
252,  279,  304,  3 IS,  339,  350,  354, 
420,  431,  45,-.,  471,  483,  480,  499, 
604,  509,  517,  519,  521,520  543, 
604,  032,  047,  050,  054,  682. 
104,  110,  117,  159,  102,  190,  219, 
2:!0,  241,  338,  312,  365,  370,  435, 
495,  030,  651,  052,  053,  650. 
92,  90,  97,  105, 109,  181,  230,  259, 
349,  355,  429,  444,  454,  470,  525, 
588,  093. 
308,  514. 
98,  147,  148,  153. 
189,  235,  309,  302,  433,  532. 
203,  244,  407. 


i^>tn^} 


i^~.J. 


sr''i 


'.1  -rn 


i   :     !- 


sp™ 


W^ 


\ 


ALU 


y^ii^^^^ 


so 


TABLK  OF  CASKS,  A. 


'•w* 


IN   ALIMIAUKTICAI.  OIlDKIt,  WITH    IIKKKIIENCKH  TO   P 

AOES  WlltiltK  rOUKD. 

Wildorv.  Ciayler, 

1  Ulatelif.,  511, 

N.  Y.,  1849, 

100. 

u 

V.        " 

1         "        f.97, 

"       1H50, 

347. 

t( 

(InyliT  V. 

10  I  low.,  477, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1850 

, 

it 

V.  MiKJormick, 

2  Itlatchf.,  :!1, 

N.  v.,  1810, 

lit,  151,192,409,  614, 
691. 

687,  690, 

Wiloa, 

lIuU  V. 

2         "     194, 

"       1851, 

Williiims  V.  Ilioka, 

2  Venn.,  .'10, 

Vt.,  1829, 

200. 

It 

1!.  JdliiiHon, 

2  Uo8w.,  I, 

N.  Y.,  18,-.7, 

413,  080,  090. 

11 

V.  WilHoii, 

4  Sand.  Ch.,  379, 

1 8.;.'' 

348. 

ii 

Wood  V, 

(liljiin,  r>17. 

Pa.,  1834. 

Wilson  V.  Barmiin, 

1  Wall.,  Jr.,  ;!42, 

"      1819, 

151,  3.30,494. 

ti 

V.          " 

1       "       :m7, 

"     1849, 

384,  390,  614. 

it 

V.           " 

8  How.,  258, 

tSup.  (U.,  1819 

')')•) 
""". 

ii 

V.  Ciirtiiis, 

2  W.  L.  il.mr.,  511, 

ha.,  1815, 

402. 

it 

V.  .)  Olios, 

3  lilalchr.,  227, 

N.  Y.,  1H.-.4, 

337,  434,  614. 

ti 

Mi'Kiill  V. 

6  Llackr.,  260, 

lud.,  18  12. 

;( 

V.  Poller, 

MS, 

N.  \".,  1800. 

tl 

V.  Uosscdu, 

1  lllalchr.,  3, 

"       1845. 

' 

tt 

V. 

4  Uow.,  040, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1845 

Ill,  118,159,  192,  193, 
323,  324,  320,  658,  570, 
004,  007. 

320,  yn, 

G13,  057, 

It 

V.  Sanilfonl, 

10  How.,  99, 

"       18.-.0 

131,  578,  038,  COO,  09G 

•• 

V.  Slu'i-iiiaii, 

1  Ulalchi;,  53(1, 

N.  Y.,  1850, 

109,  380,  384,  407,  581 

it 

Simiisou  V. 

4  How.,  70!i, 

iSup.Ct.,  1845 

u 

V. 

9       '•      109, 

"       1849, 

292,  323,  320,  577, 

II 

Siiitj'or  V. 

M.S., 

N.  Y.,  1 858, 

tt 

V.    "    " 

MS.  (.\pp.  Cas.), 

I).  C,   1800, 

158,  454,  CIS,  G21. 

tt 

■V.  iStoUoy, 

4  MoLoaii,  272, 

Oliio,  1847, 

271,  400. 

It 

V.        " 

4         "       275, 

"    1817, 

97,  384,  402,  405,  677. 

It 

V.        " 

5         "       1, 

"    1819, 

405,  407. 

II 

V.  Tumor, 

7  Law  Ron.,  529, 

Wd.,  18  1.5, 

.■i2(t,  322,  C67. 

11 

V.          " 

4  How.,  712, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1815, 

323. 

,1 

■Williams  v. 

4  .Sand.  Ch.,  379, 

N.  Y.,  18  Ki. 

•  It 

Wriffiit  V. 

11  llicli.  J-aw.,141, 

i^.Car.,  1857, 

•  1 

Wooihvorth  v. 

4  How.,  712, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1815. 

■\ViUon 

i:  Kailroatl3, 

1  Wall..  Jr.,  192, 

P.a.,  1817, 

344,  GC5. 

•  t 

V.           " 

2  AVliar.  IHk.,  410, 

"     1848, 

257,  504. 

■\Vinan3  v.  Host.  A  Prov.  R.  R. 

,  2  .Story,  412, 

Mas.«.,  181.3, 

254,  488,  489,  53.5. 

11 

V.  Danlbrtli, 

MS., 

N.  Y..  1800, 

315,  42.3,  429,  451,  553, 

554,  G03. 

II 

V.  Di'uineud, 

15  How.,  330, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1853, 

335,  330,  303,  307,  450, 

518,  523, 

535,  051. 
V.  NowCaa..feFr.R.R.,Citod  2  Blatclif.,  294,Md.,  1850. 
V.  N.  Y.  k.  E.  R.  R.,    21  How.,  88,  Sup.  Ct.,  1858,  258,  318,  487,  519,  530,  G82. 

..  N.Y.&  Ear.  R.  R.,  j  '^i'-^^'l!:/"-''-'  '''^''  \  N.  Y.,  1855,  {    ^'''  -'''  ^O^-  ^»''.  't^^,  443,  410, 


V.  Seho.  &  Troy  R.  R.,  2  Blatchf.,  279, 


"       York  &  Md.  R.  R.,  v. 
^VincllCster,  Thomson  v. 
Wiufr,  Bev.  Rub.  Co.  v. 
A\'inkley,  Odioruo  v. 
Winslow,  Ex  parte, 
Winsor,  Jillson  r. 

"       Kendall  v. 
Winter,  AV.iyno  v. 
Wintermuto  v.  Htimphrey, 
"  V.  Redington, 


17  How.,  30. 
19  Piek.,  214, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
2  (iall.,  51, 

Ua.  (App.  Cas.), 

21  How.,  322, 
6  MoLcan,  344, 
10  W.  L.  Jour.,  52, 
MS., 

18  How.  Pr.,  64, 


Wolfe  r.  Gourard, 

Wood  &  Brun(laj,'e,  Ex  parte,    9  Wheat.,  003, 

"    V.  Underhill,  5  How.,  1, 

"    V.  Williiuns,  Gilpin,  517, 

Woodcock  V.  Parker,  1  Gall.,  438, 

Wooden,  Peterson  v.  3  McLean,  248, 

\Voodrufl',  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)- 

"        Binna  v.  4  WasL,  48, 


51.5,  COO. 
1851,     132,  145,  258,  425,  433,  4G9,  490, 
529,  535,  Gil,  0G8. 
.Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 
Ma.ss.,  1837. 
I).  C,  1800. 
MasH.,  1814. 
D.  C,  1850,      139,  141,  309,  317. 

"       1850. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 
Ohio,  1855. 

"     1851,       124. 

"     1850,       238,  355,  3G8,  422,  434,  439,  450. 
472,  480,  518,  524,  575,  594,  035 
N.  Y.,  1859,     G8G. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1824,  228,  6U. 

"        1840,  195,  518,  520,  528,  533. 
Pa.,  1834,         228,  655,  692. 
Mass.,  1813,     105,  333,  349,  424,  444,  595. 
Ohio,  1843. 

D.  C,  1859,      261,475. 
Pa.,  1821. 


Yoarsloy  v.  I 

York  &  Jfd. 

Yuuug  V.  Coll 
"  Colt  v\ 
"     V.  iriif 

:;  iiuiid 

'     SickJel 


TAHLE  OF  CASES,  A. 


87 


IN  AU'IIAUKTIOAL  OUDKIt,  Willi    UKI'KUUNCKB  TO   I'AUICH  WUGUK  rOUND. 


■\Voo(lriin"  .t  (;<)l)b,  Kx  pnitp, 

MS.  (A pp.  CiiH.), 

I).  C,  IfiOO, 

178. 

Voo<lworlli  V.  llurlioiir, 

Citud  1  illiiU'lir.,  520, 

Me.,  1H50, 

OHO. 

ti 

V,  Cook, 

2  lilatchl'.,  151, 

N.  Y.,  1H50, 

100,112,  124,  100,  245,  205,  4Gi 

582. 

170,313,  323,406,  670. 

II 

V.  Ciirti8, 

1  Wood,  .t  Min.,  524, 

MaHH.,  1H47, 

1' 

V.       " 

(.;ilcd  I  llliitohf.,  529, 

"       1850, 

080. 

11 

V.  Kdwnrds, 

3  Wood,  A  Min.,  120, 

"       1847, 

ll!t,270,  271,  327,  383,301,  4n;i, 
059,  014,  024. 

II 

Gibson  V. 

a  Pnigo,  132, 

N.  Y.,  1840. 

11 

V.  lluU, 

1  Wood.  &.  Min.,  248, 

Mawd.,  1840, 

111,118,10.1,207,  208,  271,  291, 
320,  321,  327,  383,  391,  309,  402, 
482,  013,  023,  U21,  U57,  058. 

11 

1'.     " 

1  Wood,  ft  Min.,  389 

Mass.,  1840, 

193,  483. 

u 

Livingston  v. 

15  Mow.,  51(1, 

Siip.Ct.,  1HJ3 

11 

V.  Rogora, 

3  Wood.ifeMin.,  135 

Ma,ss.,  1847, 

330,  350,  384,  403,  408,  659. 

II 

V.  Sherman, 

3  Story,  171, 

'•       1844, 

118,  200,  218,  319,  322,390,  007. 

II 

V.  Stone, 

3  Story,  749, 

"       1845, 

100,  192,  204,  209,  321,  380,  401, 
023,  025. 

II 

V.  Wood, 

1  niatchf.,  1G5, 

N.  Y.,  1840, 

407. 

II 

V.  Wilson, 

4  How.,  712, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1845 

118,  207,  320,  323,  657. 

Woolsoy 

V.  Jiidd, 

4  Diior,  379, 

N.  Y.,  1855, 

222,  202,  459,  477,  041 

Wooster 

Singor  v. 

4  Dlalchf., 

"       1857. 

AV'ortliington,  Morrill  v. 

14  MnsH,,  389, 

Mass.,  1817. 

Wright, 

Urown  V. 

17  Ark.,  9, 

Ark.,  1850. 

II 

V.  Groon, 

MS.  (A  pp.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1 854. 

II 

Ilouth  V. 

3  Wall.,  Jr., 

Ta.,  IHOl. 

II 

V.  Wilson, 

11  Uieh.  Law,  144, 

S.  Car.,  1857, 

205,  229,  095. 

•W'yoth  I 

.  Stono, 

1  Story,  273, 

Miwu.,  1840, 

95,  90,  97,  100,  105,  243,  248, 
249,  252,  204,  271,  334,  305,  .'181, 
404,  473,  502.  503,  521,  527,  547, 
592,  004,  605,  033,  052,  058,  005, 
609,  070. 

Y. 

Toarsley  v.  Brookfiold,  MS.  (App.  Cas.),         D.  C,  1853, 

York  &  Md.  R.  R.  v.  Winans,  17  TTow.,  30, 
Youug  1'.  Colt,  2  Blatchf.,  373, 

"     Coltr.  2        "        471, 

»     V.  Iluntor,  2  Sold.,  203,  "      1852, 

"     Buggies «.  MS.  (App.  Cas.),        D.  C,  1853. 

"     Sickles  V.  »  IBlatchP.,  293,  N.  Y.,  1855. 


132,145,  270,  292,  298,  300,  306, 

310,  453,  034. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1854,  193,  210,  057. 
N.  Y.,  1852,     209, 
"       1852. 

203. 


i 


"*■•?[, 


¥ ,  '"-^c 


rk 


4 


*»•; 
*'ii 


^Mm 


'"^  'jvrr-^ 


-wwww 


,•*•'''"*'■' 


^^W^ 


'V^WW'ww^ 


^^^^'^'' 


'« 


Air,  OS  a  Motiv( 
Ainbrotypos, 
Auaistliotic  Ag 
Apiilo-l'oaror, 


Auj?or  to  bono  M 
Axli3-13oxeH, 


Babbitt'8  Compc 
Baker,  refloctiiij 
Bank  Bills,  priu 
Bark  Mill, 

Bodsto.iilM, 
a 

ii 

It 

It 

Boll  Telegraph, 

II  II 

Benzole,  biirninj 
Billiard-Table  Oi 
Bilge  Levers,  foi 
Biscuit  Machine, 
Blast,  for  Fuma 


hill 


^ 


Boat  Frames, 
Boats,  propollinj 
Boilers,  heating, 
Bonnet  Frames, 
1  Boot  Cramp, 
Boots,  Manuf.  of, 
Bottles,  Scrow-Ca 
Bran  Duster, 

U  II 

Brass  Kettles, 


^r»»«: 


TABLE  OF  CASES 


AIIRANOED  AOCORDINO  TO  THKIR 


SUBJECT     MA.TTER 


Air,  as  a  Motive  Power, 
Ambrotypea, 
Aiucatliotic  Agent, 
Apple-roarer, 


Au>?or  to  bore  Muakots, 
Axlo-UosuH, 


A. 


Case  V.  iforoy, 
TomliiiHon  v.  IJattol, 
Morton's  Caso, 
Sargoaut  v.  liarncd, 
"      V.  8(.>a(?riivo, 
"      V.  Carlor, 
Pottibono  I'.  Derringer, 
Roberts  V.  Warti, 
Muttliows  V.  Skates, 


1  N,  Ilamp.,  347, 
MS., 

8  Opin.  Atty.  Gon.,  2C9, 

2  Curt.,  310, 
2     "      553, 

11  Mo.  Law  Rep.,  C51, 
4  Wasli.,  215, 
4  McLean,  506, 
MS., 


N.  n.,  18 IS. 
N.  Y.,  1S57. 
185G. 

Mass.,  1S55. 
R.  L,  18.J5. 
Maws.,  1858 
Pa.,  1818. 
Mich.,  1813 
Ala.,  18U0. 


i 


Babbitt's  Composition, 
Baker,  redecting, 
Bank  Uills,  printing. 
Bark  Mill, 
Bodste.ids, 


Boll  Telegraph, 

Boazolo,  burning, 
Billiard-Table  Cushions, 
Bilge  Lovers,  for  Ships, 
Biscuit  Machine, 
Blast,  for  Furnaces, 

K  II  II 


Boat  Frames, 
Boats,  propelling. 
Boilers,  heating, 
Bonnet  Frames, 
J  Boot  Cramp, 
BrtotH,  Manuf.  of. 
Bottles,  Screw-Caps  for, 

Bran  Duster, 

II        II 

Brass  Kettles, 


Roberts  v.  "Ward, 
Dobson  V.  Campbell, 
Kueass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank, 
Wilbur  V.  Ucechor, 
Berg  V.  Thistle, 
Boyd  V.  Brown, 

"    V.  McAlpine, 
Herbert  v.  Ailams, 
Nourse's  Case, 
Crohoro  v.  Norton, 
U.  S.  Boll  Tel.  Co.  v.  Sanderson, 
Drake  v.  Cuuningliani, 
Brunswick  v.  Ilolzalb, 
Thomas  v.  Weeks, 
See  Cracker  Machine, 
Bell  V.  Daniels, 

"    V.  McCullogh, 
DotmoM  V.  Hooves, 
Raymond  L.,  Ex  parte, 
Isaacs  V.  Cooper, 
Bell  V.  Phillips, 
Kidd  V.  Sponce, 
Eames  v.  Cook, 
Bedford  v.  Hunt, 
Mitchell  V.  Barclay, 
Carr  v.  Rico, 

"    V.     " 
(  Phelps,  Dodge  &  Co.  v.  Brown  ) 
Bros.,  J 

Waterbury  Brass   Co.  v.  N.  / 
Y.  &  Brooklyn  Brass  Co.,    j 


4  McLean,  566, 

1  Sumn.,  319,     * 
4  Wash.,  9,  lOG, 

2  Blatchf.,  132, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

3  McLean,  295, 

3  "        427, 

4  Mason,  15, 

1  Opin.  Atty.  Gen., 
MS., 

3  Blatchf.,  UM, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
MS,, 

2  Paine,  92, 

MS., 
MS., 

4  Amer.  L.  Jour.,  N. 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

4  Wash.,  259, 

MS., 

MS., 

MS., 

1  Mason,  302, 

MS., 

4  Blatchf., 

4       " 

18  How.  Pr.,  7, 
MS., 


Mich.,  1819. 
Me.,  1833. 
Pa.,  1820. 
N.  Y.,  1850. 
D.  C,  1800. 
Ohio,  1843. 
"     1841. 
Mass.,  1825. 
576,        1822. 

N.  Y.,  1853. 

«'      1854. 

J).  C,  1855. 

Oh^o,  is.'in. 

N.  Y.,  1827. 

Ohio,  1858. 

"     1858. 
S.,  188,  Pa.,  1851. 
D.  C,  1801. 
Pa.,  1821. 
Ohio,   1858. 
N.  Y.,  1859. 
Mass.,  1860. 

"      1817. 
N.  Y.,  1860, 

"      1856. 

"      1858. 

"      1859. 
"      1858 


■•'■  V^ 


*•»»'» 


•iii/l 


■*».m'A 


Cfe^' 


lijT 


^^^ 


UK' 


Uiii'ki't  Miicliino, 
Liirriii^  Miu.'liitio, 


TAULK  OF  CASKS,  H. 


AIIUAN'OCII  AH  TO  HUlUKCr  UATIKU. 


II 

11 

11 

II 

M 

11 

U 

II 

II 

II 

11 

II 

II 

II 

DuttouH,  Dosixnf 
"        Kyuu  of, 

for, 

Cnpstnn, 
Caiiiil-l.ock  Onto, 

11 
II 
II 

II 


Cnntion,  Rifled, 

Ciinis,  Cotton  and 'Wool, 

Curding  Muchiiio, 


Carpi'tH,  wonvinp, 
Cai'riiifjfo  llnikcH, 

"  CollJ)lill(^, 

Cartridge,  Metallic, 
"        .S'iiinlcHH, 
('astern  for  liiilstuadfl, 
Ccilinjfs,  iiaiiiliiij.', 
("Iiilk'd  Uollors,  (.'Udtiug, 
Cliiiiiiicy  l''lue8, 

CllU|-|lK, 

"      Atmospheric, 
Cldoroform,  use  of, 

Cider  MUl, 

It      II 

Cistcnifl, 

Clover  Seed,  hulling, 

Coul,  Screeiniig, 


Mi'Pimald'H  ('mho, 
Wood  r.  I'liderhil!, 
Hall  ('.  WIN'ri, 
MfCay  I'.  Iliirr, 
SpraKui',  Kx  parte, 
KdwardH  V.  liicliardii, 
Ciitidi'll  i:  I'arkhnrHt, 
rurkliiirHt  t'.  Kinsman, 
"  V,         " 

V.        " 

V.        " 

V.        " 

f.        " 
KiiiMtiinn  I'.  Pnrkhiirot, 
Wliippli'  r.  MiddleHox  ('o., 
]looili  I',  (iart'lly, 
Goodyear  i'.  MatlliewH, 

C. 

Walker  v.  Porhes, 
lliidiTtli  ('.  Heath, 
Si'i'Icy,  Kx  parte, 
l.aidley  i:  JaineH, 
\\  liiii  itiore  i:  Cutter, 
Carroll  r.  (lauihril, 
L)yHon,  Kx  j)arte, 

"        r.  (innilirii, 
See  also  lliinimj  .Wdchines. 
Thompson  v.  Ilaight, 
],aro\ve,  V.x  parte, 
Ileusskneeht  V.  Claypool, 
Maymird,  Kx  parte, 
rrender,  " 

Ulake  r.  Sperry, 
lilis^^  ('.  N'eguM, 
MeClurg  r.  Kingsland, 
UodKO  r.  Card, 
Dunliar  v,  Marden, 
Uurlew  V.  (J'Niel, 
Morton's  Case, 
Head  V.  Stevens, 
Stevens  J).  Head, 
Darst  ('.  Itrockway, 
Wood  ('.  Williams, 
Uuttin  V.  Clayton, 

"    V.  Tatrgort, 

"    V.  " 

Hattiii  V.  Sillinmn, 


Heilner  i'.  Battin, 
Anthr,  in  making  Glass,  Yearsley  i'.  Brookdeld, 
Bidl  v.  i'ratt, 
Tryon  v.  White, 
MatlliewH  V.  Skates, 
Eoberts  v.  Ward, 


Combs,  making, 
Composition  for  Boxes,  Ac, 


Copyright — 

American  Dispensatory, 

Adams'  Latin  (Jranminr, 

Amor.  First  Class  Book, 

Book-keeping,  system  of, 
II  II 

Commercial  Advertiser, 
Comstock's  Re{)orts, 


Cowcn'a  Reports, 


E\v  .  V.  Coxe, 
(iray  v.  Russell, 
Pierpont  v.  Fowlo, 
Barllelt  v.  Crittenden, 

"  V.  " 
Clayton  v.  Stone, 
Little  V.  Gould, 

"     V.        " 

"     V.  Hall, 
Backus  V.  Gould, 


1  Opin.  Atty.  QoD.,  170, 
C  liow.,  I, 

•i  Jllalrhf.,  104, 
(i  r.i.ii,,  117, 
MS.  (App.  CuH.), 
Wright,  5'.»(1, 
MS.  (.\pp.  CiiH.), 
'2  llalHt.,  Ch.,  COO, 
H  N.  Y.  Leg.  (JbH.,  7i, 
•2  Blatehf.,  72, 
•i         "        70, 

2  "  78, 
1  "  4Ha, 
IH  How.,  '280, 
MS.. 

1  lllatchf.,  247, 
1  I'uino,  300, 


181'.'. 

Hup.  Ct.,  IH'IO. 

N.  Y.,  1801. 

I 'a..  1H47. 

I).  C,  1850. 

Ohio,  |h:i4. 

1).  C.,  1847. 

N.  J.,     " 

N.  Y.,    " 

"     1848. 
II        It 

II        II 

"     1840. 
Sup.  Ct,  |H.',5. 
Mass.,  \h;,\). 
N.  Y.,  1817. 
Ct.,      1814. 


MS.  (App.  Cm.), 


1  Gal!.,  429,  478, 
MS.  (Ajip.  Cas.), 


1  I^  8.  L.  .Tour.,  OC,  CC:), 
MS.  (.\pp.  CttH.), 

1  llla<'k,  431, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
It  It 

2  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  251, 
8  Mass.,  4(i, 

1  How.,  202, 
MS., 

i:{  N.  Hamp.,  .111, 
MS.  (App.  Cos.), 
8  Opin.  Atty.  (ien.,  2C9, 
19  Weml.,  411, 

0  Verm.,    174, 
11  Ohio,  4(!2, 
Gil|)in,  517, 

2  Whart.  Dig.,  409, 

2  Wall.,  ,rr.,  101, 

17  How,,  74, 

3  Wall.,  Jr., 
27  I'enn.,  617, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1  Conn.,  :M2, 
I'et.,  C.  C,  96, 
MS., 

4  McLean,  566, 

4  Wnsh.,  487, 

1  Story,  11, 

2  W.  .Ik  M.,  23, 

4  McLean,  300, 

5  "        32, 
2  Paine,  382, 
2  Blatehf.,  165, 
2         "        362, 

18  How.,  290, 
1        "      798, 


D.  C,  18CI. 
"  1841. 
"  i860. 
II        II 

Mass.,  18];!. 
1).  (J.,  \Hr,ft. 

"      I860. 
"      1861. 

N.  Y.,  1822. 
D.  C,  1860. 
Sup.  Ct.,  IHCJ, 
D.  ('.,  1857. 
"   1861. 
Ct.fl  84. •!. 
Mass.,  1811. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1843. 
Ohio.  1860. 
N.  H.,  1842 
])-  v.,   1853. 
1 856. 

N  Y..  1838. 
Vt.,  1837. 
Ohio,  1842. 
I'a.,  1h:)4. 

"  1848, 

"  1851. 
Sup.tJt.,  1854. 
Pa.,  1861. 
Pn..  1856. 
D.  C,  1853. 
Ct.,  1815. 
N.  J.,  1815. 
Ala.,  I860. 
Mich.,  1840. 

Pa.,  1824. 
Mass.,  1839. 

"      1846. 
Ohio,  1817. 

"      1840. 
N.  Y.,1828. 

"      1851. 

"      1852. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1855. 
Sup.Ct.,  184S 


Oopjrriffht- 

Pnbdll'i 

Drnina— 

Carpel] 

Oi'toroi 
•I 

II 

Surgeon  « 

iHviglil'n 
/'eelarat'i 
KincrHori'* 
Federal  Ci 
Flora's  Iiii 
(iutm's  |)> 
Ilistory  of 

MoMIl'op.    I 

.F/ij)i»i  l';\| 

Johnson's 

Letters,  pr. 
II 

11 

II 

II 

Lifeof  Hiel. 
"    of  Was 

Mmjh  and  C 
Strait.s,  .M 
New  Vor 
Map,  Uho 


Nantucke; 
Marvatt's 
Maria  M( 
Music— 
Aletliia  W 
Bohemian 
Cot  li.-nc 
Old  Arm 
Serious  Fi 
New  lOra, 
Newsjjaper, 
Preshy.  Cliii 
Sacred  Mom 
Story's  KiMi 
•I  » 

Tnclo  Tom'^ 

Wendell's  i{ 

Wheatou's  1 

Wol>sler's  1- 

CmiSheller. 

Cotton,  carding 

Cotton,  cleauin 

spinnin 

Gin, 


II 
II 
II 
II 


II 

Press, 
"      Waddir 
Cracker  Machir 


Cultivators. 


Tool 


99$9t.Y. 


TMU.K  OF  CASKS,  II. 


61 


ARMANOKI)  AN  TO  RUIURCT  MATI'KH. 


|iiiliiiir>«  Arithiiuak', 
Prruim — 

Curpi'iiior  of  Koiiun, 

OcUtrutJti, 


flurtfooti  of  PrirlN, 
Dwinliirt  TlicoloKy, 
I)iK'luriil'iic)riiiili'|M'tnloiicr 
KriicrHDu'x  Ariiliiiii'iio, 
Fuilcriil  CiiU'iilulor, 
I'liiruV  liiti'tprt'trr, 
(iiiiiii'h  I*miiii'm.  Moilicino, 
lliHtory  "if  ilin  World, 
lliiint'(i|i.  I>(iii).  I'liyHiciim, 
.Tiipiiii  l'!x|i<'iliti()n, 
Jiiiin^on'M  Koportil, 
LolUTH,  privuto, 


Llfoofirii'kH, 

"    of  Wii'^liinffton, 
Miip'*  nnd  Cliiirta— 

Slniils.  Miu^kiimw, 

New  York, 

Map,  Ulioili'  rsluiiil, 


M 

II 


11 
II 
II 


Nantuckpt  Shonl, 

Mill yatl's  N'oveU, 

Mmi'ui  Monk, 
Music — 

Ali'tliia  Waltz, 

Itolii'iiiiaii  ( iirl, 

Col  KcMi'atli  tho  llill, 

OM  Ann  (Jliair, 

.Serious  Family  i'olka, 

New  I'lrii, 

Newspaper, 

I'resliy.  (."Inircli  Case, 

Sacred  Mountaiim, 

Story's  Kquity  Juna., 
II  ii  II 

Uncle  Tom's  Cabin, 
Wondcirs  l{eportfl, 
Wiioaton's  lluporta, 
Wolister's  Kng.  Gram., 

r  )rn  Sheller, 

Cotton,  cardinjf. 

Cotton,  elcaniuf,', 
"  spinning, 
"       Gin, 


"       Press, 
"      Wadding, 
Craokor  Machine, 


Cultivators. 

I. 

"         Teeth  of, 


DuIkiII'm  Cnup, 

Joiii"*  I'.  TiioriH', 
Ki"'nn  I'.  WliiMilloj, 
It  iiertu  I'.  Mi'yur*, 

Uo^rrM  /'.  .ll'Wl'tt, 

Jorn'H  r,  'I'jiiirnc, 
l)wi^'ill  i:  Applrtonii, 
',Hliins  r.  Woodriiir, 
Kiiii'rHiiri  r.  havira, 
Nii'hoU  ('.  Uii^({li>s, 

Wl'l)l)  c.   I'llWlTH, 

Cooper  I',  (lutin, 
Stnive  I'.  Sriiwcldor, 
rulln  V.  Dcrliv, 
Heine  r.  Appletona, 
(liiiild  I'.  Hanks, 
DonlH  1'.  I.I'  CliTk, 
Iloyt  V.  MeKon/.ie, 
Wet  more  r.  Scovillo, 
■\Voolscy  r.  .Iiiild, 
Kyri'  /'.  I  Mallei', 
I>"e  Witt  V.  Itrooks, 
Fulxum  t;.  MiirHli, 

RloI)ert'H  Case, 
Hmitli  I'.  Jolinsoii, 
Stevens  V.  Cady, 

"       V.      " 

"       V.  Gladding, 

"        V.  " 

lUnnt  V.  Patten, 
Carey  v.  Collier, 
Monk  V.  Ilarpor, 

Forrctt  r.  At  will, 
Atwill  r.  Forri'tt, 
Millett  I'.  Snowden, 
Ueed  V.  Carnsi, 
Jollio  V.  .laiiues, 
Hell  1'.  Loeke, 
Hnowdcn  v.  Noah, 
Miller  V.  MeKlroy, 
Haker  v.  Taylor, 
Story's  Exrs.  v.  Derby, 

"        '•  Iloleombo, 

Rtowo  V.  Thomas, 
Uai'kus  r.  (ioidd, 
Wlieaton  ?'.  Peters, 
Hudson  v.  Patten, 
McDowall  r.  Meredith, 
See  liitnihij  Mm-hines. 
Nesmith  v.  Calvert, 
Rouse,  Kx  i)arto. 
Carver  v.  Ilydo, 

"      V.  IJraint.  Manuf.  Co., 
Fultz,  Kx  parte, 
Tylor  V.  Deval, 
Anon., 

Novins  V.  Johnson, 
Treadwell  v.  Ijladon, 
Watson      t'.       " 
Chamberlain  v.  Ganson, 
Traeey  i'.  Torrey, 
Sandera  v.  Parsons, 


1  Opin,.  Atty.  Con.,  C33,  IR'il 


1  X.  V.  I,og.  Olia., 

408, 

N.  Y.,  1843. 

0  Ainer.  Law  Iti-x  . 

:i:i. 

Pa.,  18(10. 

l:t  Mo.  Law  Ui'p.,  . 

liMl, 

MasM.,  |8I>0. 

VI a:io, 

"       |«5H. 

1  N.  Y.  r.eg.  Oh«., 

4(18, 

N.Y„  1843. 

1          tt             tt           II 

105, 

"       1843. 

■1  Wasli.,  JR,        • 

Pa.,  1821. 

;t  Storv.  7<18, 

MasH.,  1846. 

3  1IIIV,  II. 'i, 

Ct.,  1808. 

a  w."  .V  M.,  ini. 

MaHH.,  1847. 

4  I).  Moil ,  riUt, 

Ky.,  1844. 

4  Illati'hf., 

N.  Y.,  1867. 

f)  MeLean,  :128, 

Ohio,  18:>2. 

4  ])lat-'bi., 

N.  Y.,  1857. 

8  Wind,,  mi, 

N.  Y.,  1H32. 

1  Martin,  •<\)1, 

La.,  181 1. 

3  llarb.  Cli.,  Win, 

N.  Y.,  1848 

:i  i;dw.  (Jh.,  615, 

"      1842. 

•1  Pucr,  .'171), 

"      1855. 

22  How.  Pr.,  206, 

"      18(;i. 

MS., 

"     I8i;i. 

2  Story,  100, 

MoHS.,  1841. 

7  Opin.  Atty.  Gon. 

C66, 

1850. 

4  Itl.itehf., 

N.Y.,  1858. 

14  How.,  528, 

Hnp.  Ct.,  1852 

2  Cnrt.,  2(10, 

11.  L,  1854. 

17  How.,  117, 

8ni).Ct.,  1851. 

2  ('nrl.,  <iOH, 

11.  L,  1850. 

2  Paine.  :t'.t;i. 

N.Y.,  1828. 

60  Nili'S  Ki'tr.,  202 

N.Y.,  18:t0, 

3  Kdw.  Ch.,  lOi), 

"      1837. 

1  niatehf,  l.ll. 

N.  Y.,  184G. 

2-       "         nit, 

(1                  11 

1  West.  Law  Jour. 

,240, 

N.Y.,  18.i;i. 

8  Law  Rep.,  410, 

Md.,  1815. 

1  Hlatc'ld',.  018, 

N.  Y.,  1 850. 

8  Pai^'e,  75, 

"      1840. 

1  Hopk.  Ch.,  .^t7, 

"      1825. 

]  Anicr.  Law  Iteg. 

,108, 

Fi..,  is:)!!. 

2  Hlatehf.,  82, 

N.Y.,  1848. 

4  MeLean,  ICO, 

Ohio,  184G. 

"           :t()(!. 

"     1817. 

2  .\!iier.  Law  Reg. 

210, 

Pa.,  1853. 

7  How.,  7U8, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1848 

8  Pet.,  5!)1, 

"     18:i4. 

1  Root,  i:!!?. 

Ct.,  1780. 

4  Whart.  1  )!>,'.,  311, 

Pa.,  1839. 

1  w.  k  jr.,  n4, 

Mass.,  1815. 

MS.  (App.  (^as.). 

D.  C,  1854. 

10  Pet.,  57:t, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1842 

2  Story,  4:12, 

Mas.«<.,  1843. 

MS.  (App.Cas.), 

I).  C,  1853. 

I  Code  Rep.,  30, 

La.,  1818. 

3  West.  Law  Jour. 

,144, 

N.  Y.,  1845. 

3  Hlatehf.,  80, 

N.Y.,  1853. 

4  Wash,  703, 

Pa.,  1827. 

4      "       580, 

"     182G. 

2  Blatohf.,  279, 

N.  Y.,  1851. 

2       "         275, 

II        • 

MS.  (App.  Caa.), 

D.  0.,  1859, 

»-  ^- 

^ 

iULLTnTi 

;-^ 

t 
^ 

^■k 


r'***,/. 


■-s^^* 


HI 


1^  ii»  »rf "  • 


-Ww^**' 


'^'^'■^U'.'H'i 


i-cjriS' 


■^^7W 


^ 


'^Wi^w^^"'' 


(177 


CW^Wyw 


« 


H 


f^« 


'"ki,. 


TAFirr,  OF  CASES,  n. 


iiiii 


ANHAN<l»;0  AM  TO  urMIICT  MArrRN. 

Currj-«omli«, 

noAcli  1'.  Wlifflor, 

34  rann ,  313. 

rn,,  i^sa. 

CutUirjr,  cluiiulny, 

▲niMtronif  t',  lluuli'iikok, 

3  N,  Y,  U'g,  Obn,  43, 

a.  v.,  1114, 

Door  flMtpnint;, 

KIttIn  V.  Mi'rHnm, 

a  Curt.,  47B, 

Mam.,  1H53, 

•♦   Platon, 

Irfitnloii  V.  Ilirt, 

4  Iu('.,  b(iU, 

Iiid.,  Ih.Vt. 

DyoiiiK  I'urtlC'oloro*!  Torn 

Niiiiili  f.  lliKKi»i| 

MH., 

N.  Y,,  iMr.«, 

*t            li               t» 

"      V.          " 

tl 

'•      IM7. 

tl                      H                              tl 

"     V.        '• 

II 

"     i8ao. 

<l              II                   II 

"     t',        " 

II 

"        IHflO. 

"  Bilk  1111(1  other  (ioixlii,  Ilurrctl  v.  Ilnll, 

1  MaKon,  44T, 

ManH.,  IHIH, 

II        II            It        II 

tilL'ariiH  t'.  llurrott, 

I       "       IS3, 

"       |81»i 

II        II            )«        II 

"      I'.        " 

1  I'ick.,  413, 

"      182J. 

KiIkoiI  Toiiln,  onHtiiig, 

Collins  1'.  Whlto, 

Ma.  (App.  Cm.), 

D.  0,  IHHO. 

Kk'cirlc  Toloitruiih, 

Ilain  V.  Morm', 

II            It 

"       IHID, 

II           1. 

Cliim  V.  llrower, 

3  Curt.,  r.OO, 

Mass.,  INO,',, 

!•                   •) 

"    V.          " 

1 1  Mo,  J,aw  Ilcp.,  300, 

"      |H.-,o. 

II           II 

French  v,  llo(p«rii. 

MR, 

Pu.,  IH5I. 

«i            II 

Momo  V.  O'UuiUy, 

MR, 

I).  C,  IMI9. 

II            It 

"      V.          " 

MS.. 

Ky.,  IHIH. 

II            II 

OMlollly  tl.  Ntonw, 

1ft  IFow..  C3, 

Sup.  Ct..  1N5.1. 

II            II 

HiidilliT  V.  ItudHon, 

4  Curt.,  0, 

Mr,  IH54. 

II            II 

tJnilth  V.  Fly, 

5  McLean,  7(1, 

Ohio,   lHt<). 

II            11 

II     ^^    >• 

ir.  How.,  i:i7, 

Pup.  Ct.,  I.Mft.!. 

II            II 

••     V,  Downlnff, 

M.><„ 

Mass.,  1H50. 

II            II 

"      t'.  .Seidell, 

1  Dlatcl.C,  476, 

N.  Y.,  iMlij. 

Envelope  a, 

Arnold  v.  Totter, 

MS.  (App.  CuH.), 

D.  C,  |H(;i). 

II 

Orr,  Kx  parto, 

It            II 

"    iHri!/ 

Krnsor, 

IlickH  V.  Hhavor, 

II                  M 

"      1801. 

KxImuBt,  variable, 

Wiuaus  V.  Dunt'ortli, 

F. 

Mullikcn  t'.  Lfttchcin, 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  IHOO. 

F(>ntliprs,  ronovatlng, 

7  niaokf.,  ino. 

Ind.,  IHIl, 

KilcH,  flitting. 

Morrill  ('.  WortliiiiKlon, 

14  Mass.,  :i80. 

Muss.,  1817. 

l''iro-Ariii8, 

Colt  V.  YoutiK, 

2  HIatclif.,  471, 

N.  Y.,  IH52. 

II        II 

Bliaw  1',  Cooprr, 

7  I'et.,  'i!)2. 

Sup.  ('(  ,  \s:\x 

II        II 

YoiinK  V.  Colt, 

2  lllatchf.,  :i73, 

N.  Y.,  Lsr,..i, 

11        II 

Allen  V.  Hlunt, 

3  Htory,  1V1, 

Mass.,  iMi,"). 

II        II 

11           II 

2  Wood,  k  Min.,  121, 

Mass.,  ISK). 

"        "     Rifled  Cannon, 

Laidloy  v.  James, 

MH.  (App.  Cns.), 

D.  C,  iMJo. 

"        "     Lockafor, 

See  hicks. 

Firo  Eiipincfl, 

Fi.rk  V.  Little, 

3  Wash.,  100, 

Pa.,  181.1. 

a          II 

Mayor,  Ac,  v.  Ransom, 

23  How.,  487, 

Sup.  Ct.,  18CC 

II          II 

RanHoni  v.  ifayor,  Ac., 

M.S., 

N.  Y.,  IH.VI. 

Firo  Kscapo, 

Dederiok,  Kx  i)artc, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

P.  c,  \m>. 

Flour,  Macliinory, 

Evans  v.  Chamhers, 

2  Wash,,  125, 

Pa.,  1H07. 

U                     II 

"     V,  Elaton, 

Pet.,  0.  (;.,  322, 

"       l.SIC. 

<*               " 

"       V.        " 

3  Wheat.,  454, 

Sup.  Ct    181 S, 

«              u 

"       V.        " 

3  W  ish.,  443, 

Pa.,  ISIH 

*              1* 

"       V.        " 

7  Wheat.,  \\M, 

Sup.Ct.,  1822, 

H                      (1 

"     V.  Ilettiek, 

3  Wash.,  408, 

Pa.,  18LH. 

"                      '* 

"     V.        " 

7  WiM'.it.,  453, 

Sup.Ct,,  1822. 

U                      U 

"      V.  Jordan, 

1  Rrock.,  248, 

Va.,  iMLi. 

^    M                      M 

"       V.       " 

0  Cra.,  199, 

iSup.  Ct,  1815. 

a                M 

"     V.  Kromer, 

Pet.,  C.  C,  215, 

Pa.,  isu;. 

It                    It 

"     1'.  Weiss, 

2  Wash..  342, 

"     1809. 

Fluids,  ovaporatin;j. 

ITopkins  v.  T.owifl, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1).  C,  1859. 

Forks,  Sluice, 

Teeao  t'.  I'iiolfis, 

1  McAllis.,  17,  48, 

Cal.,  1«55. 

11            11 

"     V.  Huntington, 

23  How.,  2, 

Sup.Ct.,  1859 

Furnaces,  Blast  of, 

Bell  V.  Daniels, 

MS., 

Ohio,  1.S58. 

II            It 

"    f.  MeCullogh, 

MS., 

"     1858. 

i>            II 

Dotmold  V.  Hooves, 

4  Ain.L.Jonr.,N.S.,  18R 

Pa..  1851. 

«       Iron, 

Whipplo  V.  Ronton, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

l\  C,  1854 

Furnaces,  Reverberating, 

Geiger  v.  Cook, 

3  W.  4  Serg.,  2GC, 

Pa.,  1842. 

Kiwlhio  A\ 


Ottii, 
"     Ihjrno 
"     Ue^uj, 

"        StoVPH 

(.Wnnn  Kurn 

Putiipn, 
(JlnsH  Knohi 

"         I'lttto, 

(Jraiu-Cleaii; 


"    nin«, 
'iriit  Mills, 
(;ii««c,  Stonr 
Cuim,  Autfer 
"      (Jartrl.i 
"      Primer 
Poo  alHo  /■•( 
Catta  Porefifl 
I'rinting, 


Ifaif  Oil, 
IfornoHs)  for  Lf 

Sa 
1 1  arrows, 

ilarvoHtoi's, 
II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

11 

II 

II 

II 

II 


lints. 


^  "  Mirrors  for, 
^ny  Kako, 
Heatinjr  Water  1 
|'<'mi),  dressing, 
Itoaoy,  Artificia: 
i'l'rizontal  Wate 
Horological  Crnd 


■ffr' 


iyr«ii« 


TArsi.K  OF  CASKS,  n. 


M 


AHRANitKli  AH  TO  SUMMT  MATTia 

KuMblo  Alloy, 

BfMt*  CMC, 

7  Opin.  Attr  0«n., 

133,   Has. 

■1          '• 

MvtraoB  k  Ulgortl,  Kx  i>*r(«, 

O. 

MoDoiiirall  f.  Togf(, 

Ua.  (A|ip.  Cue ), 

D.  C,  UaS. 

r.iid, 

3  Hoiw.,  317, 

N.  T.,  Ifl.'S. 

lliirnrr, 

Widi'h,  Kx  >arto, 

Mti.  (A|)p  Con.), 

1).  0,,  1857. 

■I     K<'t(ulator, 

Tlorrintt  v.    .iIIIukwoII, 

II           II 

"         iHlll. 

"     HtovrH, 

H|N<ar  V,  Alilmtt, 

It           It 

"       1851). 

(Hniin  Kurniliiro  for  Beer 

rutii|>», 
CAM*  KiinbH, 

Sooly't  Caio, 
Wliilmy  t'.  Kmmf>tt, 

2  Opln.  Attj.  Hon., 

62,        "      1H27. 

llnld.,  30.1, 

ro„  im:u. 

"    riuto, 

(li'<'f'iii)ii({li  1).  Clark, 

MH.  (A pp.  Ci«,), 

I>.  (1„  1833. 

()ri\iu('lL-uiui)g  .llanhino, 

I'litlli'  r.  'riminiM, 

I'J  Coiiii.,  Mi, 

ct,  i8;iH. 

„           II            II 

t^uiuU'rij  1'.  Iio^nii, 

:i  W  ill.,  Jr., 

I'a.,  IHC.L 

II          11            It 

Hiiiilli  1'.  1'  lii'ki'tiKPr, 

MS-  (A pp.  CvLtX 

1).  C,  1HJ3. 

"    Hin«, 

MarMJi,  Kx  parti<, 

II           ii 

"        iMdO. 

CrUt  Millx, 

KitikhIIo  |i,  (Iraiit, 

•I  Itlai'kf.,  57, 

Tnd.,  18;i.-,. 

(luiiKf,  Hloam, 

Furloy  v.  Nat.  Htm.  flajj.  Co., 

MS,  (A pp.  CaH.X 

I)  C,  1850. 

(liiiiH,  AiiniT  to  l)or»», 

I'ctlllioiio  V.  PiTrliiKor, 

4  Wash.,  'Ut,, 

I'tt.,   181H. 

"     (Jiirtriilno,  uifitalUo, 

Mfiviuuil,  Kx  t>itrt», 

MS  (.\|iri,  Can.), 

I).  C,  1807. 

"      rrimiTH,          " 

Smith  V.  Sluirp,  Uillu  Co., 

3  UlHtehr.,  54S, 

Ct,        " 

Si'o  aUo  yue-Arm». 

Ciitu  I'orctift  I'Utcs,  for 
priutlng, 

Kiugilujr  V.  llorriut, 

MS.  (App.  Can.), 

D.O.,  1804. 

Hair  Oil, 

Bnrry  t'.  ClirlniKli, 

12  Law  nop.,  .307, 

N.  Y.,  Ifl»9. 

llarn«>«s*  for  Looms, 

Koiiijall  V.  WiiKsor, 

21  llnw.,  :\'il, 

Hup.Ct.,  I85H 

"          8»«ldlo8, 

North  V.  Jiiiu'M, 

4  lllatchf.. 

N.  Y.,  1857 

lliirrowH, 

Woo'lrufV,  j'lx  parte, 

MS.  (App.  Ca*.), 

I).  C,  185!). 

llnrveslo'H, 

Hall,  Kx  parto, 

11           II 

•^        IHCO 

II 

Com.  Imi.  Co.  )'.  Soniictt, 

37  Penn.,  205, 

Ta.,  IHCO. 

II 

Uavin,  Kx  parto, 

MS.  (App.  CaM.), 

1),  C.,  1850. 

11 

Kinory, 

14                       »1 

(4                  Ii 

II 

Ifus.si-y  V.  M(<"ormifik, 

M8„ 

111,1859. 

II 

MeCwiiiick  v.  .liTomi', 

3  Ulatelif.,  480, 

N.Y.I  850. 

It 

"          V.  Kotrimm, 

MH.  (App   Can.), 

D.  C,  1853. 

It 

"         V.  Many, 

(1  McLcuu,  0:tU, 

111.,  1855. 

It 

"         V.  Soymour, 

MS., 

K.  Y.,  1850. 

It 

It         J,         II 

2  lllatchf.,  240, 

"       1851. 

It 

It         „|        It 

MS., 

1(                      41 

tt 

"            V.          " 

3  Ulntohf.,  '209, 

"        1851. 

11 

"         V.  Talcott, 

20  How.,  402, 

Snp.Ct.,  i8:.7. 

II 

Nourso  V.  Allen, 

MS., 

N.  v.,  1858. 

t< 

llujrff  V.  Haines, 

M.S.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1855. 

It 

SoUlun.  Kx  parte, 

11            i< 

"      IHOl. 

It 

Soymoi.r  v.  McCormick, 

Ifi  now.,  480, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

.i 

"         V.           " 

10  How.,  1)6, 

"        1856. 

Hats, 

Burr  V.  Cowpertliwnito, 

4  Jtlat<-hf., 

Ot,  1858. 

" 

('owpcrtliw.'iito  r.<lill, 

MS.  (App,  Cas.), 

I).  C,  1859. 

ti 

Gorham  r.  Mixter, 

1  ,\m.  L.Jour.,  N. 

R.,  5.13,  Mass.,  1,840. 

■i 

Grant  v.  Mason, 

1  Law  Int.  A  Uov 

,  22,      N.  Y..  182.8. 

ii 

"     t'.  llayniond, 

C  Pet.,  218, 

Sup.  Ct.,  I.'^:i2. 

II 

Hopkins  v.  Uarnum, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1H5.V. 

II 

O'llara,  Kx  parte-, 

II        11 

"      18()0. 

II 

St.  John  )',  Prentiss, 

MS., 

N.  Y„  1853. 

"  Mirrors  for, 

■\Vlioelor,  Kx  parte, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1).  C,  1 800. 

Hay  Rakp, 

Jollill'e  r.  Collin.«, 

21  Mo.,  :!:!H. 

Mo.,  1855. 

Heating  Water  forBoilnrq 

,     Snowdon  v.  Piorco, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

1).  C,  1801. 

llerap,  drosHinpr, 

Dickinson  r.  Hall, 

14  Pick.,  217, 

Mass.,  1833 

llouoy,  Arlillciul, 

Corbin  A  Martlott,  Ex  pnrto 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

I).  C,  1.S57 

Horizontal  Wator-Whoel, 

Isaacs  t'.  Cooper, 

4  Wash.,  259, 

Pa.,  1821. 

llorological  Cradli), 

Edmunds  i'.  Hildroatli, 

IC  111.,  215, 

111.,  1854. 

^^•'•s 


1  I  r 


mj/fH 


^rC: 


'W'^ 


k£i4-.. 


1  iir 


iLlTm 


\L 


tl  H 

It  M 

H  H 

W  M 

!•  II 

"       WiCHI, 

Ui>U'l  Aiiuumiiilor, 

M  N 

fljrdniuUo  PDwtr, 


TAMLK  OK  l!ASKH,  II. 


AMMDiii  >'  <ki  I'l  M  Mji<  I    u  1 1 1 1 II 


KlimiNiii*  9,  Utjtm, 
lliMmMb  ».  TttHM^ 
Ufyvn  V.  TMrniif, 
Mncku/,  I  \  |>nrli>, 
I'viiimkIi  r.  ln»tu|fU«t 

rtit*  p.  Hull, 
II   ,,_   11 

F<Ni*  i>.  Ill<'hnri|««n, 
Cri'lmri'  r  Nurtixi, 

J  U.K.  IK'll  'iVI.fo.v. 

i      emoii, 
riinlpi  I',  Mnjrcr, 

f. 


Koifl-  } 


lit  III,  SOT, 

n  "  iM, 
IT  "  nu, 

MH.  (A|.,»,  (?»•.), 

4  WikIi.,  fiUM, 
•J  IVI.,  I 

5  lll.il.tif,  2iO. 
8  llliitilif.,  'iOl, 

1 1  Mo,  Uw  lt«p.,  0)0, 
MR, 

3  itiiiti'lir,  Ii4, 

\:>  How.,  mo, 

IIH.  (Ai>|>,  t'ui.X 


U'o,  ciitllriir, 

Wfitlli  I'.  Stoiif, 

I  Hiory,  27.1, 

"    niovvlivjf, 

Ki'iniMT,  !•:«  piirlo, 

M.^,  (A pp.  Caa), 

"    Plr. 

lii>r«, 

RtiriitMon  I'.  ItoKi'm, 

•1  Illntihl'., 

Imlla-rubbor, 

11.* 

,  Kiili.  Co,  ii.  Wlnsf, 

M.S.  (A|.|).  Cim.), 

II 

CJ«fll'«  1'.    lloHl.    Kill.  i\\, 

Ti  How.,  'in, 

i« 

'      1'.  Iliivwanl, 

20     "     aoH, 

M 

'       t:  N,'K.  CarMpK.Co 

.   M.^,, 

U 

C 

iitit,r. I(ii'>'  I'o.  r.  Am.  KInit. 

}  MS., 

rioih  Co., 

U 

Vny  i:  lloHt,  Ilolt.t'o., 

MR, 

•1 

it 

V.               " 

M.S., 

It 

11 

V.               " 

(1  Mo.  Law  Ilc'p.,  .120, 

II 

II 

V.     try, 

M.S., 

II 

II 

V      lywiinl, 

•.'0  How.,  20.M, 

II 

II 

V.  tlooilvi'iir, 

M»^ 

II 

II 

v.  lliirt'<liorii. 

MR, 

II 

II 

V. 

MR, 

11 

II 

V. 

MR, 

II 

II 

V.  I.vonn, 

V.  N.  M.  (?nr-P|iiln(irOo., 

M.S.. 

II 

II 

3  IllaU-lir,  101,  170, 

II 

II 

V.  Ni'Wiirk  I.  H  Co., 

1         "         (128, 

II 

•1 

v.  PoplHIlllim,-*!!!, 

MR, 

II 

II 

V.  (^Ii'llniiiii, 

MR, 

11 

II 

V.  Uiiiou  Itiili.  ('o,. 

3  Hlatdif,  iH8, 

1* 

II 

V,         "             " 

211  How.,  21(>, 

1* 

II 

k  Jiulson  V.       " 

4  lllutchf.. 

II 
II 
II 

II 
II 
II 
II 
II 
II 


Goodyear  v.  Ilislioji, 
v.  lloiinio, 
V.  ('liallec, 
V.  Day, 
V.    " 
V.    " 
V.    " 

V.   "  .V  Tonp.  R.  Co., 
V.  liiiiiliar, 
t'.  Mcllurnoy, 

V.  riicipM, 

"        V.  HiiilroiiilM, 
"        J'.  I'liiou  Uiib.  Co., 
ITartxhorn  v.  l)ay, 
Juilsoii  V.  Iiiiy, 
M.'ircy  ('.  Trollcr, 
JIi'Huriicy  ('.  (iooilyoar, 
j  I'oppfiiliciiscn  r.  N.  V.  0.  ) 
(      r.  Comb  Co.,  i 

"  V.  " 

"  V.  " 

Snydam  v.  Da}', 
Warner  v.  (Jooilycar, 


•2m, 

2(18, 

sen, 


M.S., 
M.S., 

2  Wall,  .Tr.,  2S3, 

3  Itlutchr.,  .149, 
3  Wall.,  Jr., 

3  Walilif.,  :rj, 

3  "         01. 

•2  Wall.,  Jr.,  35C, 

M.S, 

1!»  How.,  211, 

M.S.. 

M.S  (Ajip.  Can.), 

1 1  Cu>'li.,  5C0, 

4  lilatchr., 

MR, 

M.S., 

2  lilatdif.,  20, 

MS.  (Aj.p.  Caa.), 


III.,  IIM. 

"  iitaa 

"     iHftft. 
I>.  ('..    iKliO. 

I'M.,  \h'i!t. 
Hup.  Ct.,  |M3!», 
N.  v.,  I»<ftl. 

»  IH-VI. 
Mam.,  iN&u. 
N,  Y.,  IH..;). 

"      1H&». 

Ftip.Ct.,  IM.M 
1).  C,  ItlttU. 


Mbm.,  in  10. 
I).  C,  I  Mil. 
(U.,  IH60. 

I).  (^.  i«(!o. 
Hup.  Ct..  I  h:>\\. 

"         IH57. 
N.  Y.,  iHiVj. 

To.,  J«ri7. 

N.  Y.,  lHr..T 

"        IH.VI. 

"         iMftl. 

"        )n6!l. 
Biip.Ct.,  lh,-,7. 
N.  J.,  1N50. 

M.  r.,  1H63. 

"        IH.VI. 

"      116. 
I,n.,  iHiio. 
N.  v.,  is'.l. 

"         \Ht,l). 
"         IN.VJ. 

M(l..  1«50. 
N.  v..  iH.'.rt. 
Hup.  Ct.,  1H,')7. 
N.  v.,  IH.-.7. 

"        IHflO. 

"        IH.^J. 

"     m,:k 

"        IH.IO. 

N.  J.,  iHno. 

"       IHB'J. 

"  1H52. 
N.  Y.,  IH.^i! 
N.  J.,  lKt!l. 
N.  Y.,  iH.Vi 

"  18,13 
N.  J.,  isn'.'. 
N.  Y.  18i17. 
Sup.Ct.,  is.')i). 
N.  Y.,  1851, 
1>.  C,  IHCQ 

MnsH.,  isr,3. 

N.  Y.,  ISS.i. 

"    1S.<3. 
"     1S.J. 

"      IMK). 

D.  c,  iciie. 


rmlla  riilitH 
liiillii-riil>l)< 

titk,  rriiitii 
**  I. 

"  Wriiif, 
ln«tilntlii|f  I 
Iron  liriilif,. 

"    M.inurr 

M  ., 

Irwsfiiiur  K.I 


.ritila,  Irori, 
Juiirtial  li<i«« 


Knitllnx  f/xiri 
KnirvN  I'or  ||u 
Knol)*,  Dtior, 


ImoUhA  Itmtrur 

r.iulii'x'  HronHi'f 

Ijiiriip.i, 
•I 

II 

11 

II 


Loud  Pip« 


II 
II 
II 

II 
11 
11 


I-oothor,  nittlnj^l 

spiittinf 

taiiiiitiv 

l«'it(>r  Fil.., 

'."Vfl.H,  .Spirit, 

I'tMidiiliiiL 
Lovor  for  raisin  J 

Miip.s,  r 

'.iKfitniiig  itodH, 


J. 


I  mo. 


Kilii, 


f'Ock.q  for  noor.q, 
JaniiH- 

"    Firo-AriJ 
II  ^ 

"    and  I'rii 


ln<ll*'riilit>or, 
iuiilft>riil>lM<r  l(»llor«, 

Ink,  rniiiiiiir, 

II  11 

"    Wrillnu, 
liimiltitltiK  Tt'l.  WIro, 
initi  llrl<lt(i'«, 

"  Munufr.  «>r, 


TAIII.K  OK  CASh-H,  H. 


AWUMaHO  At  TO  MnHlOT  HATniK. 


W«riH'r  r   OiHHtjrxnr, 
WiMh,  Miu'.  ('iK  V.  K4rl«, 
Wad*  ¥.  MMllhawi, 

"     V.         '* 

Minipw)!),  Ki  iHtrto, 

\Vlii|i|ili<  I',  lliiti'liiiinon, 
ItiMitKi'ii  I'   Kitiiowrn, 
H(ivi>rv  I'.  l,<Miih, 
Im^Kulitr  Fitrroa,  (urniniri       Mm  Titrmng  tnfjnUir  t\,nn$. 


MS  (Ap|K  ('«•.), 
.1  Wnll .  Jr  . 
a  0|iiii   Ally  <>«n., 
MH  (.\|>|i.  Tua.), 
■J  niai.l.r,  .17, 
MM  (.Vi>|i,  I'im), 
4  lltntol,!, 
1  VV'iixli  .   ItlH, 
MM  (App,  CiM,), 


3)0, 


n.  r.,  III44. 

I'n.  INttl. 
h.  <!.,  JHftO. 

N,  V ,  IMrt. 
I>.  v.,  \m\. 
N    Y  ,  IHM. 
IV,  IMU4. 
|i,  C,  IH&9 


I 

ft 


^•;i 


"J' 


.rnlls,  Iron, 
.luiirtial  lloxoii, 


JmoIm,  Kx  imrto, 

Mittllii'WN  t'   Mkatnii, 
IlultorU  V.  Wnrtt, 


MK.  (App.  Cm.), 

MM, 

4  Mclicun,  O0A, 


n.  0,  inao. 

,\ljk,   IHIIO. 
Mull,  IH48. 


A] 


Z^ 


>wr^: 


^V»4| 


Knltllnit  r/x)m, 
Kiiivi'i*  I'or  llurveiitora, 
KiiciliH,  |hK)r, 


Marximll  v.  Nfo«^ 
Itulclik'.iiN  r.  ilri'Otiwool, 


V. 


MR.  (App,  nan), 

II  It 

4  M<'I.<'iii),  \M, 
11  llow,  21!^ 


D.  0.,  IMS. 
"     11154. 

Olilo,  IM4«. 
Hiip.Ct.,  1850. 


lAOtoni  IrmtrutnenU, 

DiiviiUon  1'.  r.i>wl«, 

M8.  (App.  Cai.), 

D.  C,  185«. 

I,u(li(<«'  DroiWfH, 

Doii^luMM  V.  iiliikititon, 

II           II 

"      1861). 

l^trii|m. 

Doll  V.  Mill, 

II           II 

"      1H64. 

It 

Dint/,,  K.x  piirti', 

II           II 

"      IHOO. 

ti 

"      V.   Hiirtihani, 

II           II 

"       1850. 

II 

Ilanli'iity  v.  Smith, 

:i  Ind ,  39, 

IimL,  1851. 
D.  C..  1H54, 

II 

NIcholH  )i.  Ilnrrin, 

MM.  (App.  Cas.), 

It 

BtophoDN  V.  t'lililwoll. 

MM., 

Mass.,  IHUO. 

Loud  ri^ 

(Jiiy  I'.  CorniOl, 

1  lllutohf.,  500, 

N.  Y„  I.S49. 

Lo  Hoy  V.  Tatham, 

14  Mow.,  150, 

Bup.Ct.,  1H52. 

11       II 

"         V.           " 

22     "      132, 

18.-)9. 

II       II 

Perry  v.  (Jornoll, 

MS.  (,\pp.  Cas.), 

D.  0.,  1847 

II       II 

Biildi'n  V.  Prini^lo, 

17  Hurl).,  S.  (!.,  468, 

N.  v.,  1864. 

II       II 

Tttllmiii  V.  Im  Koy, 

2  Hlutcht'.,  474, 

"       1862. 

II       II 

"         V.         " 

MS,, 

"       1840. 

11       II 

"       V.  Tiorin^, 

5  N.  Y.  Leg.  Ol)H.,  257, 

"       1846. 

II        II 

"       V.  Lowlwr, 

a  liliitolif.,  4!), 

"       1847. 

II       II 

"         V,         " 

4  niatohf.. 

"       1857. 

Lonthor,  oiittinff  into  Solos, 

Foster  V.  Mooro, 

1  Curt.,  270, 

Mass.,  1852. 

"        ii|ilittin^, 

Woodcofk  t\  I'urkor, 

1  (Jail,  4:17, 

"        1HI3. 

"        tuiiwlug. 

DavlH  V.  Ik'll, 

H  N.  Ilamp,  600, 

N.  H.,  1837. 

U'ltor  Kile, 

Smith,  II.  L,,  V.x  parlo, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

P.  C,  1853. 

Lovt'lrt,  Spirit, 

Oibbord  v.  Ha^ot, 

4  match  f.. 

Ct.,  18.'.7 

"       I'lMiiiiiluni, 

Chnndlor  v.  I,ai|i|, 

M8,  (Aj)p.  Cas.), 

1).  C,  1857. 

Lovor  for  niisinn  \V'i'inlitH, 

("iiyoii  r.  SiTii'll, 

1  matcht:,  244, 

N.  Y.,  18.»7. 

"        Sliiim,  llilKo, 

Thomnn  v.  Wcuks, 

2  ruino,  92, 

"       1827. 

I.ightnlug  Hods, 

(Jimiimiui,  S.  I>,  Kx  parte, 

MS,  (App.  Cub.), 

D.  C,  1858. 

It           II 

KtcariiH  «'.  DaviH, 

II            II 

'•       1869. 

I.imo-Kllu, 

Soely,  Kx  parte. 

II            II 

"       1853. 

II       II 

ilill  V.  Thiicrmer, 

13  Ind.,  351, 

Ind.,  1859, 

liOcks  for  Doors, 

Dnll  V.  Murray, 

lOPonn.,  HI, 

Pa.,  I.SIS. 

"       Jonus-focod, 

Adams  v.  Jdiies, 

3  Wall,  Jr., 

"      185!). 

II               II 

LivinjfHton  v.  Jones, 

3 

"     1801. 

"     Firo-Arms, 

Alien  V.  Bluut, 

3  Story,  742, 

Miiss.,  1846. 

11           II 

.1      „      II 

1  Blatchf.,  480, 

N.  Y.,  1849. 

II           11 

"      V.  Sprague, 

1        "         667, 

"       1850. 

*'    and  Primer, 
6 

Smith  V.  Sharp  liifle  Co., 

3       "         545, 

Ct.,  1S&7. 

(Hrl 


^ 


"•'  s^M 


'  K 


"IHUl\ 


y\ 


SAL 


^w^w^ 


''iLiiii 


;cvwwv 


00 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  B. 


>*»f 


n  ^^4 


'^jin 


"^ 


liiii,.,; 


''  I 


'  ^^'tiii^'ii 


Si;'; 


AUIUNOED  AS  TO  8UIUE0T  UaTTKR. 


Locomotivrs,  rcmoviiif? 

LocotnolivoH,  vuriublo  ex- 

liaii.st  of, 
Looms, 


Lottorics,  drawing, 


MiK'liino  Ctirdfl, 

MiU'liiiH'ry,  driving, 

Marine  CainclH, 

MaU'lios,  friction, 
li  11 

II  II 

II  II 

II  II 

II  II 


•  Simiison  V.  Mad  Riv.  R.  R., 
■  Wiiians  v,  Dnnfortli, 


Medicines, 


Jforcantilo  Acpoimts, 
Millstones,  holding, 

^^oss,  treating  ns  Hair, 
Moiiliiings,  planing. 
Mowing  MacliineH, 
Muskets,  Auger  to  bore. 


l\v('r  t'.  liieli, 
lorliusli  V.  iiradford, 

t'.  ("odk, 
Stone  V.  Spraguo, 
Wright  V.  Wilson, 
Vunuuiii  V.  I'uino, 

in. 

■Well man  i'.  Blood, 
Tiioinas,  Kx  parte, 
AVIuslow,         " 
I3rookH  V.  Uyam, 

"        V.         " 
Byum  V.  BiiUard, 

"     V.  Kddy, 

"     V.  Fnrr, 
Ryan  v.  (loodwin, 
Bacon  Case, 
Brown  v.  Wright, 
Couistock  ('.  Moore, 
Davis  V.  Kentlall, 
Jordan  i:  Overseers  of  Poor, 
Perkins'  Case, 
Thomson  v.  Stnats, 

"       V.  'Winchostor, 
Dixon.  Ex  i)arto, 
Ilovt,  Ks.  parte, 
Smith  r.  I'caree, 
Mus.  Ilairf'o.  i'.Amcr.  IluirCo, 
8errell  v.  Collins, 
See  l/arvcali-rii. 
Pettibono  v.  Derringer, 


G  McLean,  603, 

MS., 

I  Mote,  180, 

II  Mo.  Law  Rop.,  47 1, 

10  "  "  604, 
1  Story,  270, 

11  Rich.  Law,  Ml, 
1  llarrington,  66, 


MS.  (App.  Cas.), 


1  Gtory,  ;100, 

2  Story,  625,  563, 

1  Curt.,  100, 

2  Blatchf.,  521, 

1  Curt.,  2ti0, 

3  Simin.,  514, 

2  Opin.  Atty.  Gon.,  109, 

17  Ark.,  9, 

18  How.  Pr.,  421, 
2  R.  1.,  5U0, 

4  llannn.,  294, 

1  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.,  64, 
15  Wend.,  395, 

H)  Pick.,  2 H, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

2  McLean,  170, 
,4  Blatclif., 

4.       '< 

4  Wu.sh.,  215, 


lit 


Xails,  Brad,  cutting,  Sawin  v.  Guild, 

"      cutting  and  heading,  Gray  v.  James, 
II          II                  II  ii    p     II 

"  "  "  Odiorno  v.  Ames.  Xail  Fac, 

"  "  "  "       V.  Winklcy, 

Nuts,  Metallic,  Cole,  Ex  parte. 


Oil  Can, 

"  Cloth, 
II      II 

"  Patent  Sperm, 
Omnibus  Stop, 


Paint,  metallic, 
Palm-leaf,  for  Beds, 
Paper,  making, 

11  a 

"      folding, 
Pattern  Rollers, 
Pavements, 


Arthur,  Ex  parte, 

Sparkman  v.  Iliggins  , 

"  V.         " 

Thomas  v.  (Juintard, 
Stephenson  v.  lloyt, 

P. 

Maule,  Ex  parte, 
Howe  V.  Abbott, 
Ames  V.  Howard, 
Knight  V.  Guvit, 
Appletons  v.  Chambers, 
Hutchinson  v.  Meyers, 
Smith,  B.  C,  Ex  parte. 


1  Gall.,  485, 
Pet.,  C.  C,  394, 

"     47G, 

2  Mason,  28, 
2  Gall.,  51, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 


MS.  (Anp.  Cas.), 

1  Blatck,  205, 

2  "       29, 
5  Duel,  80, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 


Oliivi,  1855. 

N.  Y.,  1800. 

Mass.,  1840. 

1H56. 

1857. 
R.  L,    1840. 
K.  Car.,  1 857. 
Dol.,  1832. 


D.  C,  1856. 

"       18G0. 

"       1850. 
Mass.,  1840. 

"       1843. 

"       1852. 
Vt,,  1853. 
Mas.s.,  1852. 

"       1839. 
1828. 

Ark.,  lasr.. 

N.  Y.,  1800. 

R.  I.,  1H50. 

Ohio,  1831. 

170(!. 

N.  Y.,  183G. 

Mass.,  1837. 

D.  C,  18(>0. 

"  18(10. 
Ohio,  1840. 
N.  Y.,  1858. 

"      1857. 

Pa.,  1818. 


Mass.,  1813. 
Pa.,  1817. 
"    1817. 
Mass.,  1819. 
"       1814. 
D.  C,  1867. 


D.  C,  1860. 

N.  Y.,  1846 

II  11 

"      1855. 
D.  C,  1854. 


MS.  (App.  Cas.),  D.  C,  1853. 

2  Story,  199,  Mass.,  1842, 

1  Sumn.,  482,  "      1833. 
Mir.  Pat.  Office,  94,  131,  Pa.,  1840. 

MS.  (App.  Cos.),  D.  C,  1860. 

"             "  "     1861. 

"             "  1860 


K 

It 

II 

II 

li 

II 

M 

II 

II 

II 

11 


11 
■  I 


11 
11 
II 


11 

II 

11 

II 

11 

II 

11 

II 

II 

11 

11 

II 

II 

II 

II 

11 

II 

11 

II 

II 

II 

11 

II 

II 

II 

II 

11 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

TABLE  OF  CASES,  B. 


07 


ARIIANHKI)    AH  TO  HUIUKCT   MATrKIl. 


Puvotiicnfs 

. 

Tillitinn,  Kx  jmrto, 

l'.';ri,'iMK  M 

aclilno, 

Stiirti'vant  i'.  (irconougli, 

IVll  iilitl  I' 

.'lu'il  Oaso, 

llawlcy  i:  Itagloy, 

" 

11         II 

HicliartlMdii  V.  Ilifks, 

I'didiiliiin, 

Lovol, 

C'liaiiilltT  V.  I.atlil, 

l'iM-f<initiii(<  l'iii)t'r, 

Toppaii  r.  Nat.  Ilk.  Nolo  Co., 

I'lKitiigrap 

>H. 

l'"ry  .V  Si'cly,  Kx  parli>, 

I'liiH,  paporinf?, 

AiiuT.  Pill  Co.  I'.Oak'vl.  I'inOo 

I'istol,  St'ir-cocking, 

Allen  V.  Hliiiit, 

I'ilcliors, 

lIcMiunl,  V.x  parte, 

I'laning  Mncliinca, 

Daniard  v.  (liliHiin, 

II 

II 

Itiekiiell  V.  ToiUl, 

II 

II 

lllooiiior  V.  McQiiewnn, 

11 

II 

"      V.  Sloiley, 

II 

II 

"      t'.  VauKlit, 

II 

II 

Brooks  I'.  UieknoU, 

II 

II 

"       V.           " 

II 

II 

"       V.          " 

II 

II 

"       V.          " 

II 

II 

"     V.  FiHko, 

II 

II 

II     (,_      11 

II 

II 

"      V.  Stdlloy, 

II 

II 

Urown  t'.  Siiniinoii, 

II 

•  1 

Peaii  V.  Ma.Koii, 

II 

II 

Uibsoii  V.  Dariuirit, 

II 

II 

"      V.  IkHts, 

II 

II 

"     V.  Cook, 

II 

II 

"v.  Gill'ord, 

II 

II 

"     1'.  Harris, 

II 

1! 

"     V.  Hicliarils, 

II 

■  1 

"     1'.  Van  Dressar, 

II 

II 

"     J'.  AVoodworth, 

11 

II 

Lippiiicott  V.  Kelly, 

11 

II 

I;ivin^:ston  r.  Woodwortli, 

■I 

II 

Mnsoii  V.  Tallnian, 

•; 

II 

Oleotl  V.  Hawkins, 

II 

II 

Itioli  ('.  Hoti'likiss, 

11 

11 

Hitler  V.  Serrell, 

II 

11 

Simp.son  r.  \Vilson, 

11 

II 

Sloat  V.  Patten, 

II 

II 

"     V.           " 

11 

II 

"   V.  riynipton. 

11 

II 

Smith  V.  Merwr, 

II 

II 

Van  Hook  v.  Pendleton, 

11 

II 

"           V.          " 

11 

II 

"         V.  Scnddor, 

II 

II 

■Washburn  v.  Oould, 

11 

11 

Wilson  V.  Barnuui, 

11 

II 

"      V.           " 

II 

II 

"     1'.         " 

II 

II 

"     V.  Curtiua, 

II 

II 

"     t;,  Ilosscau, 

11 

II 

"      V.           " 

II 

II 

"     V.  Sandford, 

11 

(1 

"     V,  iSherman, 

II 

II 

"     V.  Sinipson, 

II 

II 

"     V.  Stolley, 

II 

II 

"      V.           " 

II 

II 

"      V.           " 

11 

II 

"     V.  Turner, 

II 

II 

"      V.          " 

11 

II 

■Woodwortli  V.  Barber, 

II 

II 

"          V,  Cheover, 

It 

it 

"          V.  Cook, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
II  II 

MS,, 

MS.  (A pp.  Cas.), 
II  II 

MS., 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 
.,:i  Hlaiehl..  1!I0, 
2  ^"-.0,1.  i  .Min.,  121, 

^l-':       )p.  Cas.), 

(    !'■  tii'.O. 

•>  M,  1.V  jn,  r.'A 
i  ii.-.v,  ri:iit, 

B  .'leiiiaii,  158, 
1  Hlntclil".,  6'21), 
a  McLean,  '250, 
V         "         4;«2, 
4         •'  C-t, 

4         "  70, 

MS., 

15  H(,\v.,  212, 
a  McLean,  523, 
20  How.,  55, 
20      "       198, 
1  lilatchf.,  ;t88, 

1  "        ic:i, 

2  "         HI, 
1         "         529, 
1         "         1C7, 
Pat.  OfT.  Di(?.,  No.  376, 
1  Itlatdif.,  5:12, 
8  PaiKO,  i:!2, 
1  AVcst.  Law  Jour,  513, 
15  How.,  516, 

1  lilatchf.,  529, 

2  Am.  L.Jour.,N.S.,  319, 

1(!  (;onn.,  409, 

2  Jilatchf.,  379, 

4  How.,  709, 

4  West.  Law  Jour.,  49, 
j  24  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  25,  [ 
(      3d  Ser.,  ) 

4  West.  Law  Jour.,  49, 
4         "  "         49, 

1  Blatchf.,  187, 

2  "  85 
(  Cited,  3  McLean,  438 ;  ) 
/      3  Story,  132,  ) 

2  Story,  122, 
1  Wall.,  Jr.,  342, 

1  "  347, 

8  ITow.,  258, 

2  West.  Law  Jour.,  511, 
1  Watchf.,  3, 
4  How.,  G46, 
10     "       99 
1  Blatchf.,  536, 

9  How.,  109, 
4  McLepu,  272, 

4  "         275, 

5  "  1, 
7  Law  Rep.,  529, 
4  How.,  712, 

1  Blatchf.,  529  (cited), 

3  Story,  171, 

2  Blatchf.,  151, 


P.  (\,  I  SCO. 
"     l.sco. 
N.  Y.,  IhOr.. 
D.  C,  is.vi. 
"       1857. 
N.  Y.,  ISdl, 
]).  C.,  l.s,-)!). 
CI.,  IH.-.L 
Mass.,  1846. 
i).  C,  lM.-,7. 
Sup.  Ct..  1818. 
Ohio,  1M,^1. 
Sup.  Ct.,  18.-.2. 
Ohio,   IS.-.O, 
La.,  IH.-)0. 
Oliio,  1843. 

"       ISN. 

"       1  ,s  15. 

"       1815. 
Mass.,  1851. 

Sii)).  Ct..  i8:(3. 

Oliio,  181.K 
Sup.  Ct.,  1 857 
"         18,^.7 
N.  Y.,  IS  18. 

"       isiii. 

"        1 S50. 

"        1S5(). 

"       1S4(!. 

"       1845. 

"        LSaO. 

"       1810. 
Pa.,  1844. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 
P.  I.,  lS.-)0. 
"Wis,  1849. 
Ct.,  1811. 
N.  Y.,  1852. 
Slip.  Ct.,  1815. 
Pa.,  1840. 

"  18,-- 2. 

"  181(i. 
"  184t;. 
N.  Y.,  1S4«. 
"   1848. 

"   1843. 

Mass..  1:^44, 
Pa.,  181!). 

"  1849. 
Sup.Ct.,  1849. 
La.,  184.-). 
N.  Y.,  184r.. 
Sup.Ct..  1815. 
"    1850. 
N.  Y.,  1 850. 
Sup.  CI.,  1849. 
Ohio,  1847. 

"  1847. 

"  1849. 
Md.,  1845. 
Sup.Ct.,  1SJ5 
Mo.,  18,-)0. 
Mass.,  1844. 
N.  Y.,  1851. 


m^ 


^Vwv.  "**».;;.•;;; 


K'*'W*iir-.'-  -  i    i   ii^- 


1 


'■^^^^■d}^: 


'I[ 


'f«|i-.-jJN,. 

(if ;  ''ittf 


4^    »■■  ■!, 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  B. 


AIIBANIIKD   AS  TO  SUDJKCT 

MATTKIl. 

riMiiirifj  Miichiiic.'", 

Wood  worth  v.  Curtis, 

'>  W.  fi  M.,  52), 

Mass.,  1847. 

U                          44 

"            V.        " 

1  Hlatclif.,  529  (cited), 

"       1850. 

II                          41 

"          V.  I'ld'vards, 

3  W.  it  M.,  120, 

"       1847. 

II                          II 

"          V.  II  nil. 

1         "         248,  389, 

"       184(5. 

II                          II 

"          V.  l{ojforB, 

3         "         135, 

"       1H47. 

14                       41 

"          V.  iSliennun, 

3  Story,  171, 

"       1844. 

41                        41 

V    "         V.  Stone, 

3      "      749, 

"        1845. 

14                       II 

«         „.      .1 

1  Wood,  .t  Min.,  389, 

•'       184<;. 

41                   11 

•*          V.  Weed, 

1  Blatehf.,  1C5, 

N.  Y.,  184G. 

II             II 

"         V.  Wilson, 

4  How.,  712, 

Sup.  Ci.  1815. 

Plouglis, 

Coleman  v.  Lienor, 

MS., 

Ohio,  is,-i9. 

II 

Davis  V.  Palmer, 

2  Brock.,  298, 

Va.,  1827. 

u 

"     V.  Mi'Cormick, 

2       "       298, 

"    1.H27. 

II 

Oglo  V.  Ege, 

4  Wash.,  684, 

Pa.,  182G. 

II 

Prouty  V.  llupjfles, 

1  Story,  508, 

Mass.,  1841. 

II 

"      V.          " 

2       "     199, 

"       1842. 

44 

II          y                   II 

IG  Pet.,  336, 

Sup.Ct.,  1842, 

Pottery,  Manuir.  of, 

Linton,  Kx  parte, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1 800. 

PowclJr  Mills, 

Sanders,       " 

41                44 

"      18G1. 

Printing  I'rcss, 

I5al)coek  v.  DeKcner, 

44                11 

"       1859. 

II                   14 

Peach  V.  Tiieker, 

44                II 

"       IHGO. 

14                   44 

lluggles  V.  Young, 

MS.,"                " 

"       1853. 

"    from  Gutta-porcha, 

Kingsley  v.  Ilerriet, 

MS.,"        " 

"       1854. 

Propellers, 

Aiken,  Kx  parte. 

II         II 

"       1850. 

44 

Crooker,       " 

II         II 

"       1850. 

II 

Emerson  v.  Hogg, 

2  Blatehf.,  1, 

N.  Y.,  1815. 

II 

Hogg  V.  ?;merHon, 

G  How.,  437, 

Sup.Ct.,  1847. 

II 

"     V.           " 

11     "      587, 

1850. 

II 

Tyson  v.  Rankin, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

P.  C,  1853. 

Puddle  Balls,  rolling, 

Corning  v.  Burden, 

MS.. 

N.  Y..  1850. 

41                             II 

"           V.       " 

15  How.,  451, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

Pumps, 

Atkinson  v.  Boardman, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1847. 

11 

"         V.                " 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1861. 

II 

Chatlield  &  Dutchor,  Ex  parte 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859. 

II 

Lowell  V.  Lewis, 

1  Mason,  182, 

Mass.,  1817. 

II 

McCluro  V.  JetTiey, 

8  Ind.,  79, 

Ind.,  185G. 

II 

Mowry  v.  Barber, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1858. 

u 

Reed  v.  Cutter, 

1  Story,  690, 

Mass.,  1841. 

R. 


Rails  for  Railroads, 


Cushman,  W.  M.  C,  Ex  parte, 

"  "  O'Reilly  v.  Smith, 

,"  "  Stimpson  v.  Bal.  &,  Sus.,  R.  R., 

Railroads,  turning  Curves  on,  Phil,  k  Tr.  R.  R.  v.  Stimpson, 

"  "  Stimpson  v.  West  Clies.  R.  R., 

"  "  "        V.  Railroads, 

"        Cars  &  Carriages,  Cooper  v.  Matthews, 

"  "  York  <fc  Md.  R.  R.  v.  Winans, 

"  »     «  Wliflfila     i  Winans  v.  New  Cas.  &  Fr.    } 

8  Wheels,    ^      rj,^^^^  jj  ^^  ^ 

"  "  "  Winans «;.  Sch.  .&  Troy  R.R., 

"  "  "  "     v.  N.  Y.  &  ILir.  R.  R. 

"  "  "  "      t).  N.  Y.  &  E.  R.  R., 

"  "        for  Coal,  "      V.  Denmead, 

"  "        supporting,  Tmlay  v.  Nor.  &  Wor.  R.  R., 

"  "        Axles  of,     Winans  u.  Bos.  ifeProv.R.R, 

Dust  from,  Stephens,  v.  Salisbury, 
Allen,  Ex  parte, 
Woodruff,  Ex  parte, 
Aiken,  Ex  parte. 
Many  v.  Jagger, 

"      V.  Sizer, 
Sizer  v.  Many, 


■\ 


II 
II 
II 
ii 
II 


Car  Roofs, 

"    Seats, 

"    Wheels, 
11        II 


MS.  App.  Cas.), 

II  44 

10  How,,  329, 

14  Pet..  448, 
4  How.,  380, 

1  WaU,  Jr.,  1G4, 
8  Law  Rep.,  413, 
17  How.,  30, 

2  Blatehf.,  294  (cited), 

2       "         279, 

31  Jour.   Fr.  Inst,  3d 

Ser.,  320, 
21  How.,  88, 

15  "       330, 
MS., 

2  Story,  412, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.), 


1  Blatehf.,  372, 

MS., 

16  How.,  98, 


D.  0.,  1858. 
"        1853. 
SuT>  Ct.,  1850. 
1840. 
1845. 
Pa.,     U7. 
"     ]     !2. 
Sup.  Ci.,  1854. 

Md.,  1850. 

N.  Y.,  1851. 

■     "       1855. 

Sup.Ct,  1858 
"        1853 
Ct,  1858. 
Mass.,  1843. 
D.  C,  1855. 

"      1860. 

"      1860. 

"  1850. 
N.  T.,  1848. 
Mass.,  1S49. 
Sup.  Ct,  1853. 


Railroi 
Roapit 
Rockiii 


Saddles, 


Salt,  ma; 
Safes,  Ir 


II  II 

II  II 

II  II 

11  II 

Sash  Fast 

"    and: 

Saw,  Circii 

ll  44 

"     Mills 


Saw  Set, 

Screws, 

ll 

Screw  Nuts 
Scythe  Swa 
iSeed  Drills, 
Seed  Sower, 
Sewing  Mac 


II 

1 

II 

, 

11 

1 

II 

1 

II 

1 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

II 

Sewing  Silk, 
II 

.Shingle  MachiJ 


II 


II 


"  II 

"  II 

"  II 

Ship's  Timbers! 


••^i««»H, 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  B. 


69 


AKRANaED  AS  TO  SUBJECT  UATTEn. 


Riiilroud  Switch, 
KoapiiiK  MuchinoB, 
Uocking  ChairB, 


Spain  V.  Oamblo, 
800  Ilarvestera. 
Boan  V.  Siuullwood, 


MS.  (App.  Cub.), 
2  Story,  408, 


D.  C,  1855. 
Mass.,  1843. 


8. 


SudOlcs, 

Dixon  V.  Moyor, 

4  Wash.,  68, 

Pa.,  1821. 

II 

Thistle  V.  U.  States, 

Dov.  Rep., 

CtClms.,  18B6. 

II 

Williuina  v.  Hicks, 

2  Verm.,  36, 

Vt.,  1829. 

Salt,  manufacturo  of, 

Anon., 

5  Opin.  Atty.  Gen.,  101,          1814. 

Safes,  Iron, 

Delano  v.  Scott, 

Gilpin,  489, 

Pa.,  1H34. 

U                11 

Gayler  v.  Wilder, 

10  How.,  477, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1850 

II         II 

Bich  V.  Lippincott, 

2G  Jour.  Fr.  Inst., 
(3d  Sor.), 

^^'     Pa.,  1853. 

II        II 

Wilder  v.  Adams, 

2  W.  &  M.,  329, 

Mass.,  1816. 

II          II 

"      V.  Gayler, 

IBlatchf.,  511, 

N.  Y.,  18 19. 

II         II 

"       V.       '• 

1       "        697, 

"        1850. 

41                  II 

"      V.  McCormick, 

2       "        31, 

"        1846. 

Sasli  Fiistonor, 

Palmer  v.  Allen, 

MS., 

"        1854. 

"    and  Blind  Fastener, 

Elmer  i'.  Pennol, 

4  Maine,  430, 

Mo.,  1855. 

Saw,  Circular, 

Lee  V.  Ulandy, 

MS, 

Ohio,  1860. 

It        » 

Oir  V.  Uurrall, 

15  Ala.,  378, 

Ala.,  1849. 

'                "     Mills, 

Nye  V.  Raymond, 

16  111.,  153, 

111.,  1854. 

i                "       "        Circular, 

Page  V.  Ferry, 

MS., 

Mich.,  1857. 

II       11            II 

Phillips  V.  I'ago, 

24  How.,  159, 

Sup.Ct.,  1860 

Saw  Sot, 

Aiken  v.  Bemis, 

3  W.  &  M.,  348, 

Ma.ss.,  1847. 

►             Screws, 

N.  K.  Screw  Co.  v.  Slonn, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1853. 

14 

Pierson  v.  Eagle  Screw  Co., 

3  Story,  402, 

R.  I.,  1844. 

Screw  Nuts, 

Carter  v.  Carter, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1855. 

Scythe  Swaths, 

Alden  v.  Dewey, 

1  Story,  336, 

Mass.,  H40. 

Seed  Drills, 

Cressler  v  Custer, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1853 

Seed  Sower, 

Cahoon  v.  Ring, 

MS., 

Me.,  1859. 

Sowing  Machines, 

Berry,  Ex  parte. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1860. 

II             II 

Barstow  v.  Swan, 

t4                            it 

"     1860. 

li             ti 

ICUithorpe  v.  Robertson, 

II                             II 

"     1858. 

II             •  u 

"           V.            " 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1859. 

II             II 

Gibbs  V.  EUithorpo, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859. 

II               u 

"     V.  Johnson, 

II             II 

"     1860. 

u            u 

;  Grover  k  Baker  Sow.  Mac 
1      Co.  V.  Sloat, 

f  MS., 

N.  Y.,  1800. 

II                  M 

Howe  V.  Morton, 

13  Mo.  Law  Rep.,  70, 

Mass.,  1860. 

II                  II 

"     V.  Williams, 

MS., 

"      1860. 

II                  U 

"     V.  Underwood, 

MS., 

"      1854. 

II              a 

Hunt  V.  Howe, 

ilS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.C.,  1855. 

II              II 

Johnson  v.  Root, 

MS., 

Mass.,  1858. 

II              II 

Munson,  Ex  parte. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859. 

II              II 

Potter  t'.  Holland, 

MS., 

Ct.,  1853. 

II              II 

"     V.  Stedman, 

HiSkV  ■"■" 

"    1858. 

II              II 

"     V.  Wilson, 

m:, 

N.  Y.,  1860. 

II              II 

Ri.^'mond,  C.  II.,  Ex  parte. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  18G1. 

II              II 

Singer  v.  Walrasloy, 

MS., 

Md..  1859. 

II              II 

"     V.  Wilson, 

MS.. 

N.  Y.,  1858. 

II              II 

"     V.  Wooster, 

4  BlatcM, 

"      1857. 

II              II 

Wickcrsham  v.  Singer, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859. 

II              II 

Wilson  V.  Singer, 

II            II 

"     1860. 

Sowing  Silk,  manufr.  of. 

Hill  V.  Dimlee, 

II            II 

"     1857. 

11                II 

Lillie  V.  Kolsey, 

i<            II 

"     1858. 

Shingle  Machines, 

Earle  v.  Pago, 

6  N.  Hamp.,  477, 

N.  IL,  1834 

"            " 

"     V.  Sawyer, 

4  Mason,  1, 

Mass,  1826. 

11             II 

Judkins  v.  Earle, 

7  Greenl,  9, 

Me.,  1830. 

II             li 

Peek  V.  Bacon, 

18  Conn.,  377, 

Ct.,  1847. 

II             II 

"     V.  FarringtOD, 

9  Wend.,  44, 

N.  Y.,  1832. 

Ship's  Timbers,  preserving, 

Melius  V.  Silsby, 

•   4  Mason,  108, 

Mass.,  182S. 

I; 


>iiii 


yww,; 


1 


*"— 'wii/' 


,TTi 


i^ii^^. 


'^^^ 


,l'l  1, 


-m 


r"M 


TAHLE  OF  CASE8,  IJ. 


AUUANUKI)   AS  TO   NUBJKCT   MATTKIt. 


Shocn,  livctinjT, 

"  Soles  of, 
Silkx,  |)riiitiu|{, 
Skirts, 


w 

M 


FlatfS.  Artin.'iiil, 

Htiiiit  Mni'liinc, 

isi»oi'(lL'r  for  roving  Cotton, 


Ilazaril  v.  Orrcn, 
Eaiiii'H  V.  Hii'iiards, 
Mi'(iuw  V.  Hryari, 
ChaniborH,  Kx  purto, 
Mann,  " 

Nowmai),  " 

8iii'rw(i()il  I'.  Siierman, 
Street  I'.  Silver, 
Cansl'T  V.  Katon, 
Davull  V.  Urown, 


ilS.  (A  pp.  CaH.), 

M  <i 


D.  C,  1847. 
"      I8.)l), 

1  U.  H.  Imw  Jour.,  82, 682,  N.  Y.,  1H:»2. 
MS.  (A  pp.  Cas.),  1).  {;.,  iH59. 

"  "  "      IHIIO. 

"  "  "     IH.VJ. 

"  "  "     l8t;o. 

BriKlitly,  90,  Po.,  IHIC. 

2  .l()iiu.s'  K(|.,  499,  N.  Car.,  1H5(J. 

3  Woat.  Law  Jour.,  151,   Muss,  1M45. 


li 

II 

"         V.         " 

1  W.  A  M.,  5:5, 

"       184,1. 

it 

11 

Moody  y.  Kisko, 

2  Mason,  112, 

"       1820. 

Si)lkL'3,  Crud-hoodod, 

Corning  ('. Troy  IronANailFae.,  l.'i  How.,  451, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1853 

II 

II 

TroylrouANailFae.r. Corning,  1  Hlatelif.,  407, 

N.  Y.,  1849. 

41 

II 

"                    V.        " 

14  How.,  193, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1852 

a 

II 

"               v.Odlornc,  17      "      72, 

"       1854 

Spinner,  SelT-adjusting, 

Burnham  v.  Brewster, 

1  Vorm.,  87, 

Vt.,  1828. 

Spiiiii 

n;'  Frame, 

Uos.  Mainif.  Co.  v.  Fisko, 

2  Ma.son,  119, 

Mass.,  1820, 

Spirits,  purifying. 

Holden  V.  Curtis, 

2  N.  Ilamp.,  Gl, 

N.  H,,  1819. 

Spoons,  iron, 

Mi.\  V.  Perkins, 

MS.  (App.Cas.), 

1),  C,  1859. 

Stuves,  sawing, 

Janney,  Mx  jiarto. 

11             11 

D.  C,  1847, 

Steam 

-boilers. 

He'las  V.  Hays, 

6  Serg,  &  Rawlo,  427, 

I'n.,  1819. 

it 

"      fusible  Ailo7 

J      us'  Case, 

7  0]iin.  Attv.  (leu.,  i;i3 

185.-.. 

II 

II               11 

}        on  A  Kicard,  Ex  parte, 

MR.  (Ajip.  Cas.), 

D.C.,  1866. 

(i 

fienorator, 

Lhiia  V.  Slmwk, 

MS., 

Ohio,  1859. 

it 

CauKt'S, 

Farley  i'.  Nat.  Stm.  Gauge  Co.,  MS.  (App.Cas.), 

D.  C,  1859. 

II 

lioals. 

Cutting  V.  Meyers, 

4  Wa.^^h.,  220, 

Pa.,  1818. 

II 

Kuginos, 

Ulandy,  Kx  ])arto, 

MS  (App.Cas.), 

I).  C,  1858. 

" 

11 

Fallis  V.  (Jrillilli, 

Wriu'ht,  :io:t. 

Ohio,  1833. 

II 

"     Cut-off, 

Sliornian  v.  Cham.  Trans.  Co 

,  31  Verm.,  102, 

Vt,  1858. 

II 

II         11 

Judson  V.  Cope, 

MS., 

Ohio,  1800. 

It 

11         11 

"       V.  Moore, 

MS., 

"     1800. 

It 

"     Valves, 

Sickles  V.  Borden, 

3  Blatchf.,  535, 

N.  Y.,  1856, 

It 

II         11 

"      V.  Glou.  Manuf.  Co., 

MS., 

N.  .L,  1850. 

It 

11         II 

"       V.  Uorden, 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1857. 

II 

11         II 

"      t'.  Mitchell, 

3  Blatchf.,  548, 

'        1857. 

11 

II         .1 

"      V.  Pac.  Mail  S.  S.  Co. 

4       " 

"      1857. 

II 

11         <i 

"      V.  The  Falls  Co., 

4        " 

Ct.,  18G1. 

It 

II         II 

"      V.  Tilleson, 

4       " 

N.Y.,  1867. 

II 

11         II 

"      V.  Yoimg, 

3       "        293, 

"      1855. 

Steamboats,  to  remove  Snag. 

\  Shreeve  v.  U.  States, 

MS., 

Ct.Clma.,1859 

Steam 

Tow-boats, 

Sullivan  V.  Kedlleld, 

1  Paine,  441, 

N.Y.,  1825. 

Stop-cocks, 

Morris  v.  Huntington, 

1      "      348, 

"      1824. 

Stoves 

Itarstow,  Kx  parte. 

MS.  (App.  Cas,), 

D.C.,  18G0. 

11 

Buck  V.  Gill, 

4  McLean,  174, 

Ohio,  1846. 

u 

"    V.  Cobb  *  nermanco, 

9  Law  Rep.,  645, 

N.  Y.,  1846. 

It 

11           y_                                         II 

1  Blatchf.,  322, 

"       1848. 

(t 

II    j,_               11 

1        "        398, 

"       1849. 

II 

Dudley  v.  Mayliow, 

3  Corns.,  9, 

"       1849. 

II 

Hathaway  v.  Koaeli, 

2  W.  A  M.,  63, 

Mass.,  184G. 

II 

Jewctt  k  Root,  Ex  parte. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1863. 

II 

Orr  V.  Badger, 

7  Law  Hep.,  4G5, 

Mass.,  1844. 

II 

"    V.  Littlelield, 

1  \\  &  M.,  13, 

N.  11.,  1845. 

II 

"   V.  Merrill, 

1      "      .-no. 

Me.,  1846. 

II 

Peterson  v.  Wooden, 

3  McLean,  248, 

Ohio,  1843. 

II 

4 

Rathbone  v.  Orr, 

5        "        131, 

Mich.,  1850. 

II 

Stanley  v.  Whipple, 

2        "        35, 

Ohio,  1839. 

II 

Vance  v.  Campbell, 

MS., 

"     1859. 

"    DcsigDS, 

Root  V.  Ball, 

4  McLean,  177, 

"     1846. 

"    re 

gulating  Draft  of, 

Footo  V.  Silsby, 

1  Blatchf.,  445,         "" 

N.  Y.,  1849. 

II 

II              II 

"      V.       " 

1        "        542, 

"      1850. 

II 

II              II 

"      V.       " 

1        "        545, 

"      1850. 

it 

M                   II 

"      V.        " 

2        "        260, 

"      1851. 

II 

11                   <l 

"       V.         " 

3  Blatchf.,  507, 

"      1856. 

II 

M                    II 

Silsby  V.  Foote, 

14  How.,  218, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

M 

H                   W 

"     *•      " 

20  How.,  290,  378, 

"       1857 

Straw  Cii 


Siispondo 
Syringes, 


Tailors'  Sh 
Tanning  I 
'i'euth,  Min 
Tlii.stlo  Dig 
Tliread,  pui 
Threshing . 

u 
u 
II 
II 
II 
II 


lool.s,  gririUii 
•'  II 

Trado-Marks- 

HalmofTlh 
II 

Bergor's  "\V 
Calfskins,  J 
Chinese  Lin 
Cliristy's  M 
Chib-Houso 
Cocoainc, 


Davis'  Pain 
Kyo  Wato 
Glass,  Marie 
Good-will, 
Howe's  Bak 
Indian  Root 
Irving  Hon 


S( 


Matches,  Frii 
II  ' 

ii 
Meen  Fun, 
Merrimack  P 
Needles,  Mar 
Porter  Bottle 
Revere  Hou.J 
Scheidam  Sell 
Seeds,  LabeLsl 
ShoveLs,  Amef 
Steel  Pens,  \A 
Store  Sign,     1 
Thread  Bamsl 
'*       CourtiJ 

Persial 
•  II 

«  II 

"  II 


t, 


TAULE  OF  CASES,  H. 


1\ 


AKKANOKI)   AH  TO  BUDJEOT   UATTKIl. 


Straw  Cult«rs,  Ilovoy  v.  Honry, 

"  "    grimrgKiiivoa,      "      v.  Stoveus, 


SiiHpondors, 
8yrin(joa, 


inukiDg, 


V. 


DftWHon  V.  Kollon, 
Uarrott  v.  Duvidaon, 


:!  Wont  Law  Jour.,  163, 

1  W.  *  M.,  2l»0, 
3         "         17 

2  WiiHh.,  :m,' 

Ma.  (App.  Ctt8.), 


MiMS.,  1845. 

"     ia4t!. 

"       1840. 
Pa.,  180H. 
D.  C,  1857. 


T. 


Tuilors'  Shears, 

Iloinrich  9.  Luther, 

6  McLean,  346, 

Ohio, 

1855. 

Tiiniiinpf  Louthor, 

Davis  V.  Uoll, 

8  N.  Hamp.,  500, 

N.  H. 

1837. 

Toetli,  Minorul, 

Allen  V.  Hunter, 

(!  McLean,  ;<03, 

Ohio, 

1865. 

Tlii.stlo  Dignor, 

Houghton,  Kx  parte. 

M.S.  (A pp.  Caa.), 

D.  C, 

1854. 

Tliroad,  puckinpf, 

Laugdou  11.  Do  (croot, 

1  I'aine,  '203, 

N.  Y. 

1822. 

Throaliiug  Machines, 

Burrall  v.  Juwott, 

2  Paige,  134, 

II 

1830. 

II               ti 

Culver  V.  Webb, 

12  Conn.,  441, 

Ct.,  1838. 

II                         M 

fjoddard  i'.  [,ynian. 

14  Pick.,  2C8, 

Mass. 

1833. 

11                         11 

Harmon  v.  Bird, 

22  Wend.,  113, 

N,  Y. 

1839. 

II                         II 

MolUtt  )'.  Garr , 

MS., 

Ohio, 

1800. 

II                         II 

I'itta  V.  .latneson. 

15  Harb.,  S.  C,  310, 

N.  Y. 

1853. 

II                         II 

"     V.  Weiiiplo, 

0  McLean,  558, 

111.,  185,'-.. 

II                         II 

"    V  Whituinn, 

2  Story,  00!), 

Mass. 

1843. 

II                         II 

Smith  V.  Fliekeugor, 

MS.  (A pp.  Cas.), 

D.  C., 

1843. 

II                         II 

Vau  Nostrand  v.  Reed, 

1  Wenil.,  424, 

N.  Y. 

1828. 

Tools,  grindiiifj. 

llovey  V.  Stevens, 

1  W.  &  M.,  290, 

Mass. 

1846. 

li          11 

II    y         II 

3         "           17, 

II 

184i: 

Trado-Mark.s — 

lialni  of  Thousuud  Flowers,  Fotridgo  v.  Merchant, 

4  Abb.  Pr.,  156, 

N.Y. 

1857. 

11              >i             II 

"      V.  Wells, 

4         "          144, 

II 

1857. 

Bergor'a  ■\Vatclios, 

Samuel  v.  Borgor, 

24  Barb.,  S.  C,  1 03, 

II 

1856. 

Calfskiim,  Mark  of, 

Leuioino  v.  Gauton, 

2  K.  1).  Smith,  343, 

II 

1854. 

Chiiioso  Liiiiiiu'iit, 

CoH'cen  V.  Bruntou, 

4  McLean,  510, 

Ind., 

1849. 

Christy's  Minstrels, 

Christy  v.  Murphy, 

12  How.  Pr.,  77, 

N,  Y. 

1856. 

Club-IIouso  (Jin, 

Corwiii  V,  Daly, 

Upton  on  Trade-mks,  187,     " 

1800. 

Couoaiue, 

Burnett  v.  Piitdon, 

12  Mo.  L.  Rep.,  220, 

II 

1859, 

II 

"        0.          " 

11    Abb.    Pr.,    157; 
'       19  How.  Pr.,  530, 

II 

1860. 

II 

"        V.          " 

12    Abb.    Pr.,    180; 

180L 

21  How.  Pr.,  100, 

Davis'  Pain-Killer, 

Davis  V.  Kendall, 

2  R.  I.,  500, 

R.  L, 

1850. 

Eye  Water, 

Ruddcrow  v.  Huntington, 

3  Sand.  S.  C,  252, 

N.Y. 

,  1849. 

Glass,  Mark  of, 

Stokes  V.  Landgraft", 

17  Barb.  S.  C,  008, 

II 

1853. 

Good-will, 

Williams  v.  Wilson, 

4  Sand.  Cli.,  379, 

II 

1846. 

Howe's  Bakery, 

Howe  V.  Searing, 

19  How.  Pr.,  14, 

II 

1800. 

Indian  Root  Pills, 

Comstock  V.  Moore, 

18         "        421, 

II 

1800. 

Irving  IIouso, 

Howard  v.Henriquos, 

3  Sand.  S.  C,  725, 

II 

1851. 

it          II 

Stone  V.  Carlan, 

3  Mo.  Law  Rep.,  300, 

Mass. 

,  1850. 

Matches,  Friction, 

Partridge  v.  Menck, 

2  Sand.  Ch.,  022, 

N.Y. 

,  1840. 

II              II 

"         V.        " 

2  Barb.  Ch.,  101, 

II 

1847. 

II             II 

"          V.         " 

How.  App.  Cas.,  547, 

II 

1848. 

Meen  Fun, 

Hobbs  V.  Francais, 

19  How.  Pr.,  507, 

<i 

1860. 

Merrimack  Prints, 

Morri.  Mfg.  Co.  i'.  Garner, 

4  E.  D.  Smith,  387, 

II 

1855. 

Needles,  Mark  of. 

Walton  V.  Crawley, 

3  Blatchf ,  440, 

II 

1856. 

Porter  Bottles, 

Byass  v.  Sullivan, 

21  How.  Pr.,  50, 

II 

1800. 

Revere  Iloudo, 

Marsh  v.  Billings, 

7  Cush.,  322, 

Mass. 

,  1851. 

Schoidam  Schnaxjps, 

Wolfe  V.  Goulard, 

18  How.  Pr.,  04, 

N.Y. 

,  1859. 

Seeds,  Labels  fox 

Bloss  V.  Bloomer, 

23  Barb.  S.  C,  604, 

It 

1857. 

Shovels,  Ames, 

Ames  V.  King, 

2  Gray,  379, 

Mass. 

,  1854. 

Steel  Pens,  Labels, 

Gillott  V.  Kettle, 

2  Duer,  024, 

N.Y. 

,  1854. 

Store  Sign, 

Peterson  v.  Humphrey, 

4  Abb.  Pr.,  394, 

II 

1857. 

Thread  Barnsley, 

Stewart  v.  Smithson, 

1  Hilton,  119, 

II 

1856. 

"       Courtria  Flax, 

Dale  V.             " 

12  Abb.  Pr.,  237, 

II 

180L 

"       Persian, 

Taylor  v.  Carpenter, 

11  Pago,  293, 

i( 

1844. 

II             11 

"       V.          " 

3  Story,  458, 

Mass. 

1844. 

U                     11 

"       V.          " 

2  W.  &  M.,  1, 

II 

1846. 

U                    II 

"       V.          " 

2  Sand,  Ch.,  603, 

N.Y., 

1846. 

WiVli 


^i»» 


Www. 


VlViV 


iL 


t¥^^^5 


•>-;^W.- 


1*«l 


12 


tai;lk  of  casks,  b. 


AUIIANUKI)   AH  TU   SI'IUECT   MATTI'.U. 


Thadk-Makkh— <*onf/nt<«(/. 
Thromi  nix-cord  Wire, 

"        thrco-coril  Cubic, 
Tickinjc,  Lrtbcl  for, 
Wliito  J*ml,  Murk  of, 
Yonkuo  iSoiip, 

Truss, 

II 

Turning  Irregular  Formfl, 

«i  II  II 

II  II  II 

It  '             II  II 

II  II  II 

<i  II  II 

II  II  II 


Clark  V,  Cliirk, 
Coiitt'M  ('.  llollir(K)k, 
AnioHk.  Mft/.  Co.  V.  Spoar, 
Hrk.  W.  lAtnd  Co.  v.  MuHury, 
WiUiiitnH  V.  JoluiHun, 
(N)rwiii  V.  I).'ily, 
Kcuuc'tt  V.  Martin, 
IliKgiiiH  V.  Ktrong, 

Ulanc'hard'H  Cufto, 

Blanchord  v.  UoorH, 
"        V.  KidridKO, 
"        V.  HaynoH, 
"        V.  lS|)ra«uo, 

V. 

V.  Wliitnoy, 


25  Unrl.,,  H.  C,  76,  N.  Y.,  1857. 
2  Hand.  Ch.,  6H(!,  "  IH45. 
2  Hand,  8.  C,  5'J!>,                  "       lH-19. 

26  Uarb.,  H.  C,  410,  "  1867. 
2  UoHW.,  I,  "  1867. 
TT|itononTrado-mkB,  187,  "  IHOQ. 
G  Mo.,  4U0,                          Mo.,  1840. 

4  Klookf.,  183,  Ind.,  1830. 

fOpin.  Atty.  Oon.,  fill-)       ,„,„ 
pin'«  Kd.,  1841,1126,  f       ^''•''• 

2  ltliitchf,411,  Ct.,  1852. 
1  Wall.,  Jr.,  :j:i7,  IV  1849. 

0  Wu8t.  Law  Jour.,  82,     N.  H.,  1848. 

3  Sumn.,  270,  MaHH.,  18.'(8. 
3Sun»n.,635;2Story,lC4,  "  lua!). 
3  DIatchf.,  307,                 N.  Y.,  1866. 


w 

II                  II 

Ulun.  ( i  un-StV'k  Turning  Fac. 
»'.  ilai'oliH, 

2  Blatchf.,  69, 

"      1847. 

14 

U                II 

Uliin.(!un-.StVk  Turning  Fuc. 
V.  Warner, 

V. 

.  1      "        268, 

Ct.,  1846. 

Volvos 

,  Stcam-Engines, 

Sickles  V.  Borden, 

3  Blatchf.,  535, 

N.T.,  1866. 

II 

II 

"       V.         " 

MS., 

"      1867. 

II 

It 

"     V.  Olou.  Mnnuf.  Co., 

MS., 

N.  J.,  185G 

II 

It 

"      V.  Mitcliell, 

3  Blatchf.,  548, 

N.  Y.,  1857. 

ti 

It 

"      V.  Pac.  Mail  S.  S.  Co., 

4       " 

"      1867. 

ii 

It 

"     V  The  Falls  Co., 

4       " 

Ct.,  1861. 

,■!♦' 

u 

"      V.  Tillcson, 

4       " 

N.  Y.,  1867. 

It 

It 

"      t'.  Young, 

4       " 

"       1855. 

II 

It 

Judson  V.  Cope, 

Ma, 

Ohio,  1860. 

II 

II 

"      V.  Monro, 

MS., 

"     1860. 

II 

Water  Closets, 

Bartliolomow  i'.  Sawyer, 

MS., 

N.  Y.,  1869. 

Vault  Lif^hts, 

Coriioll  i;.  Hyatt, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1856. 

II 

11 

Jack.son,  l']x  parte. 

MS. 

"      185(5. 

Vencor.'), 

Burr  V.  Gregory, 

2  Paine,  426, 

N.  Y.,  1828. 

Vessels 

,  GaffK  for, 

Brown  v.  Duchesne, 

2  Curt.,  97, 

Mass.,  1854. 

It 

II 

"       V.            " 

2      "     371, 

"      1856. 

ti 

II 

"       V.            " 

19  IIow.,  183, 

Sup.  Ct.,  185G 

H 

Steering  Apparatus, 

Cochrane  v.  Waterman, 
W. 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1C44. 

"VVapon 

Whcol.s 

Young  V.  Hunter, 

2  Seld.,  203, 

N.  Y.,  1852. 

"Washing  Machines, 

Cros.s  V.  Huntley, 

13  Wend.,  385, 

"      183r). 

II 

II 

King  V.  Gcdney, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  C,  1856. 

II 

11 

Wayne  v.  Winter, 

C  McLean,  344, 

Ohio,  1863. 

Watch  Chains,  making. 

K(i)linger  v.  Do  Young, 

10  Wheat.,  358, 

Sup.  Ct.,  1825 

Water, 

salt  to  fresh. 

Lamb's  case. 

5  Opin.,  Atty.  Gen., 725 

1820. 

II 

Wheels, 

Bryce  v.  Dorr, 

3  McLean,  582, 

Mich.,  1845. 

II 

11 

Case  V.  Red  field. 

4       "        520, 

Ind.,  1849. 

II 

11 

Hiatt  V.  Twomey, 

1  Dev.  A  Bat.  Eq.,  315, 

N.  C,  1836. 

II 

11 

HoUiday  v.  Rheem, 

18  Penn.,  405, 

Pa.,  1852. 

11 

11 

Hotchkias  v.  Oliver, 

6  Denio,  314, 

N.  Y.,  1848. 

II 

II 

Parker  v.  Banker, 

6  McLean,  631, 

Ohio,  1855. 

,   " 

11 

"     V.  Bigler, 

MS., 

Pa.,  1857. 

II 

II 

"      V.  Brant, 

II 

"     1850. 

11 

"                    , 

"     V,  Corbin, 

4  McLean,  462, 

Ohio,  1848. 

II 

'i 

"     V.  Ferguson, 

1  Blatchf.,  407, 

N.  y.,  1849. 

II 

It 

"     V.  Hallock, 

MS., 

Pa.,  1858. 

II 

It                 ^ 

"     V.  Ilatfleld, 

4  McLean,  61, 

Ohio,  1845. 

II 

II 

"     V.  Haworth, 

4        "       370, 

lU.,  1848. 

II 

It 

"     V.  Hulme, 

7  West.  Law  Joui.,  417, 

Pa.,  1849. 

H 

««               ,   -.,. 

"     V.  Perkins, 

MS., 

"    1848. 

Watoi  W 


M 
It 

It 

Weather .' 

AV'ouvors' ' 

II 

Weaving  C 
Whoeis,  h( 

Wiunowinjj 

W(K)d  Bond 
^Vool  anil  C 


Zinc,  Oxide  i 
••  a 


TAHLE  OF  CASKS,  ». 


IB 


AllUAMIKI)   AH   TO   HllUKl 

r    MATTKU. 

Wntui  Whetils, 

Porker  v.  Sourn, 

Ma, 

Pu.,  IHSO. 

II            It 

•'      1'.  HlilfM, 

5  M(<[ic<an,  It, 

Ohio,  IHI9. 

II            11 

PholpH  V  ('(iiiiMtoi'l^, 

•t       "       :i&;t, 

Iiiil.,  1818. 

II            II 

khui'iii  V.  IlMllidiiy, 

U>  IVnn.,  317, 

I'u.,  lHr.1. 

1)            11 

WinltTinuto  V.  Ilunipliruy, 

lt»  West.  Luw  Jour., 

02,  (Jliio,  IHril. 

II            II 

"           V.  UodinKtou, 

MS., 

"     iHr.tj. 

Wouther  Strip, 

Loach,  V,x  parto, 

"    (App.Co8.), 

D.  C,  IHOO. 

Woiivora'  TcmploB, 

JilUon  V.  VViiiHor, 

tt            II 

"        1H60. 

II                         u 

Lovoriilxo  t'.  Duloiior, 

11            II 

"       1801. 

Woavint<  GcmmIh, 

I'roiitiMs  V,  KlJMWorth, 

Mir.  Pot.  Off.,  35, 

Pa.,  1840. 

WIidoIh,  horizoiitul  | 
li>>K. 

jrojKjl- 

[  l8imc«  V.  Cooper, 

4  Wftsh.,  '269, 

"     1921. 

Wiunowiiig  Miu'hinoH, 

Sumiora  v.  Fiiit^an, 

3  Wnll,  Jr., 

"     1861. 

II                ti 

Hi'iiley  V.  lli'uii, 

MS.  (App.  Cas.), 

D.  0.,  1801. 

Wood  Hondinn  Mud 

iiiort, 

Morriit  v.  Uurrett, 

MS., 

Oiiio,  1858. 

\V(kjI  und  Uottoii  floiiiiing, 

NoMiiiith  V.  Culvert, 

1  W.  k  M.,  34, 

Mostt.,  1816. 

"               "       curding, 

Soo  Cordin\)  Altichinea, 

m 

Zinc,  Oxido  of, 

Burrows  v.  Wothoroll, 

MS.  (App.  Cus.), 

D.  0.,  1854. 

11            a 

Jonos  t;.             " 

<i            II 

'•       1866. 

1% 
I  III 


I" 
|! 


m^H 


yy.^>... 


IlL 


NWin«, 


?^^.^.r>*i. . 


:!'-k^ 


w 


wwuw/V': 


w 


'****(» 


' 

•«  ^ 

i? 

v. 

,  1 

"ms 


*^mm 


*i 


mn 


exclusive  right 


^w»i* 


TABLE  OF  CASES 


ftSff!"**- 


Nkvt 


AJTIUMED,  APPROVKD,  CRITICISKD,  DISA.I'PROVED,  KXAMINED,  EXPLAINED, 
OVEKUULKI),  QUESTIONKl),  UEVKliaED,  4a 


Allkn  v.  Ulunt,  3  Story,  742. — Mahh., 
Ifllf).  Approved,  tlittt  n  foniicr  vordii-t 
upon  a  ffigiio<l  issue,  ordered  by  tlie 
court,  in  in  no  just  seiis(>  fitiiil  upon  llio 
facts  found  liy  it,  iior  biiuliiij^  upon  tiie 
court,  mid  in  no  cohc,  uidoss  muictionotl 
bv  a  8ul)s('(juent  hciirini;  on  the  merits  of 
th(!  case.  Alhn  v.  lUitnt,  ti  Wood,  it 
Min.,  1  :}•-'.— Mush.,  184(5.  Critieised,  as  to 
tlic  conclusiveness  of  tlio  decision  of  the 
Coininissioncr  of  Patents  in  respect  to  n 
reissue.  Jhid.,  130.  Approved,  as  to 
the  conclusiveness  of  tlio  decision  of  the 
Commissioner  in  such  ease.  lirookn  v. 
Fish,  15  How.,  228.— Slip.  Ct.,  185.1. 

Ames  c.  IIowARn,  1  Siimn.,4Sj. — Mass., 
183r}.  Approved,  as  to  doctriiit;  that  pat- 
ents and  specifications  should  l)e  construed 
liberally.  Davis  v.  Palmer,  2  Brock,  309. 
— Va.,  1827.  Davoll  v.  lirown,  1  Wood. 
&  Min.,  57.— Mass.,  18  to. 

Amoskeaq  Manl'fac.  Co.  v.  Speau,  2 
Sand.  S.  C,  599.— N.  Y.,  1849.  Ap- 
proved, as  to  tho  nature  of  the  wronjj  in 
violatini^  a  trade-mark.  Samuel  v.  Jier- 
ger,  24  Barb.  S.  C,  104.— N.  Y.,  1850. 
'  That  whore  the  exclusive  right  in  a  trade- 
mark is  denied,  an  injunction  will  not 
generally  issue  in  the  first  instance.  Ibid., 
165.  Fetriihjc  v.  Merchant,  4  Abb.  Br., 
161.— N.  Y.,  1857.  Approved,  as  to  tho 
exclusive  riiiht  to  sell  an  article  by  its  de- 


scriptive name.  Felritlt/e  v.  Weill,  13 
How.  I'r.,  aHH.— N.  Y.,  1857.  Approved, 
that  an  exclusive  ri;^ht  cannot  bo  h.nl  in 
Words  or  siijns  indicating  only  tho  ori;j;in 
of  the  article,  its  appropriate  name,  or 
the  mode  or  process  of  its  manufacture. 
HV/V  v.  (/oularcl,  18  llow.  Br.,  07.— 
N.  v.,  iHoO.  Corwin  v.  A////,  Upton  on 
Trade-Marks,  19H.~X.  Y.,  IHOO. 

Atwill  v.  Fekuett,  2  Blatchf.,  39. — 
N.  Y.,  1840.  Approved,  tliat  a  person 
eiiiployini;  another  to  compile  a  work  is 
not  entitled  to  take  a  eopyrij^ht  for  such 
work.  Pierponl  v.  F'oivle,  2  \Vood.  Ss 
Mill.,  40.— .Mass.,  1840. 

B)Auuktt  r.  Ham.,  1  Mason,  447.— Mass., 
1818.  Approved,  that  parties  liavin;^  ob- 
tained a  joint  patent,  neither  can  set  up  a 
separate  patent  jjranted  to  himself  for  tho 
same  thinnj.  Slearna  v.  Barrett,  1  Bick., 
447. — Mass.,  1823.  Examined,  as  to  doc- 
trine that  a  patent  cannot  embrace  distinct 
inventions;  and  restricted  to  such  inven- 
tions as  are  not  contemplated  to  be  used  in 
connection.  Wycth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  288, 
290. — Mass.,  1840.  This  case  attempts  a 
generalization  of  the  doctrines  of  the  pat- 
ent law,  as  to  the  questiou  whether  tho 
same  patent  can  be  at  once  for  a  com- 
bination, and  for  eacli  of  the  improved 
machines,  but  the  definition  adopted  had 
no  necessary  connection  with  the   case. 


Mil 


■liii. 


^^i::"!' 


A"" 


'UlU/, 


^r^^c:;:,* 


t  j.i.1  i 


■'jW 


ILLilil 


'  w>^>tw^. 


W^W*'*^" 


re 


TAIJLE  OF  CASES,  C. 


OAiKi  irriuMKii,  c'liniciiiiii,  kto. 


I* 

''I '  k 


»%■ 


£mcT»OH  y.  Ifoffif,  '»  Hlutclif.,  7.— N.  Y., 
1840.  .\j){>rovi't|,  that  n  npi  rifli'iaioii 
tttUNt  Mtuto  in  wliiit  nn  iiitprovomciit  oiw 
•UtH  ami  l>i<  Itiiiitnl  ti>  it.  Ti/lti-  v.  Dtvai, 
I  Cod.'  Ii..j».,  ;((»  (Li)  -1  -48. 

1{aiitiiiii,umkw  I',  Hawvku.  MS. — N.  Y., 
1H5I).  .\|>|)riivi>«l,  timt  till*  pittontinf;  of 
nn  iiivriitiou  ahniiul  to  ilcffitt  n  putcitt 
((nitilt'd  Ik  re,  iiiusl  have  lucii  In  fDri' tin' 
Jiivcritinii  In  re,  and  not  iiMTcly  iM'fnro  tlii' 
application.  Howe  v.  Morton,  13  Mu.  Law 
Mop.,  70.— MiMH.,  1 HHO. 

IIattiv  f. 'I'aookut,  li  Wail,,  Jr.,  mi.  - 
I'u.,  1851.  li(!vej'H('d,  that  a  dt'scrijiti  i  , 
in  a  Hpociflration,  of  a  part  of  a  niat-liirii-, 
>vithoiit  makiiig  a  chuiii  for  it.  is  a  di<di- 
Cftti  'i\  of  «ut'h  part,  and  that  it  caiiri<>l 
all  .vard  be  recallt'd  hy  a  rciftnuc.  /A  ' 
'irt,  V.  TiKjiifrl,  17  How.,  8:j,— Sup.  Ct.. 
1854.  Kxainined  and  conttidcri'd,  that  his 
CAi^ii  docs  not  dfcidc,  that  the  ipu  -lion 
whether  a  rei-iHiietl  patent  it  for  tie'  same 
invention  as  \.\w  ori;riiiai,  is  oi^c  exelusivelv 
for  tho  jury.  Poppcuhcusen  v.  Fdlk-c, 
MS.— N.  Y.,  1801. 

IJattin  i'.Taookrt,  17  liow.,  7-3. — Sup. 
ex.,  1H54.  Approved,  that  did'eren  i  s  in 
the  elainm  of  an  <>ri<;inal  and  reissiiod  pat- 
ent arc  conHistcnt  with  identity  of  inven- 
tion. IftiftHcy  V.  i\fc (^)rmtck,  MS. — III., 
1859. 

Bean  r.  S.viallwood,  2  Stoiy,  408. — 
Mass.,  1843.  Approved,  that  a  niaehine, 
(fee.,  to  he  patentable,  nui.st  bo  substan- 
tially new — an  ai>plieation  to  a  nt!W  pur- 
pose is  not  suflicient.  ^y/''*  v.  JJcral, 
1  Code  Hop.;  31.— La.,  1848.  Le  lio>j  v. 
Tathum,  14  IIow.,  177.— Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

J'edkordj'.  Hunt,  1  Mason,  ;{'I2. — Mass., 
1817.  Whitnei/  V.  h'miiirtf,  ilald.,300.— 
Pa.,  1831.  .\pproved,  that  an  invention 
is  useful  if  it  is  not  frivolous  or  injuri- 
ous. Exatnined,  as  to  wliat  con.'ititutes  the 
use  of  an  invention  within  the  meaning  of 
the  act  of  1 793.  Watson  v.  lilw  fen,  I  Wash., 


bUt.i. — I'o.,  1H20.  Oimuiented  on,  aa  to 
tho  doctrine  that  "  the  Hntt  inventor  wiio 
liOH  ri'dui  t.l  his  invention  to  practice,  ond 
I  1  only,  IN  entitled  ton  patent."  Itiilriuth, 
v.  //e.iM,  Ms.  -I).  <;.,  1841.  Approved, 
tliitt  a  patent  may  he  tjefeated  l»y  Nhowlng 
that  the  tiling  patented  had  bevn  befuro 
lisffd,  li(»wever  limite<l  the  umh  or  Icnowl- 
edjjre  (tf  the  prior  di.HCDvery.  Unh  v.  ///'/>- 
pincotl,  2U  Jour.  I'V.  Innt.,  3d  Ser.,  16, 
—  I 'a.,  1883. 

IIki,!,  V,  LocKK,  8  Vnlgci,  7rt. — N.  Y., 
184<t.  .\pproved,  that  an  injunction  will 
isHUe  for  the  fraudulent  aHsumplixn  of  the 
name  of  a  ncvvHpaper.  Taijlor  v.  Carpeti' 
ter,  11  I'aijje,  297.— N.  Y.,  1844.  Or  fur 
the  fraudulent  une  of  another's  trade-marlc. 
Coffioi  w.lirunton,  4  Mcl..ean,  519. — Ind., 
1849. 

UiNNs  V.  WooDBUKt,  4  Wash.,  48. — 
I'a.,  1821.  Approved,  that  the  person 
employinij  -ithcru  to  execute  a  literary 
work  \^  not  entitled  to  a  eopyrij^ht.  Pkr- 
limit  V.  Fowle,  2  Wood.  <fe  Min,,  40. — Mass,, 
1  S46. 

nLANciiARD  I'.  Ki.nninoE,  1  Wall.,  Jr., 
337. —  I'a.,  iHli).  .\pproved,  that  in  ease 
of  a  license,  the  Icjifal  riy;htofthe  monopoly 
remains  in  tho  patentee,  who  ean  aluuu 
maintain  an  action  for  infrinj^enient  of  the 
\'\\f\\i  of  the  lieensee.  (Jaijler  v.  Wilder, 
10  iluw.,  495.--    Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

I>Li88  v.  Neous,  8  Mass.,  40. — Ma-is., 
1811.  Questioned,  as  to  the  position 
that  the  title  to  a  patent  will  fiil  because 
asHiy[iiruent  from  original  patentee  is  not 
recorded.  Jloldcnv.  Curtis,  2  N.  llamp., 
03.~-N.  IL,  1819.  Approved,  that  state 
courts  may  cxeiciso  jurisdiction  of  suits 
where  patents  •■ono  in  que.stion  collater- 
ally. Jiich  \.  Ilofrhkm,  10  Conn.,  414 
— Ct.,  1844.  ,\  pprovod,  that  the  fraudu- 
lent obtaining  of  a  f)atent  is  a  good  de- 
fence to  a  note  givf  ,i  for  it.  Wilder  v.  Ad- 
ams, 2  \\  ood.  «k  Min.,  332. — Mass.,  184C. 


Uluomkii 
fi30.— Sup. 
p(milii)ii  thii 
of  file  aef  o 
it  limited  t< 
cllill's  Used 
exicnsiitn,  ai 
tion  did  Hot 
ilecided  in  il 
I'*l.'if''lif.,  48( 

I>OHTO.V   .M 

lU).-Mas9., 
inclutlin};  -m 
niont  of  a  pa 
like  chari^es. 
1  Wall.,  Jr., 
IIkooklvn 
•2r,    IJarb.   S. 
proved,    that 
mark  can   e\ 
dicatin;;  mere 
sold.     Wof/e  1 
-N.  Y.,  IH.",! 
BnooKB  ('.  I 
Ohio,  1H43. 
trator  can  app 
of  a  patent. 
Story,  172.—, 

BUOVVN    V. 

Mas-t,,  1855. 
property  vesli 
cut  does  n(»t 
tliinij  patenl( 
lawfully  entiM'i 
was  put  upon 
and  autliorizec 
try.  Proirii  v 
—Sup.  Ct.,  18 

BURRALL    V. 
N.  Y.,   1830. 

that  the  jurisdi 
under  the  act 
in  all  cases  ii 
laws  ;  but  lie, 
under  the  act 


TAH[,K  OK  CASKS,  C. 


77 


«»«. 


OAHM  ArrillMKu,  UHincUMUl,  ■TV. 


nr.OOMKH  I'.  MoQl  KWAM,  II  II. >w,, 
630. — SU|».  (  't.,  I  Hrt'.'.     KxUII>II>m1,  iiH  to  till' 

iMiKilioii  that  ill  ikii  ('\l)>iiHUiiMi  KJrr  }$  IH 
(if  f lit-  in't  of  I8:i0,  the  ri^lit  <.f'  )iM»«i;;i»ei')« 
\n  liiiiitfil  t'.  tit"  UHO  of  (li.  frtirtUMii.'ir  tuit- 
I'liitn'M  iiMi'ti  liy  them  it  tlic  liuio  of  the 
cxli'iifiuii, (iikI  Im'IiI  that  Mich  pri'dw! <|ii('»- 
timi  (ii'l  Hot  iirlM»«  urul  wan  fot  n«^<-'c«!*aril) 
i|ici<h)»l  in  it.  Day  v.  Union  Rub.  Co.,  ;j 
Whtrhf.,  4S8.— N.  Y.,  18.-.(». 

IloHTON  MANir.ro.  V.  FlBKK,  'J  MhHOII, 
110. —Mass.,  1820.  1  Hwipprovctl,  iiH  tt> 
iiwhuliiiti  .'S  a  part  of  chifiwin<s  I",  ir  infrin):f«'- 
riuMit  of  ;i  patent,  coimHcl  fi'cn  iiml  oth»ir 
like  oiiarj^"'^.  Sfiinjtuoii  v.  7V/r  RuilruoilK, 
I  Wall.,  .Ir.,  liU.— I'a.,  1S47. 

IJiiooKLVN  WniTK  Lkad  (.'o.  t».  Mabukv, 
25  Darh.  S.C,  410.— N,  Y.,  1857.  Ap- 
provi'il,  that  no  e\iliisivc  rijjht  i>f  tnnh-- 
niiirlv  can  oxi^t,  in  tlic  nso  of  words  in- 
ilicatiiiji  incroly  the  nature  <»f  the  article 
sold.  Wolff  V.  Oouhird,  IH  How.  l'r„  00. 
— N.  Y.,  i  s,"i>. 

Brooks  v.  IIioknk;.!.,  3  McLean,  'J/50. — 
Ohio.  18in.  Approve!,  that  an  aclniinis- 
trator  can  apply  for  and  take  an  •■xtonsion 
of  a  patent.  M'xxlirnrlh  V.  Sherman,  '\ 
Story,  17l'.— Mass.,  IHU. 

I'.iiowN  V.  DuciiEaNK,  2  Curt.,  .T71. — 
Mas-t.,  1 856.  Aflirincd,  that  tlie  rijjht  of 
property  vested  in  a  patentee  by  his  pat- 
ent does  not  extend  to  tlie  use  of  the 
thinij  patented  upon  a  forei;jn  vessel 
lawfully  entering  our  ports,  if  sneh  thing 
was  put  upon  her  in  a  foreign  country, 
and  authorized  by  the  laws  of  such  coun- 
try. Drown  \.  Duchesiv  .  19  How,,  108. 
—Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

BuRRALL  V.  Jkwett,  2  Paigo,  134. — 
N.  Y.,  1830.  Approved,  oh  to  doctrine 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Federal  courts 
under  the  act  of  1810  wis  not  exclusive 
in  all  cases  in  equity  under  the  patent 
laws ;  hut  //<  W,  that  the  decision  was 
under  the  act  of  1819,  which  was  supcr- 


wded  by  the  net  of  1838.,  Oihnon  v. 
\r>ioi'>ri>rlh,8  I'aige,  133.— N.  Y.,  1810. 

C'.VRvKR  V.  \\\  B,  10  IVt.,  -'1:J.-^  Sup. 
<'t.,  IHIJ.  Approvinl,  that  th(t  u»e  of 
[>ai't  of  »  coinl'ination  Ih  nu  ittfringciiient. 
Stini/»ion  V.  Jial.  <t  Sua.  fl  R.  Co.,  10 
How,  ;il5.     Sup.  Ct.,  IH.V). 

Ci.ARK  V.  Ci,A«it,  25  IJurb.  S.  C,  76.— 
\.  Y.,  18B7,  Approved,  thut  one  ninnu- 
factunr  may  ustt  the  nanic  word  to  deiiig- 
luite  his  inaniif:i<tiire  as  another,  provided 
he  (|o('.<  not  use  it  ho  as  to  imitate  an  article 
before  sold  I'y  the  other.  Wul/tv,  Goilard, 
18    H(pw.  IV.,  08,  00.— \.  Y.,   I8.V.». 

CoATKH  ('.  lloi.DRooK,  'J  Hand.  Ch..  580. 
-N.  Y.,  I«t3.  Approved,  that  the  im- 
itation of  n  trade-mark,  though  without 
fraudulent  repn  ^^entutions,  is  a  frnuil 
which  may  b(>  restrained.  ^{nionkenej 
.U<in>i/.  Co.\.  Si>rar,  2  Sand.  S,  C,  013. 
— N.  v.,  1840. 

Cbosh  w.  HiNTLKY,  1 3  Wend.,  385.—= 
\.  Y.,  1H:<,-..  Approved,  that  the  invalidity 
of  a  patent  is  a  good  deftinee  to  an  action 
on  a  noti' given  for  the  purchase  thereof. 
McDoiujuHv.  Fogg,  2  Bosw.,  301.— N.  Y., 
1H,58. 

J)avis  v.  Palmku,  2  Brock.,  208. — V'ft., 
1^27.  Criticised,  as  to  whether  it  does 
not  present  a  too  rigid  adherence  to /orni 
to  be  a  guide  for  the  present.  Mnuij  v.  Si- 
zrr,  MS.,  Mass.,  1840.  Ileferred  to,  as  a 
case  ill  whicli  the  patent  is  limited  to  a 
particular  forin.  as  described.  Winans  v. 
Dinmead,  15  How,,  343.— Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

Davoll  v.  BiiowN,  1  Wood,  it  Min., 
5;{. — .Mass.,  1  845.  Approved,  that  in  con- 
structing the  claim  of  a  patent,  resort  may 
be  had  to  the  introduction  of  the  specifi- 
cation as  well  as  the  summing  up.  Jlovvy 
v.  Strirns,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  204.— Mass., 
1840  ;  S.  C,  3  Wood.  &  Min.,  21.— Mass., 
1840. 

Day  v.  Cary,  MS.— N.  Y.,  1850.  Crit- 
icised and   disapproved,   that   the    term 


1  V':.: 


•"WW, 


'\. 


-s-r--'! 


M^^^:^* 


%--- -ftSfe*?!* 


yii^^^ 


^k^^^'^^j:^-' 


n 


TAIILK  OF  CA8K8,  C. 


/^ 


CAMM  ArrinuBo,  ciimi'iini,  im 


•••Iilrrt'il  (fuixU,"  In  tho  Oooil^f.ir  l»ii_\ 
Ci)htrikct«  of  1N4C,  U  liiniU'il  to  );oo(l« 
initiif  iimli'r  tlio  ilurri'ij  pnti'iit  ot  Mnrrli 
Olli,  |Nll.  Miyv,  A</o;m,  MS.— Iwi.,  iHHo. 
Mav  c.  HwwAur),  ;iu  II. -w., •.>()«.— .Slip. 
Ct.,  1HA7.  Kkniuiiii'ilnnd  i'<iiiMii|cri><l,  tliiit 
tilt*  ({iii'Ntion  wliftlicr  iIk'  lt<'t>iiii<i  Iff  (Situil- 
yiiir  to  llii>  Naiiifiiliii'li  Uul>ln'r  Tk,,  nlMn. 
ly,  IHll,  ciirriril  the  cKti'txIi'il  icriii  ot' tlu' 
putiiit  of  Jiinn   I5tli,   iNtl,  HUH  not  ill'- 

cilll'll   in  tllin  OiiM>,  nn  it  WIIM  Hot  l)ffo|'(t  till' 

court.  Diiif  V.  Stillmiin,  MS.-M.j.,  Ih/ik. 
I>AY  I',  Umiun  Ki  uiikh  Co.,  '.'<>  How., 
JilfJ. — Hii|).  (!t.,  IN.>7,  Appri.vi'ij,  us  to 
oonHtrui-tioii  of  till'  n((n'i'nji'iit  of  .Si>pli>iii- 
!)i'r  ntli,  |H50,  l)i'twi'i«n  JikIhom  urid  <'|iuf'- 
fin  ;  iiiit  licM,  tliHt  till'  I'lisi'  iliil  hot  turn 
upon  till'  const rui'tion  of  tin'  lit  riiscH  n-- 
fi'rrril  to  ill  timt  cum'.  Jhiy  v,  SIiIIukih, 
MS.— .Mil.,  IHflO. 

I»KAN  I'.  MaHON,  'JO    TIoW.,     2n,1.~Slip. 

Cl.,  IH,")?.  Kxaiiiiiii'il  aiiil  lii'i<l,  that  tin- 
ilui'Htioii  wlii'tlii'r  n  court  of  cipiity  woiilil 
piinislt  an  infrini^cnicnt,  hy  HNHumiiij;  tin' 
I'liiiitioiiH  of  II  court  of  law,  ami  wlictlii'r 
till'  nnii'ilicH  ijivcn  hy  u  Court  of  Cliaru'c- 
ry,  hIiouI'I  not  l»c  huiIi  hx  arc  pccuiiiir  to 
tiiat  jurisdiction,  did  not  arinc  in  llio  caHC. 
Lii'nxjHlon  v.Joni»,:\  \V  fd!.,  .Fr. —  I'a.,  1H(I|. 

pKhKHICK.  Kx  l'\U.  ,MS.--I).C.,  IHIIM. 
Ap[irovcd,  as  toaliandoiitnciit,  ariHiiijf  from 
Ticjjlect  to  proHccutc  nu  applicition  for  h 
p.'itont.  liai/moiid,  L.,  A'/  parte,  MS. — 
I).  C,  1M(U, 

Dickinson  j'.  Ham,,  M  Pick.,  217. — 
M.'i'ts.,  IH.'n.  Approved,  that  a  note  ijivcn 
for  a  patent  which  is  void,  is  without  con- 
sideration. JoWffe  V.  Cnllinn,  21  Mo., :)»:«. 
— Mo.,  1S,5.').  J'osHv.  JHchnrdson,  11  Mo. 
Law  Hep.,  075.— Mass.,  IS-OO, 

DoHHov  V.  CAMniKtL,  1  Siiitin.,  .Tin. — 
Mc,  IS'Mi.  Approved,  that  under  the  act 
of  I79n,  tho  recoidiuiX  of  an  assi^itnent 
of  a  patent  is  iudispensaMe.  Hoi/d  v.  Afr- 
Aljjinr,  3  McLean,  428.— Ohio,  1844. 


Doixanii'm  Ca»k,  U  II.  l;l.,  i7N  (Knir. 

I{<>p.)     Not  It  Juat  I'Xpixilioll  of  ihi'  ptMtvnt 

law  of  thi!  United  State*.     UuUs.  t'nlttr, 
I  Story,  ftl»H.   -.Ma««.,  iHII. 

Moi  oiiKHTr  t'.  \ AH  NoMTHANn,  li  Iloir. 
Ch.,  fl«.— N.  v.,  I  Mat).  A  K'UiUn^  au- 
thority, thiit  thi*  ^ood-Hill  of  II  liiiioini  , 
doeo  Mot  Hiirvi\o  to  II  coiitinniii'/  partner. 
W'iUiniuM  V.  W'ihim,  \  Sand.  C|i.,  :|M().— 
N.  v.,  IS  HI.      //"«'«■  V.  Sniriiiij,  M)  IIoW. 

I'r.,  17.— N.  Y.,  IHfld. 

Pini.KV  /'.  .Maviikw,  n  f!om.,  0.— X.Y., 
IHHI.  Apprmid,  tliut  ittato  court««  h.4V« 
no  jurisdiction  of  cunen  rcHpectin;,'  the  \a- 
lidity  of  patents,  Jiulmn  d'  (/innhjnir  y, 
Uninu  Huh.  Co.,  4  niatehf.— N.  v.,  ls:.7. 
Ti>mlhi»<ni  V.  Italtel,  MS.  I)ri:ii,  J. — 
N.  v.,  IH57. 

Kahi.k  »'.  Sawvkb,  4  Miiwon,  1. — Maw., 
1N'J.\  Kxatnini'd  and  held,  th;it  tin-  dc 
I'isioii  in  this  case,  that  the  patent  uct  of 

17lt;t  reipiired  the  Kpccilii'.itiuii  t intiiiii 

written  nfrrcnfrit  to  the  drawiiijfs,  was  tint 
called  for  hy  the  cnne.  A'mrnmn  \,  //'>////, 
2  niatchf.,  0,  10.— N.  Y.,  iNt.".. 

Ki.i.rriioui'K  I'.  UoiiKRTHON,  .MS.-  |>.  C,, 
JM'iH.  Approved,  as  to  what  coiistitutrs 
a  forfeiture  of  a  patent.  Jlcrt/  v.  ThinlU\ 
.MS.— I).  C,  1800. 

KMKnnos  v.   Havikm,   H   Story,  7ns.— 

.Mass.,   IHl.'f.     Approved,  that  t )iistl- 

tute  an  infrin;;eiiient  of  ft  copyriudit,  it  in 
not  necessary  there  Hhould  he  a  eoinpjitc 
copy  or  imitation  thronj,dioiit ;  hut  only 
such  an  important  and  viiliiahle  portioti 
used  as  Would  operate  injurious|\  to  tjio 
copyrij^ht.  Stori/n  Kxrn,  v.  Ilolcnmhf,  \ 
M.'L'an,  .113.- Ohio,  lHt7. 

KvANrt  V.  Katon,  Tet.  C.  C,  32.1.— Pii,, 
1810.  Ueversed,  that  Kvans'  patent  was 
only  for  tho  jjeneral  result  produced  hy 
tho  coiiihination  of  all  his  machinery,  nnd 
not  for  the  several  machines  .-is  well  as  the 
fjeiicral  result.  Kvam  v.  h'aton,  .'t  Wheal., 
505,  5 1 7.— Sup.  Ct.,  1818.    AQiruied,  that 


nndertheii.lof  I 

with  tho  ii<  le  III 
lilld    I II    lined, 

"fa  use  ill  utlitir 
in  Kiii'li  iiiitico, 
proved,  tliut  it  ii 
cut  for  II  conihiii 
whole.  Ihirnlt 
Miws.,   INIH.      ,\| 

knowh'il^o  of  an 
n  ptttent.  lirtxik 
203. Ohio,  |H( 

KVANH  ('.    KaTI 

Ct.,  IHIH.  Kxuii 
iiiiH  V,  h'titnit,  3 
I'linixm,'  V.  Ihr 
I'll.,  INIH.  A'lvi 
4211.  — Pa.,  IHU 
tcriim  "an  impr 
iinproveiiit'iit  on 
Ktaiitially  the  sun 
I!a.d.,  314.- Pa. 
(Ill  act  of  <  ,'oiij^rc 

I auHo  it  tyrants 

pulilic  use.   liliiiii 
.'iH.  —  .Mass.,  1h;i 
timt  II   patent  c. 
ono  invention. 
'-'88. — Mas«.,  I H  J 
ti'iiie  intimated  I 
not  i^ivc  a  ri^cht 
cliineH  Heparatel 
nation,     Emerso 
-X.  Y.,  lM4r,. 
ai't  of  CoiijLfresH 
p'lrded  as  enyra 
Jllonmcr  v.  Afc(. 
Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 
ant  is  not  limit 
oral  issue,  with  i 
cially.     Da;/  v. 
Hlatchf.,  181.— 
Kvans  r.   Ka 
1818.     Allirme. 
under  a  special! 


TAitr.i:  or  casks,  o. 


Tt 


W99H,, 


Vhwn  ArriHMki),  I'mricmHi),  ita 


"Mi'l>r  till'  ict  of  1 700,  uti'lff  II  H"tt{i'i»  wfvi'il 
vviili  ili<>  ^'>  III  ml  iKiiic,  tliitt  iiri  iii\<  iitinii 
li  1  1  Ih'>  II  iiHi.l,  oiili'iii'o  i-i>iil<|  III)  ijivi'ii 
"t  n  tiiH*  ill  ittliur  pliiiM'M  tliiiii  tliMHd  iiHtiicij 
ill  KiH'li  lliitli'tt.  /hill,,  AOM,  AOl.  A|f 
|>r<)vi'i|,  thiit  It  U  iiM  liifriii^i'iiH'iit  tif  II  put- 
I  III  fur  II  I'oiiihiiiatioii  to  iiMo  li'M  tliiiii  till' 
xnIi'.Io.  Harrrtt  v.  J/nll,  1  Mu».,  474.— 
MiiHN.,  IHIH.    Approvi'ij,  tliiit  prior  iiti*  or 

l^lln\\|ii|^i>  of  lUI    illVl'tltioll   will  illVIlli<lltt<> 

It  piitiiif.  Ilritokn  V.  /llikmll,  :\  MiLiiin, 
'2«l:i.— Ohio,  IH4n. 

KvANH  ('.  Katun,  3  Wiu'iit,,  4rt4.— Sup. 
<'f.,  I.HIH.  Kxiuniiifil  iihd  t'\plaiiii'i|.  AV- 
•iiiH  V.  h'litDfi,  M  NViihIi.,  4.'>i».  I'll.,  IMIM. 
rvllilHinv  V.  Ihrrin'iir,  4  \Vii«li.,  'J 1 7. — 
I'll.,  IHIH.  Kinnn  v.  Ifilllrk,  :«  NViihIi., 
4-_MI.  — Pa.,  IHIH.  Approvi'.l,  tlint  tin- 
tt'i'iim  "lui  improvnl  uiiii'liiiir"  iiikI  "hii 
iiiipnivriiii'iit  oil  u  iniii'liiiic,"  iirc  niiI>- 
Ktiiiitially  tli«  HiHiH'.  W'hilmij  v.  Kiiniuit, 
r.ii.d.,  .'U4.— I'll.,  lfl:U.  Approvoil,  flint 
mi  lU't  of  <!oii(4rcsH  U  imt  iiiii'niiHtitiitiniiiil 
iH'criuw'  it  i^niiits  a  patent  lor  what  was  in 
piiMic  um>.  lilanrhiiftl  v.  S)ira;iiii;  M  Siiiiiii., 
/ill. — .MtiKM.,  inai),  KMimiiu'il,  iw  to  point 
tlmt  II  pati'iit  cannot  inclinli'  iiiorc  tlian 
(pim  invention.  Wi/eth  v,  Stnnr,  1  Story, 
'J8S, —  Mum.,  IHUK  (iueHtioned,  an  to  doe- 
tt'iiio  intimiiteil  that  tiio  Kaiiio  patent  cnii- 
not  f^ivo  a  rif^ht  to  tlio  u«o  of  Hcvcral  iiia- 
cliiiicH  Heparately  and  for  them  in  eonilii- 
iiatioii.  Kiuernon  v,  //o//,'/,  -'  Ulatclit'.,  7. 
— N.  Y,,  1845,  Approved,  that  a  Hpeeial 
net  of  Congress  m  to  ft  pfttont  is  to  ho  re- 
pirded  as  eni;raftf>(|  on  the  j^eneral  aetx. 
liloomcr  V.  McQui'ivan,  li  How.,  filS. — 
Slip.  Ct.,  IH.")!*.  Approved,  that  a  defend- 
ant is  not  limited  to  tho  plea  of  the  gen- 
onil  issue,  with  notiee,  hut  may  plead  sp<>- 
ci.iUy.  Baij  V.  N.  K.  Var-Hprinri  Co.,  n 
I'.latchf.,  181.— X.  v.,  1H.-)1, 

KvANfl  V.  Katon,  .T  Wash.,  44.1.— Pa., 
1818.  Afllmieil,  that  Flvans'  patent  issiieil 
under  a  special  act  was  not  an  exception 


to  lliii  ffrni'fiil  provUtoM  p(  itiit  patent 
lawn;  Itt'iiig  for  an  iiiiprovetiii'iit,  it  ithoiild 
liitvn  M't  out  wihat  liln  iitiproveiiii'nt  wiw, 

h'riniM  V.  Kuhm,'^  Wlieilt.,  M.'d',,  Siip.  (,'t, 
IHJJ. 

KvANn  e.  Katoji,  7  NMieat.,  nftrt.—Hiip. 
<'t.,  |H;."J,  ,\ppro\ed,  that  if  ii  patent  iloen 
not  detn'rihe  the  new  from  the  old,  it  will 
1)0  void,  /lr»f)li  V.  Itii'kitrll,  M  Mi'Li'iiii, 
411.— (Miio,  IHU.  Approved,  that  a  pat- 
entee tntiMt  Ntiite  diHtinetly  what  he  i-laiiii<«. 
Ilruokit  V,  Finh,  »5  I  low.,  'J  1 5.— Hup.  Ct., 
|ha:i. 

KVANM   /'.    IlKTTICIt,  H  Wllnll.,  408. Vr., 

IHIH.  Alllrmed.  Kvann  v.  Jfctliek,  7 
Wheat.,  4rt:».— Sup.  Ct.,  IH'2'2. 

KvKSH  I',  JoniiAM,  I  llroek.,  'J48. — Vft., 
lHl:i.  I)eei(|ed  on  eertitli'ilte  of  diviHion, 
that  under  the  net  of  Ihiih  for  relief  of  (). 
Kviint,  those  who  had  ereeteil  his  ma- 
elilnery  between  the  expiration  of  his  old 
patent  and  the  grant  of  the  new,  had  no 
right  to  eoiitiniie  its  use.  h'l'onn  v,  Jordan, 
0  Cra.,  liU4.— Sup.  ('t.,  iMlfl. 

KwKR  »'.  CoxK,  4  Wash.,  487. — Pa., 
1824.  Approved,  that  under  the  eopy- 
right  net  of  l7no  the  piilijieation  of  the 
reeoid  of  eii|>yright  and  the  dej)osit  of  a 
liook  with  the  Secretary  of  State  are  not 
prereipiiHited  to  iditainiiig  a  copyright, 
Whi'iitnn  V,  Pctem,  8  I'et.,  ODM.  — Sup. 
("t.,  I8:tl.  Commented  on,  whether  any 
change  as  to  the  reiiuiri'iin'iits  to  secure  ii 
eopyiight  were  made  by  tho  act  of  1802. 
Ihij.,  090.— Dis.  Opin. 

Fai.ms  r.(iuii.KiTH,  Wright,  ^0.1.- Olno, 
18;)n.  Approved,  that  a  ".ycA'.*,*  patent  i« 
no  consideration  for  a  promise  to  pay. 
MrDnufjnll  v.  Fofjy,  2  Bos.,  301.— N.  Y., 
18r)8. 

FKTuinoE  r.  "WF.i.i.fl,  in  TTow.  Pr,  ^'ut, 
— X.  Y.,  lH,"j7.  .\pproved,  that  a  naino 
cannot  be  protected  as  a  trade-mark  when 
it  is  used  to  designate  tho  article,  ainl  has 
become  its  proper  appellation,  and  docs 


rirw 


viirn 


-^j. 


•'^.., 


■^tn 


.^^^ 


^i 


'irtf'j 


»»wv'» 


'  •  w^ 


^*^ 


mn 


M«fiiii 


.^^yw*^ 


if^y^m^^ 


TAIJLK  OF  CASKS,  C. 


■'Will*,,. 


t.VHKH   ArilUJIKD,    CUITICIHKI),    ETC. 


not  iiidii'iitc  its  onLjiii  or  owncisliip.  Tom- 
linnoii  V.  JJallc/l,y[H.—S.  \  .  lt<57.  H'o/fe, 
V.  Goulard,  18  IIow.  lY,  38.— N.  V.,  1859. 

FoLSOM  ('.  Mauhii,  2  Story,  100. — Mass., 
]sn.  A|ipn»vi'(l,  as  to  t)io  extent  u  re- 
viewer may  eito  from  an  orij^'iiial  woriv 
without  ititVini^ing.  St.ri/s  Kxrs.  v.  Ilol- 
combe,  4  McLean,  300,  iUO. — Ohio,  1847. 
Anil  tliat  a  bona  fdf  abridgement  is  not  an 
infrini,'cment.  //>/(/.,  Ml  1-;H 5.  Approved, 
tiiat  the  right  of  property  in  private  Ktlers 
remains  iii  the  writer.  TiartUtt  v.  Crit- 
tenden, ')  Me  Lean,  43, — Ohio,  1849.  Ap- 
proved, that  all  letters  are  literary  eoinjio- 
sitiinis,  and  entitled  to  protection  ;  and  as 
to  right  of  property  therein.  Woolsvy  v. 
Judd,  4  Duer,  390,  405,  400.— X.  Y.,  1855. 

F  OTE  V.  SiLSHV,  1  r.hitehf.,  445.— N. 
Y.,  1849.  Aflirmed,  as  to  what  is  a  sulli- 
cient  statement  of  the  interest,  in  a  dis- 
chiimer  of  the  patent,  of  the  person  mak- 
ing the  dischiimcr.  SilKhy  v.  Footv,  li 
How,,  2-21.- Sup.  Ct.,  1852.  Aflirmed, 
that  a  reference  to  a  book,  mentioned  in 
the  notice,  recpiired  with  the  plea  of  the 
general  issue,  must  b<  to  page  or  section; 
a  general  reference  not  enough.  Ihld., 
223,  224.  Affirmed,  that  in  a  patent  for 
a  combination,  a  claim  foi  such  machinery 
as  produces  a  given  result  is  sufficiently 
definite.     Ibid.,  225. 

FooTE  V.  SiLsny,  2  Blatchf.,  276.— X. 
Y,,  1851.  Affirmed,  as  to  wliat  is  granted 
by  Foote's  patent,  but  reversed,  as  to  the 
allowance  of  interest  and  costs.  Sihbi/  v. 
Foote,  20  IIow.  385.— Sup,  Ct.,  1857. 
Sustains,  in  fact,  the  ruling  below,  tliat  a 
judge  may  disregard  the  finding  of  a  jury 
upon  a  feigned  issue,  and  give  a  decree  in 
opposition  thereto.     Ibid.,  385. 

Foster  v.  Moore,  1  Curt.,  280. — Mass., 
1852.  Approved,  that  no  fixed  time  of 
possession  of  patent  is  necessary  to  war- 
rant an  injunction.  Sarr/eant  v.  Scar/rave, 
2  Curt.,  557.— 11.  I.,  1855. 


Gavi.kr  c.  Wilukr,  10  IIow.,  477.— 
Sup,  Ct.,  1850.  Approved,  that  by  an 
a.ssignment  before  j)atent  issued,  the  legal 
title  of  the  patent  enures  to  the  assignee. 
Sarf/iant  v.  Sraf/rnre,  2  Curt.,  555,  550.— 
U.  I.,  1855.  Commented  t)ii,  as  to  when, 
uiuhr  §  15  of  tiie  act  of  1830,  a  prior  use 
and  knowledge  abroad  will  invalidate  a 
patent.      ( 'ultoon  v.  liinr),  MS, — .Me.,  1859. 

Ceuier  c.  Cook,  3  Watts  it  Serg.,  200. — 
I'a.,  1842.  Approved,  that  a  party  can- 
not ri'cover  on  a  note  given  for  a  purchase 
of  a  |)atent,  if  the  patent  was  not  new  and 
useful,  though  both  parties  acted  in  good 
faith.  MvCture  v.  Jiffrcij,  8  Ind.,  82.-— 
Ind.,  1850. 

(jiooDVEAU  V.  Day,  2  Wall.,  Jr.,  283. — 
X.  J.,  1852.  Approved,  as  to  what  con- 
stitutes sui-h  i>  prior  invention  as  will 
defeat  a  subsequent  patent.  Sinyer  v. 
WHlrsley,  MS.— Md.,  18r,9. 

CooDVEAR  *'. Matthews,  1  Paine, 302.^ — 
< 't.,  1814.  Examined,  as  to  what  use  of 
an  invention,  before  patent,  will  deprive  a 
party  of  a  right  to  a  patent.  Shaw  v. 
Cooper,  7  Fet,,  317.— Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 

Goodyear  &  N.  E.  Car  Spring  Co. 
1'.  I'liELPS,  3  IJlatehf.,  91.— N.  Y.,  1853. 
Approved,  that  the  directors,  managers, 
and  agents  of  a  corporation,  are  liable, 
individu.'illy,  as  for  an  infringement  of  a 
patent,  and  may  be  enjoined.  Poppen 
heusen  v.  Fulke,  MS.— N.  Y.,  1801. 

Grant  v.  Raymond,  0  Pet.,  218. — Sup. 
Ct.,  1832.  Approved,  as  to  the  right  to 
surrender  a  patent,  and  obtain  a  reissue 
thereof.  Ames  v.  Howard,  1  Sumn.,  488. — 
Mass.,  1833.  Shaio  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet., 
3 1 5.  —Slip.  Ct.,  1 833.  Brooks  v.  BiehicU, 
3  McLean,  438. — Ohio,  1844,  Bat  tin  v. 
Tat/fjert,  17  IIow.,  83,— Sup.  Ct.,  1851. 
Approved,  that  a  defendant  may  picab 
speci.iUy,  instead  of  the  general  issue,  with 
notice.  Day  v.  N".  E,  Car-Spring  Co.,  3 
Blatchf.,  181.— N.  Y.,  1854. 


Gray  j 

1817.  Ci 
position  t 
machine  h 
inachine  in 
niad(f  bv  a 
Whitney  \ 
1831. 

GiiAY    V. 

1S39.  Ap 
-ornbinatioi 
upon  a  new 
light.  Fm 
Mass.,  1845 

ILVRTSIIOI 

Su{).  Ct.,  1 8i 
upon  the  eon 
between  Clia 
Cliafleo  pater 
of  (loodyear. 
such  patent 
July  1st,  185 
Md,,  1859. 
Co.,  20  IIow. 

Heao  v. 
N.  Y,,  1838. 
ncss  of  a  p.u 
fonce  to  a  n 
thereof,     Mc 
391.— x\,  Y., 
IIeruert  v. 
1825.     Appro 
signment  of  a 
tion  for  an  infi 
in  the  name 
Wilder,  1 0  II, 
IIiatt  v.  Tw 
^'.  Car.,  1S3G, 
C'ansler  v.  Fat\ 
>'•  Car.,  1850, 
Hiogins  v. 
fn<l.,  1830,     , 
1^03,  an  assign 
id,  must  be  rcci 
«  Blaekf.,  26    - 
6 


TAl'.LK  OF  CASKS,  C. 


81 


0A8E8  At'KlltMKD,   UKITIC'lHKl),    ETC. 


Gray  v.  Jamks,  Pet.  C.  C,  394.— Pii., 

1S17.  Criticisccl  imd  (jucstioiicd,  an  to  the 
pnsitinii  tliiit  the  pateiitoi-  ot"  a  wortliloss 
iiiiicliiiic  is  cntitli'd  tn  daiiiaj^oa  whcji  such 
inachiuo  is  coiiiliiiiod  with  an  imprDvcmeiit 
iiuulo  hy  aiiothiT,  and  thcrcliy  made  usi'Ail. 
WliitiK!/  V.  Emmdt,  Bald.,  1)2  ^.— Pa., 
18:il. 

GiiAY  r.  Rl'ssell,  1  Story,  11. — Mass., 
1S:>S).  Approved,  tiiat  the  arraiii^emeut  or 
iinil>iiiatioii  of  the  materials  of  a  book 
upon  a  new  phui,  may  be  sul)jeet  of  eopy- 
riii'lit.  Eimrson  v.  Dark's,  3  Story,  781. — 
Mass.,  1815. 

IIautsuoiiv  i>.  Day,  19  ITow.,  211, — 
Sup.  Ct.,  ISoO.  Decision  in  this  case  rests 
upon  tlie  contract  of  November  liith,  18.51, 
between  Cliatlec  &  Judson,  and  under  It  the 
Charteo  patent  was  in  Judson  for  the  benefit 
of  (loodyear.  and  Day  took  no  interest  in 
sucOi  patent  by  Clialfce's  assiijniuent  of 
July  1st,  185.3.  JJa>/  v.  Stdhnan,  MS.— 
Md.,  1 859.  Approved,  Da;/  v  Union  Ruh. 
Co.,  20  How.,  21V.— Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

IIeao  v.  Stevkns,  19  Wend.,  411. — 
N.  Y.,  1838.  Approved,  that  tlie  useless- 
nc9s  of  a  patent  may  be  set  up  as  a  de- 
fence to  a  note  given  for  tlic  purchase 
thereof.  McDoitr/al  v.  For/t;,  2  Bosworth, 
391.— N.  Y.,  1858. 

IIkrbeut  v.  Adams,  4  Ma"..,  5. — Mass., 
1825.  Approved,  that  in  case  of  an  as- 
signment of  a  patent  before  issue,  an  ac- 
tion for  an  infringement  must  be  brouglit 
in  tlie  name  of  the  assignee.  Gaylfr  v. 
Wilder,  10  How.,  493.— Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

Ill  ATT  V.  TWOMEY,  1  Dev.  &  Bilt.,  315. — 

X.  Car.,  183G.  Criticised  and  explained. 
Canslcr  v.  Fafon,  2  Jones,  Eq.,  499. — 
X.  Car.,  185G. 

IliGGiNS  V.  Strong,  4  Blackf.,  182. — 
Ind.,  1830.  Approved,  that  under  act  of 
1793,  an  assignment  of  patent,  to  be  val- 
id, nuist  bo  recorded.  McFall  v.  Wilson, 
0  Blackf.,  26  .— lud.,  1842,  Mulliken  v. 
6 


[Mtchvin,  7  Blackf,  138.  — Ind.,  \H\\. 
McKcrniin  v.  JHt,\  0  Ind.,  429.— Ind., 
1855. 

HiLDiiEATiir.  IIkatii,MS.— D.  C,  1841. 
Approved,  that  the  first  one  to  conceivo 
an  invention  is  entitled  to  a  patent,  provi- 
ded he  uses  reasonalile  diligence  to  perfect 
it.  Ikvnly  Rub.  Co.  v.  Winy,  MS.— D. 
C,  1800.  • 

Hill  /«.  Thomson,  3  Mcriv.  R.,  022,  Ld. 
Kldon,  Chan.  Approved,  as  to  r\de  gov 
erning  allowance  of  injunctions.  Sullivan 
v.  Rnljicld,  1  I'ainc,  449.— X.  Y.,  1825. 
Washburn  v,  Gould,  3  Story,  17(). — Mass., 
1844. 

llooa  r.  Kmkuson,  0  How.,  437. — Sup. 
Ct.,  1847.  Explained  and  adirmed.  Jlor/;/ 
V.  Emerson,  11  How.,  587. — Sup.  Ct., 
1850. 

HoTcrtKiss  V.  GRfcK>fwoon,  4  McLenn, 
450.— Ohio,  1844.  Allirmed.  that  the  al- 
leged invention  was  but  a  now  appliciition, 
and  not  patentable.  Hotclikina  v.  Green- 
wood,W  How.,  248.— Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

lIovKY  ('.  Stevens,  1  Wood,  it  Min., 
303.— Mass.,  184G.  Approved,  that  mere 
possession  of  a  patent  will  not  warrant  an 
injunction.  Mitchell  v.  Barchn/,  MS. — 
X.  Y.,  18G0. 

Howe  ('.Abbott,  2  Story,  194. — Mass.. 
1842.  Explained,  .is  to  point  that  a  new- 
application  or  purpose  is  not  patentable. 
Holchkisa  V.  Greenwood,  11  How.,  270. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850.     Dis.  Opin. 

HovT  V.  McKenzie,  3  Barb.  Ch.,  320. 
— X.  Y.,  1848.  Criticised  and  held,  that 
the  decision  therein,  that  the  publication 
of  private  letters  will  not  be  restrained, 
unless  they  possess  the  character  of  lifern- 
ri/  compositions,  was  a  departure  from  es- 
tablislied  law,  and  not  a  binding  aatlvority. 
Woolseij  v.  Judd,  4:  Duer,  389,  406.— N. 
Y.,  1855. 

Kendall  v.  WiNSOR,  21  Ho*.,.  328.— 
Sup.  Ct.,  1858.     Approved,  as  to  jbrfcit- 


"  n.A 


'y^i.^'ti. 


-to.  ;   rm 


A 


u  :  1 1  LU-Md 


»*W«£r**r 


■'? 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  C. 


CAHKS  ArrilUlED,   ORITIOIBEI),   ETC. 


urc  of  patent.  Birg  v.  Thistlr,  MS.— D. 
C,  1860.  Murcy  v.  7Vo//<r,  MS.— D.  C, 
1860.  Approved,  as  to  cfTLct  of  delay  i?i 
applyini;^  fur  a  patent.  Wnlkrr  v.  Forbes, 
MS.  — D.  C,  1861.  Lovcrkhje  v.  Dutchcr, 
MS.— I).  C,  1861. 

Kkplingkii  J'.  De  YoiNO,  10  Wheat., 
368. — Sup.  Ct.,  182.5.  Ap|)rove(l,  lliat  it 
la  not  tbe  product,  i'ut  the  thiiijf  patented 
whieli  is  protected,  and  wiiieh  (♦annot  be 
Bold  or  used.  Boijd  v.  Mc^Mpinr,  ii  Mc- 
Lean, 4;J0. — Ohio,  1844.  Kxainined,  us 
to  eonstructn  '  intringement.  /?//</?«  v. 
DaKard,  1  Cnrt.,  lOL'.— Mass.,  1852. 

LaKOWE,  Kx  I'AKTE,  MC— D.  C,  1800. 
Approved,  tluit  a  decision  of  one  Comniis- 
sioiier  in  'c-tpeet  to  apphi-ations  for  pat- 
ents, while  i.nrcvcrsed,  hinds  liis  succes- 
sors. Siinjjson,  Ex  parte,  MS. — D.  C, 
loCi. 

Le  Roy  r.  Tatham,  14  IIow.,  150. — 
isap.  Ct,  1852.  Considered,  as  holdinjj; 
that  the  ])atentec  was  not  entitled  to  a 
patent  for  the  newly-discovered  principle 
of  lead  rcuiiifin','  under  pressure,  but  fur 
the  process  or  method  of  making  lead  pij)e 
which  tliis  discovery  enabled  him  to  ap- 
ply. O'EvUhj  V.  Mors^e,  15  How.,  117.— 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853.  Evaniincd,  and  com- 
mented on.  Lc  i?o// V.  Tnthdm,  22  IIow., 
137-139.— Sup.  Ct.,  1859. 

Livingston  v.  "\'an  Ingen,  9  John., 
507.— N.  Y.,  1812.  Overruled  in  fact,  as 
to  the  power  of  a  state  to  prant  privileires 
which  should  interfere  with  the  coasting 
laws  of  the  United  States.  Gihboiis  v. 
Offdcri,  9  Wheat.,  1.— Sup.  Ct.,  1824. 
The  principles  of  this  case  as  to  injunc- 
tions do  not  .'ipply  to  suits  brought  under 
the  general  patent  laws,  as  this  case  arose 
under  a  state  law.  Sullivan  v.  Redjield, 
1  Paine,  448.— N.  Y.,  1825. 

Livingston  v.  Woodworth,  15  IIow. 
646.— Sup.  Ct,  1853.  Approved,  as  to, 
rule  of  damages,  that  a  party  is  account- 


able only  for  profits  aeluallij  mode,  and 
not  what  he  might  have  made.  Dean  v. 
Mason,  20  Mow.,  20:1.- Sup.  Ct,  1857. 

LovEiiiUGE    V.  Di;tcher,    MS. — I).  C, 
1801.       Approved,   as  t<>    etl'ect  of   neg- 
ligence in  failing  to  apply  for  a  ]»atent  for 
an  invention.     Snowden  v.  Pierre,  MS. — 
j  I).  C,  1861. 

Lowell  v,  Lewi,  1  Mason,  182. — 
Mass.,  1817.  .\pprovcd,  that  a  patent 
for  an  imniovcioent  must  distinguish  the 
new  from  tin;  old.  Evans  v.  Ifcttick,  3 
Wash.,  426.— Pa.,  1818.  Approved,  that 
an  iin  ention  is  useful  if  it  is  not  frivolous 
or  mischievous.  Kneasa  v.  Sehui/l.  liioih, 
4  Wash.,  12.— Pa.,  1820.  Whitney  v. 
Eutmett,  TJald.,  309.— Pa.,  1831. 

Many  v.  Jaookh,  1  IMatchf,  372.-- 
\.  Y.,  1848.  Correctness  of  Nelson,  J.'s 
charge  as  to  construction  of  plaintift''s  pat- 
ent for  car-wheels  questioned.  Ma)uj  v. 
Sixer,  MS.— Mass.,  1849. 

McCLrua  v,  Kinosland,  1  IIow.,  202. 
— Sup.  Ct.,  1843.  Commented  on,  as  to 
prior  use  under  §  7  of  the  act  of  1839. 
Pierson  v.  Eagle  Serew  Co.,  3  Story, 
40,5,  409.— It.  I.,  1844.  Examined,  as  to 
provision  respecting  assignees,  under  §  18 
of  the  act  of  1836.  Wilson  v.  Jiosscait, 
4  IIow.,  683.— Sup.  Ct,  1845.  Consid- 
ered to  be  a  patent  for  the  application  of 
a  known  law  of  nature  to  a  new  purpose. 
O'Reilh/  V.  Morse,  Dis.  Opin.,  15  IIow,, 
131.— Sup.  Ct,  185.3.  Conunented  on. 
Daij  V.  Union  Rub.  Co.,  3  Dlatchf.,  505. 
— N.  Y.,  1866. 

McCoRMiCK  V.  Seymour,  2  Blatclif., 
240.— N.  Y.,  1851.  Reversed,  as  to  rule 
of  damages  laid  down  therein.  Sei/monr 
V.  McCormick,  16  How.,  491. — Sup.  Ct., 
1863.  Approved,  as  to  construction  of 
McCornii(;k's  patent.  McCormick  v. 
Many,  6  McLean,  556. — III.,  1855. 

McCouMicK  f.  Seymour,  3  Blatchf., 209. 
—X.  Y.,  1854.     Affirmed,  except  as  to 


construe 
flic  righ 
S<  i/moK) 
Suj).  Ct., 

•^'KuuI 

4  K.  1).  .^ 

proved,  I 
i^iyU^  ofg( 
label  user 
to  their  tr 
18  How.  ] 

MOODV 

1820.       A 
elusive  as  t 
V.  Stone,  1 
amined,  as 
not  einbrac( 
to  ajijily  to 
object  or  pu 
anu'ned,  as  U 
f'lc  facts  of 
ji'dgincnt    o 
^^":i[/,  2  Blat 
Morris  v. 


TABLE  OF  CASES,  C. 


8i) 


OASES  AFFIRUBn,   ORITICISED,   ETC. 


coiistnu'tioii  of  one  claim  of  patent,  anil 
tlic  rij^lit  of  plaiiititf  to  recover  costs. 
S<i/iiio>ir  V.  McConnirk,  10  How.,  lOO. — 
Slip.  Ct.,  IBflO. 

Mkuuimack  Manuf.  Co.  r.  (Iahneh, 
4  K.  I).  Smith,  387.— N.  Y.,  1855.  Ap- 
[HovihI,  that  one  m.'xy  imitate  and  sell  the 
i^tvle  of  fjooils  maile  l>y  another,  unless  the 
label  used  hy  him  deceives  purchasers  as 
to  their  true  character.  Wolfe  v.  (foulard, 
18  How.  lY,  09.— X.  Y.,  1850. 

Moody  i'.  Fiskk,  2  Mason,  112. — Mass., 
1820.  Approved,  that  the  claim  is  con- 
clusive as  to  the  patentee's  rit;hts.  Wi/vth 
v.  Stone,  1  Story,  285.— Mass.,  1840.  Ex- 
aniiiieil,  as  to  doctrine  that  a  patent  can- 
not emhracc  distinct  inventions,  and  held 
to  ap[)ly  to  mai'hines  havinjj;  a  conmion 
ol.ject  or  purpose.  Ihhl.,  201,  292.  Ex- 
amined, as  to  same  doctrine,  and  lield  that 
the  facts  of  the  case  did  not  demand  a 
judi'meiit  on  that  point.  Kmcrsoti  v. 
Ihiiy,  2  r.latchf.,  8.— N.  Y.,  1845. 

MouKis  V,  IIi'NTiNoroN,  1  I'aiuc,  348. 
— N.  Y.,  1824.  Approved,  that  a  person 
cannot  have  two  valid,  suhsistini;  patents 
lit  the  same  time,  for  the  same  invention. 
rmidwdl  V.  Bladen,  4  Wash.,  708.— 
Pa.,  1827.  Examined,  as  to  what  use  of 
an  invention  will  defeat  a  patent.  Shaw 
V.  Cooper,  317.— Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 

Nichols r.  Rigoi.es,  3  Day,  14."j. — Ct, 
1808.  Approved,  that  under  the  copyright 
act  of  1790,  the  publication  of  the  title  of 
a  book,  and  the  depositing^  a  copy  with 
the  Secretary  of  State,  are  merely  direc- 
i..iy.  Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.,  G93. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1834. 

Nyman's  Case,  3  Opin.  Atty.  Gen., 
■MO. — 1839.  Approved,  as  to  power  of 
an  administrator  to  take  out  an  extension 
of  a  patent.  Brooksw  BicIuicU,  3  McLean, 
437,  438.— Ohio,  1844. 

Odiorne  v.  Ame81!ury  Nail  Fac,  2 
Mason,  28. — Mass.,  1849.  Approved,  that 


a  person  cannot  have  two  subsisting  valid 
patents  at  the  same  time  for  the  same  in- 
vention. Trcndirell  v.  Blad  n,  4  W.ish,, 
70H,70i).— I'a.,  lyj7.  Oiile\'.Erje,\\\\\.s\\., 
585. —  I'a..  1820.  Approved,  as  to  prin- 
ciples governlnj^  issue  of  injunctions. 
Hussey  v.   WkUely,  MS.— Ohio,  1801. 

(/Ukii.lv  v.  Mouhk,  J  r>  il<;'v.,  02. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853.  Considered,  as  liavinj^ 
settled  the  cpiestion  of  extent  of  the  riii;hts 
secured  to  an  inventor  by  his  patent. 
Amer.  Pin  Co.  v .  Oakville  Pin  Co.,  3 
Amer.  I.aw  Keg.,  137.— Ct.,  l.sr,4.  Ap- 
proved as  to  the  (juestion  of  unreasonable 
delay  in  tiliiit;  a  disclaimer.  Seymour  v. 
McCormIck,  19  1L)W.,  100.— Sup.  Ct., 
1850.  Approved,  that  a  jiatent  confers  only 
a  right  to  use  tin;  thing  descrii)ed  and 
nothing  more.  Burr  v.  Cowperlhwaite, 
4  Illatchf.— Ct.,  1858.  Potter  v.  Hol- 
land, 4  Hlatchf.- Ct.,  1858.  Approved, 
as  to  the  patentability  of  a  principle. 
Sinyer  v.  Walmsley,  MS. — MJ.,  1859. 
Approved,  that  a  reissued  patent  is  pre- 
sumably for  same  invention  as  the  original 
patent.  Hussey  v.  Mc Cor mick,  MS. — 111., 
1859. 

Ork  v.  Littlefielu,  1  Wood.  &:  Mln., 
13.— 1\.  II.,  1845.  lleferred  to,  as  col- 
lecting most  of  the  precedents  as  to  in- 
junctions. Hovey  v.  Stevens,  1  Wood. 
k  Min.,  304. — Mass.,  1840.  Approved, 
as  to  rules  governing  issuing  of  injunc- 
tions. Orr  V.  Merrill,  1  Wood.  &  Min., 
379. — Me.,  1840.  Approved,  tliat  mere 
possession  of  a  patent  is  not  alone  cause 
for  injunction.  Mitchell  v.  Barclay,  MS. 
— N.  Y.,  1800.  Approved,  as  to  the 
principles  governing  allowance  of  injunc- 
tions. Hussey  v.  WliUeley,  MS. — Ohio, 
1801. 

1'auker  v.  Corbin,  4  McLean,  402. — 
Ohio,  1848.  Criticised,  as  at  variance  with 
Parkerv.  Hulme,  7  West.  Law  Jour.,  41  7. — 
Pa.,  1 849  ;   Parker  v.  Ferguson,  1  Blatchf., 


Siw--.., 


,acc. 


till*'': 


1       1 


><M6»« 


Vy:yyCyy,r,v;^t 


;'V.. 


■liF' 


'■^\m> 


^rj'Mi'yyfewu 


«i-*j" 


.!',vv 


.'•pill 


% 


'•    ■   !,    ■1:.;;,'^:. 


TAIJLK  OF  CASES,  C. 


OAHKS  ArFIUMED,   0IUT1CI8ED,   ETC. 


407.— N.  Y.,  iti4U.  Parker  v.  Sears,  >IS. 
—  I'll.,  IH.'Jd. 

TaUKKU  v.    rKIKHSON,     1      1 '"l.ltcllf.,    -M)7. 

N.  Y.,  lH4i».  ('riti(M.s('<l,  an  at  variance 
with  Parker  v.  Jful/ne,  7  West.,  Law  Jour., 
417.— Pa.,  1849;  and  Pinker  v.  Corhln, 
4  McLean,  401.'.— Olii..,  1848.  Parker  v. 
^'(Y/>-«,  .M.S.— I'a.,  1850. 

Paukkr  v.  IIulme,  7  West.  Law  Jnur., 
417. — Pa.,  1847.  Criticised,  as  at  variance 
witli  Parker  v.  Corhin,  4  McLean,  4(il.'. 
— Ohio,  iH4b;  antS.  I'ltrker  v.  Fenjnson,  1 
Bhitchf.,  407.— N.  Y.,  1849.  Porker  v. 
Sears,  MS.— Pa.,  1860. 

Parker  v.  Banker,  fl  McLean,  CHI. — 
Oliio,  1855.  Approvcil,  as  to  rule  of 
damages  hiid  down  in  it.  Wiutcrmute  v. 
Redliu/ton,  MS. — Ohio,  1850. 

r'ARKiruRSTf.  Kinsman,  1  Phitchf.,  488. 
— N.  Y.,  1849.  .\i)i>ppvcd,  that  a  change 
in  the  form  of  a  machine  is  not  inven- 
tion. Wilbur  V.  Peecher,  2  J'.latchf,  141, 
1 4 L'.— N.  Y.,  1 850.  Aflirnied  by  Supreme 
Court.  Kiii>tuian  v.  Parkhurst,  18  IIow., 
L^89.— Sup.  Ct.,  1855.  Approved,  that 
i'npevfe'it  experiments  will  not  stand  in 
the  way  of  a  subsequent  oiigiiial  inventor. 
Potter  V.  Wilmn,  MS.— X.  Y.,  1800. 

Parsons  v.  Barnard,  7  .John.,  144. — 
X.  Y.,  1810.  Approved,  that  the  Federal 
courts  hf.vc  exclusive  cognizance  of  suits 
for  iiifi'injfements  of  p.atents.  IJrinqston 
v.  Van  Lifjen,  9  John.,  582.— N.  Y.,  181^'. 
Gibson  v.  Woodworth,  8  Paige,  134. — 
N.  Y.,  1840.  Smith  v.  Mercer,  4  West. 
Law  Jour.,  5.3.- Pa.,  184G. 

Partridge  v.  Menck,  2  Sand.  Ch.,  622. 
— N.  Y.,  1846.  Affirmed,  that  an  injunc- 
tion to  restrain  the  use  of  a  traJiMjiark  will 
not  be  granted,  when  'hi!  inMXvXhya  ".j  i  t 
sucli  as  to  deceive  a  pu.'t !  .us  r  ■  jlng  >' r  \i  r.it- 
f)  attention.  F-j  fridge  \.  M  .  'k,  'I  Ii;)rV).  j 
Ch.,  101.— N.  V".,  1847.  A;.;.ro/(.f,  umt 
the  question  upon  the  viohition  o.  h  trade- 
mark is  not  whether  the  party  j^  tlic  in- 


ventor of  the  thing  sold,  but  (h'pends  upon 
th(!  fact  of  npin'opriatiiiii  and  use.  /V/- 
rid;ie  v.  Merchant,  4  Abb.  Pr.,  100.— 
\.  Y,  1857. 

pARTRiDdE  ('.Menck,  How.,  App.  Cas., 
547.— X.  Y.,  1848.  A|.i)rovcd,  that  a 
party  using  a  triidc-mark,  though  the  pur- 
chaser of  it,  to  j)ahn  olf  ujxmi  the  public 
an  article  made  by  himself  as  made  by 
another,  is  guilty  of  a  fraud,  and  cannot 
be  protected  in  the  use  of  such  in.ark. 
Fctridf/t  V.  Merchant,  4  .\bb.  Pr.,  157. — 
X.  Y.,  1857.  Fetrid<je  v.  Wells,  4  Abb. 
Pr.,  155.— N.  Y.,  1857.  Hohhs  v.  Fran- 
cais,  19  lIow.  Pr.,  570.— X.  Y.,  1800. 

pENNOt'K    V.  DlALOOTE,    4   ^Vash.,    508. 

—  Pa.,  18:i5.  Ailirmed,  that  an  inventor 
cannot  have  a  valid  patent,  if  he  permits 
his  invention  to  go  into  public  use  before 
ap|iIii'ation  for  a  patent.  Pennork  v.  Dia- 
loijue,  2  Pet.,  19,  24.— Suj).  Ct.,  1829. 

PeNNOCK  V,  1)IAL0(1UE  2  Pct.,  1. — Sn)>. 
Ct.,    1829.      Approved,    tliat   the    words 
"known  and  used,"  in  the  act  of  179:5  re- 
fer to  the  apvlication  for  a  patent.     Whit- 
ney v.   Emiuett,  P.ald.,  .'JOG. — Pa.,   18;il. 
Approved,  that  under  the  act  of  179.1,  if 
an  inventor  makes  his  discovery  public  be 
tore  application  for  a  p.ntent,  he  abandons 
his  inchoate  right  to  his  exclusive  riirht. 
Grant  x.  Raymond,  0  Pet.,  248.— Sup.  Ct., 
18:i2.       Shaw  v.  Cooper,   7   Pet.,  .318.— 
Sup.  Ct.,  ?  333.     Approved,  that  the  .vords 
" not  known  or  used  before  tlie  a{)plie!i- 
ti(jn"  in  §  1,  act  of  1793,  mean  not  known 
or  used  by  the  public  before  tlie  applica- 
tion. Reed  v.  Cutter,  1  Story,  598,  599.— 
^Fass.,  1841.     Approved,  th.at  the  use  of 
an  invention  before  application  for  a  pat- 
ent, with  approbation  of  the  inventor,  ren- 
ders void  a  patent.     Cooper  v.  Matthews, 
J  Law  Rep.,  420.— Pa.,   1842,  and  that 
such  use  without  objection  is  an  abandon- 
ment.     McClurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  How., 
207.— Sup.  Ct.,   1843.      Keferred  to    as 


'\ 


W% 


I 


TAIILK  OF  CASt:S,  O. 


C'AHK8  At'l'lltUEU,    CIUTICISKU,    KTC. 


a  Ifiidiiij^  ciiHO  upon  qui'stion  <»f  a^nif^fi- 
tioii  or  rcIiiKiuisIiiiiciit  of  patent  piivi- 
lc';^i'»,  resulting  tVuni  avowed  intention, 
nl>an<lonni('nt,  or  usi!  known  and  asHonted 
to.  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  iil  J  low.,  ;120.— 
Hup.  (It.,  ISofi.  .\pprove(|,  as  to  tlic  doc- 
trine laid  down  as  to  the  prior  use  of  an 
invention,  before  application  for  a  patent, 
with  the  knowledge  of  the  inventor,  whieh 
will  make  void  a  patent.  Adams  v.  Jours, 
MS.,  (iRiEii,  J. —  I*a.,  1850.  .\|)prove(l, 
as  to  etl'eet  of  negligence  in  obtaining  a 
patent,  upon  the  right  to  a  patent.  Lover- 
idije  V.  Batcher,  .MS.— D.  C,  1801. 

I'llIL.    it    TllKN.    Iv.  11.   ('.  StIMI'HOV,    14 

I'et.,  448.— Sup.  Ct.,  1840.  .Vpproved, 
that  a  patent  is  sullicient  evidence  that  all 
preliminary  steps  required  to  obtfiin  it 
have  been  taken.  Einrrson  v.  lIo[i(j,  '2 
Watchf,  ;U.— X.  Y.,  1845. 

I'OMKKOY    V.      CONNISON,     MS.—  D.     ('., 

1841.  AfHrnicd,  that  a  patentee  has  no  right 
(if  appeal  from  a  decision  of  the  Cvommis- 
Moner  of  ratcnls,  allowing  a  patent  to  an 
interfering  applicant.  W/iijiplrv.  RcnIon, 
MS.— D.  C,  1854.  Jropklns  v.  Bar- 
viiiii. — Il)id.,  1854.  Klnr/tili'if  v.  Hcrrkt. 
— Ibid,,  1854.  Drake  v.  Ciinninr/ham. — 
Ihld.,  1855.  CoNTUA,  Bahcockw  De<irnrr, 
—Ibid.,  1859.  Spear  v.  Abbott.— Ibid., 
1859.     Beech  v.  Tucker. — Ibid.,  1860. 

PiiouTY  V.  RuGGLKs,  1  Storv,  508. — 
Mass.,  1841.  Affirmed,  that  the  use  of  a 
part  of  a  combination  is  no  infringement. 
Prouty  V.  liufffflcs,  10  I'et.,  341. — Sup. 
Ct.,  1842. 

Prouty  v.  Ruogles,   10  T'et.,   .336. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1842.     Examined  and  criticised, 
iis  to  construction  of  patents  for  combina- 
tions.    Man;/ V.  Sizer,  MS. — Mass.  1849, 
Approved,  that  the  use  of  part  of  a  com 
bination  is  no  infringement.     Siimpson  v 
Bal.  ii'  Sas.  E.  R.,  10  How.,  :U5.— Sup 
Ct.,  1850.      Singer  v.  Walmsloj,  MS. — 
Mi,  1859. 


Uyan  1'.  CfOODWiN,  ;i  Sumn.,  614. — 
.Mass.,  18:50.  Apjiroved,  that  patents  are 
to  be  construed  lila  rally.  Brookn  v.  Jiick- 
n(ll,\\  McLean,  20 T.— Ohio,  1843,  Ap- 
proved, that  tiic  simplicity  of  an  inven- 
tion is  no  objection  to  it.  Smith,  Ez 
parte,  MS.— D.  ('.,  1800. 

Sandkks  v.  Logan,  3  Wall.,  Jr.,  477. 
— 1801.  .\pproved,  that  in  the  case  of  a 
wrongful  use  of  a  patent,  the  right  to  uso 
wliich  has  been  granted  on  the  payment 
of  a  license  fee,  the  proper  remeily  is  by 
an  action  at  law,  and  that  an  injunction  is 
not  required  or  appro])riate.  Lifingidon 
V.  ,7o/i(.v,  3  Wall.,  .Fr.— 1801. 

Saugeant  i'.  Skagiiavk,  2  Curt.,  553. — 
Ii.  I.,  1855.  Approved,  as  to  the  prima 
facie  right  of  patentee,  founded  on  an  ex- 
clusive possession  of  the  thing  patented. 
Sargeant  v.  Carter,  11  Mo.  L.'iw  Hep., 
051.— Mass.,  1858. 

Seymour  v.  McCormick,  16  How.,  480. 
— 1853.  Commented  on  and  explained, 
as  to  the  rule  of  damages  laid  down  there- 
in, and  held  not  to  apply  to  an  invention 
which  was  a  unit  in  itself,  and  liad  a  pe- 
culiar v.ilue  in  the  Ti.irkei.  LiviiKjston  v. 
Joncx,  ;t  Uaii.,  Jr. — I'a.,  1801. 

SiiAw  V.  CoopKR,  7  Pet.,  292.— Sup.  Ct., 
18;i3.  Approved,  as  to  power  to  grant  re- 
issues. Baltinv.  Taggert,  17  How.,  83. — 
Sup.  Ct,  1854.  Referred  to,  as  a  leading 
ease  upon  the  question  of  abrogation  or  rc- 
linquishmentof  patent  privileges  from  aban- 
donment or  neglect,  or  use  known  or  as- 
sented to.  Kendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How., 
329.— Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 

SiLsny  ('.  FooTE,  14  How.,  218. — Sup. 
Ct.,  1852.  Examined  and  explained,  as  to 
the  extent  of  the  decision  made  therein, 
Sii-bi/v.  Foote,  20  How.,  391.— Sup.  Ct, 
1857. 

Simpson  v.  Wilson,  4  How.,  709, — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1845.  The  question  vvhctlicr  Con 
gress  can  grant,  in  au  extension,  rights  to 


'i 


luli^^ 


WW^ 


i  J 


>wU:1 


SC, 


\i 


r4^ 


w 


wf 


■••  V  w 


■V. 


"^w* 


TAIJLE  OF  CASES,  C. 


OASKH   Art'IKMKI),   CUITICIilKP,    KTC. 


.1'    v: 


nsHijjfiicc'M,  wiiR  not  iliroctly  raiseil,  but  was 
disciifscJ  in  this  cu»e.  JJlmich.  (Juii-Slock 
Turniiiff  Co.  v.  Warner,  1  IMatcIif.,  -'70. 
— ("t.,  1840. 

Smith  v.  Klv,  5  Mclx'ari,  7fi. — Oliio, 
IHK).  lieiiiaiKlcd,  as  tlic  (lui'stiniis  arisiii;.' 
tlierein  wore  virtually  dccidtul  in  (yjiril/i/ 
V.  Morsr,  15  How.,  &2.  Smith  \.  Elij,  ir» 
Hew.,  142.— Sup.  Ct.,  185.1. 

Si-KAK  V.  Sti'Akt,  MS.— D.  ('.,  1859. 
Approved,  as  to  doctrine  of  forfcituro. 
Deryv.  Thistle,  MS.— D.  C,  1800.  Ap- 
proved, that  tho  foiiccahnont  of  an  inven- 
tion for  more  than  two  year.-*,  stands  on  no 
better  .loting  tiian  a  sale  for  same  period. 
Loi  ridgo  v.  Dutchcr,  MS.— D.  C,  1801. 

Stimpson  v.  West  Ciikstkr  J!.  H.,  4 
IIow.,  .380. — Sup.  ('{.,  1845.  Approved, 
that  tlie  action  of  tlie  govi  rnnient,  in  re- 
newing a  patent,  is  conclusive  except  as  to 
fraud.  Brooks  v.  Fhke,  15  How,,  L'liH. 
— Sup.  Ct,  1853.  Dis.  <»pin.  Approve.l, 
that  the  use  of  an  invention,  uncK'r  a  defec- 
tive patent,  docs  not  prevent  tiie  patentee 
from  taking  out  an  amended  patent.  Battin 
V.  TiKriert,  IV  How.,  84.— Sup.  (.'t.,  i854. 

Stokks  v.  LANooRAFr,  J  V  i'arli.  S.  C, 
COS.- X.  Y.,  1853.  Approved,  that  no 
property  can  be  aoipiircd  in  words,  marks, 
or  doviccs,  wliich  denote  only  tlie  nature, 
kind,  or  quality  of  the  articles  to  which 
aflixed.  Wolfe  v.  Goulard,  18  How.  I'r., 
68.— N.  Y.,  1859. 

Sturtevant  v.  GnEENOt'oii,  MS. — D. 
C,  1860.  Approved,  as  to  doctrine  of 
forfcituro.  Berg  \.  Thistle,  MS.— 1).  C, 
1800. 

Sullivan  V.  Redfield,  1  Paine,  441, 
— N.  Y.,  1825.  Approved,  as  to  rules 
and  principles  governing  allowance  of  in- 
junctions. Thomaf  V.  Weeks,  2  Paine,  97. 
— N.  Y.,  1827. 

Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,  MS.— N.  Y.,  1 849. 
Held  that  the  ciaira  in  plaintiff's  patent 
was   for  the   combination    of    machinery 


deseribud  ;  and  that  the  q'lestion,  whether 
tho  newly  discovered  property  of  load, 
of  welding  after  being  Hcjmrated,  was 
patentable,  was  nnt  in  this  case.  l,c  Ito'/ 
v.  Talh'im,  14  How.,  175.— Si-p.  ( 't.,  1852. 
Tavloh  ('.  ("AarK.NTKU,  11  Pjkige,  293. 
— N.  Y.,  1844.  Approved,  that  a  Court 
of  Equity  will  protect  a  person  in  the  pos- 
session and  use  of  his  trade-mark.  Tmj- 
lor  V.  Corpenhr,  2  Sand.  Ch.,  012,  013. — 
(Ct.  Krrors),  N.  Y.,  1840.  Also,  that  aliens 
are  entitled  to  like  j)rotection  in  that  re- 
spect, as  citizens.     J  hid,,  010. 

Ta.I.OK  v.  CAHI-KNTKIt,   3  StiUT,   458. — 

Mass.,  I84t.  Defectively  reported  in  7 
Mo.  I.aw  Rep.,  437.  Coats  v.  llolbrouk, 
2  Sand.  Ch.,  590.— X.  Y.,  1845.  Ap- 
proved, that  aliens  arc  entitled  to  protec- 
tion, as  to  trade-marks,  tlu^  same  as  citi- 
zens. Tii'jlor  V.  Corjtenter,  2  Wood,  it 
Min.,  10.— Mass.,  1840.  Cnffnn  v.  Brun- 
ton,  4  ^b-Lean,  620.— Ind.,  1849, 

TuoY  Ikon  Si  Nail  Fao.  v.  Cornino, 
1  niatehf.,  407.— N,  Y.,  1849.  Revo'sc.l, 
on  the  ground  of  a  misconstruction  of  the 
agreement,  as  to  which  the  action  was 
brought,  and  the  nature  of  t!;r  ughts  un- 
der it.  Trog  Iron  tO  A^d/i  Fac,  v.  Corni  '.j, 
14  How.,  193.-  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

Tyler  v.  Tokl,  0  Cra.,  324.— Snp.  O  , 
1810.     Criticised,  as  to  ri/ht  of  assignci  •. 
tif  a  pati'ut,  to  maintain  an  action  for  ii 
tVingeineiit,    and    distinguished   from    tV 
case  under  consideration.      Whittemore  \ 
Cutler,  1  (Jail.,  431.— Mass.,  181.3. 

Van  Hook  ?.  Scrni.ER,  MS.— N.  Y. 
1 843.  Approved,  as  to  right  of  an  admin 
isfrator  to  take  an  extension  of  a  patent 
Brooka  v.  Birkndl,  3  McLean,  438.— 
Ohio,  1844.      Also  3  Story,  J  32. 

Van  O.stuand  x<.  Reed,  1  Wend.,  424. 
— N.  Y.,  1828.  Approved,  that  a  note 
given  for  the  purchase  of  a  patent,  wliioh 
is  useless,  is  without  consideration.  Jul 
life  V.  Collins,  21    Mo.,  341.— Mo.,  185S, 


Wahu 

Mas.s.,  1 1 

tioii  need 

the  draw 

relcrence.« 

A'mersoH 

1845.     U 

in  confori 

tribunals,  ( 

jily  to  proi 

V.  Sizcr,  S 

\Vatho.> 

Pft.,  1820. 

no  unaiithi 

out  daniag 

104.— Mas- 

Wktmok 

515.— X.    ' 

court  will  II 

private  K-tte 

bute  of  a  Ii 

iVeKenzie,  3 

Kxaniined,  ; 

the  decision 

V.  McKenzii\ 

vate  letters 

tliey  poss((.>,!J 


t 


TABLE  OF  CIASES,  C. 


87 


OAHKH  ArnilUID,   OHITK^IHKI),   KTU. 


WABiiiirRN  V.  UotrLi),  3  Story,  122. — 
Mas.H.,  1H14.  Appi'iivt'il,  that  ii  H|ii!(:it!cii- 
tioit  need  iiutcuntHiii  wiitti'ii  n>fi!ivii<'i>H  to 
till'  (li-iiwiiij^N,  hut  it  will  sulllcc  if  surh 
ri'tcrriiccs  aro  on  tho  ilrawiii^s  thi'iimi'lvcM, 
A'mcrnon  v,  J/oi/(/,  2  IJIatcht'.,  l().  — N.  V., 
1845.  Uiilu  ill,  aH  to  tiie  ooiiiity  of  oDiirtH 
in  coufurniiiig  tu  thu  licciHionH  of  Hitter 
trihiinals,  I'oiiiiiicntod  on,aii<l  held  iiutti>a|)- 
j)ly  to  |>roi;ecdiii;^s  for  injuuctioiiM.  Manif 
V.  Sizer,  MS.— Mass.,  1H40. 

Watson  v.  Bladkn,  4  Wash.,  r)80. — 
I'a.,  1820,  SuHtainod,  that  thoio  i-aii  he 
no  imaiithonzfd  use  of  a  patciit-ri^^ht  with- 
out (himai,'!,'.  Byam  v.  Uullard,  1  Curt., 
104.— Mass.,  1862.  • 

Wktmoiik  /'.  ScoviLLK,  3  Edw'.  Ch., 
515.— N.  y.,  1842.  Approved,  that  a 
court  will  not  restrain  tho  pulilication  of 
private  letters,  where  they  possess  tio  attri- 
bute of  a  literary  eoniposition.  Ifoyt  v. 
McKenzie,  :t  Uarh.  Cii.,  ;325.— N.  Y.,  1848. 
Kxaniiued,  aud  criticised,  ami  held,  that 
the  decision  therein,  as  also  that  in  Jfoi/l 
V.  McKenzie,  that  the  publicatiijn  of  pri- 
vate letters  will  not  be  restrained,  unless 
they  posschsed  the  character  of  literary 
compositions,  was  u  departure  from  estal)- 
lished  law,  and  not  a  binding  authority. 
Woolney  v,  Judd,  4  Duer,  389,  406.— 
N.  Y.,  1855. 

WiiKATON  V.  Peters,  8  Pet.,  591. — Hup. 
Ct.,  1834.  Criticised  as  to  the  cxt<;nt  of 
copyrif^ht  in  reports,  and  how  far  one  per- 
son is  at  liberty  to  extract  the  substance 
of  sncli  reports,  or  publisli  select  casi's 
therefrom,  with  notes.      Oray  v.  Russell, 

1  Story,  20.— Mass.,  1839.    Held,  that  the 
principle  of  this  case  is,  that  under  the 
copyright  laws,  a  title  is   not   perfected 
without  a  strict  compliance  with  the  pro 
visions  of  the  statute.     Baker  v.  Taylor, 

2  Blatchf.,  84.— N.  Y.,  1848. 
Wjiittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall,  429, 

478.— Mass.,   1813.     Approved,  that  the 


making  u  tnachino,  to  be  an  ofTenee,  munt 
be  with  intent  to  use  it  for  protit,  and  not 
for  philoHophical  experiment.  Sawin  v. 
Unild,  1  (iail.,  487.— Mass.,  1813.  Over- 
ruled, that  counsel  fees  cannot  be  allowed 
as  a  part  of  the  danntges  in  an  action  t\<r 
the  infringement  of  a  patent.  Boston 
Mdiiiif.  Co.  V.  Fiake,'2  Mas.,  122. — Mass. 
1820.  Criticised,  as  to  rule  of  damages. 
Whitney  v.  Emmell,  JJald.,  327.— I'a. 
1831.  Examined,  as  to  use  of  an  invcn 
tion,  which  will  defeat  a  patent.  Shaw  v. 
Cooper,  7  Pet.,  317.  — Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 
Approved,  that  a  patent  is  insusceptible 
of  local  subdivision.  Blanelimd  v.  El 
drill fje,  1  Wall.,  Jr.,  339.— Pa.,  1849.  Qucs 
tioned,  wln^ther  there  can  bo  any  making 
of  a  patented  machine  without  dannige. 
lii/am  V.  Ballard,  1  Curt.,  104. — Mass., 
1852. 

Wu'KEKHIIAM    V.    SiNOEU,    MS. D.    C, 

1 859.  A|)proved,  as  to  the  eiT"ct  of  a  witli- 
drawal  of  an  application  for  a  ])atent,  on 
question  of  abandonment.  Dnlerick,  lix 
parte,  MS. — D.  C,  1800.  Raymond,  Z., 
Ex  parte,  MS.— D.  C,  1861. 

WiLDEK  )'.  Gavlkk,  1  lilatchf.,  597.— 
N.  Y.,  1850.  Criticised  and  disproved,  in 
so  far  as  it  holds  that  a  defendant  in  a  pat- 
ent suit  must  plead  the  general  issue  with 
notice,  and  cannot  set  up  his  defence  by 
special  pleas.  iVay  v.  jV.  A',  Cur-Spriny 
Co.,  3  IMatcld..  181.— X.  Y.,  1854. 

Wilson  v.  Bakni  m,  1  Wall.,  Jr.,  342.- 
Pa.,  1849.     Remanded,  because  question 
certified  was  (Mie  of  fact,  when  only  ques- 
tions  of  law  can  be  certified.      Wilson  v. 
Barnum,  8  How.,  202.— Sup.  Ct.,  1849. 

Wilson  v,  Rosseau,  4  How.,  646. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1845.  Approved,  that  an  ex- 
tended patent  may  be  reissued.  Gibson  v. 
//arris,  1  lilatchf.,  169.— N.  Y.,  1 840.  Ex- 
amined, as  to  validity  of  Woodworth'a 
patent.  Van  //ook  v.  Pendleton,  1  Blatchf,, 
194. — N.  Y.,  1 840.    Approved,  that  an  ad* 


'^... 


W.S 


um 


'--w'»-<l 


.A 


'^^^k 


'^V. 


•i^W*"! 


'^•M- 

----f«^ 

^■'^4^ 

1l 


k^L^A'i 


I  .1 


1    l..i«Mi 


ST' 


tilt    I     ■  "*5|. 


■i 


3ii';^iS 


88 


TAllLK  OK  CASKS,  C. 


fASKH    AHIIlMin,    (  KIIICNKP,    WtC, 


iiiitiiHtnttor  may  take  out  tlio  miowul  of  a 
imterit;  aitd  that  an  "nctiii^  (!oiniiiiHHioii- 
cr"  may  insiio  a  pati.'iit.      ll'oail worth  v. 
r/nll,  I  Wood.  ,Jj  Mill.,  i.'5l,  rM»7.- -.NfuMH., 
mm.     (.'iiii.Hiilcrc'il  a  Icadiiij;  di-iiNinn  nt^ 
to  rightrt  oC  aHrtinia'C),  uiidoru  iviicwed  pat- 
ent.     Wiiodworth  V.  Carlii,  2   Wood.  A 
Mill.,  5t,'H. — MasH.,  1H47.     Aiwl  a|)j)rovcd 
ill   ri'spcrt  thereto.    (ilih$nn  v.  (ii'lfori/,   1 
niat.'lit'.,  r.:n.— N.  Y.,  IH.-)0.     Wnixlwnrf/, 
V.  roo;{-,  ii  Ihid.,  1 0 1 .— N.  v.,  1  »r>().   ni;«m- 
ir  V.  AfcQiirwnti,  14  |[o\v.,  .'540. — Sup.  Ct., 
IH.Oii.      I']\pl;iiiii'il,  as  to  the  opiiiioim  of 
the  diHsciiI'mi!:  jiidtjes,  on  pa^je  4H7,  tl  leq, 
PhdjiH  V.  Coinntock,  4  Mer.eaii,  ;<.5.'5. — lud., 
1H4H.     ('ritieise<l  and  held,  that  the  <pieH- 
tioii  whether  ('oiiujiess  can  j^raiit,  in  an  ex- 
ton»ioii,  ri<.ditH  to  assi^'iiees,  was  not  direct- 
ly raised  in  the  ease,  but  was  diseusseil. 
Blanch,  O'uii-Stock  Turn.  Co.  v.  Warren, 
I  Jiiatehf.,  270.— Ct.,  1848.    Approved,  ns 
to  ritjht  to  renew  or  repair  a  pafrntdl  nia- 
ehino  when  worn  out.      Wilson  v.  Simp- 
son, 9  How.,  129.— Sup.  Ct.,  1 840.    T)e<i8- 
ion  in  this  case  m;n\v  undorthoact  of  18;J0, 
and  has  no  ap[;lieatioi)  to  extensions  under 
Rpt'cial  acts.      liloomcr  v.  t'lolle;/,  fi   Mc- 
Lean,  10.1.— Ohio,  iHoO.     Considered  as 
8ustainin]E:  tlio  position,  that  an  inventor 
may  sell  liis  right  in  an  extended  ]int<tit. 
Cltim   V.   Brewer,  2    (.'urt.,   />iO.— Mass., 
1855.     Critii'i.sod,  as  to  apparent  decision 
therein,  that  under  the  act  of  18^0  the  riglit 
of  assignees  in  the  original  patent  is  limit- 
ed, under  an  extension,  to  the  use  of  the 
machines  in  use  at  the  time  the  e.xtension 
took  place,  and  held,  thatsucli  precise  cpie.s- 
tion  did  not  arise  in  the  case,  and  was  not 
r.ccessarily  decided  in  it.     Day  v.  Union 
Rub.  Co.,  .S  Blatchf.,  498.— N.Y.,  1 850.  Ex-  \ 
amined,  as  to  the  (onstruction  given  to  the  \ 
term  "  renewal."     Poller  v.  Holland,  MS. 
• — I.VGERSOLL,  J, ;  1858. 

Wilson  r.  Sandford,  10  How.,  99. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1 850.     Approved,  tliat  contracts 


aH  to  patented  niaeliineit  are  regulated  hy 
tttiitt!  lawM,  not  by  tliuao  of  thu  United 
States.  lUoomtr  \.  AfcQiitwoii,  14  How., 
n.^iO. -Sup.  Ct.,  1852.  Appro\.d,  that  a 
patent,  higned  hy  an  "  acting  CommiH- 
sloiier,"  is  good.  York  d*  Mitrijl,  It.  li. 
[v.  Win>int,n  IIow.,  41.— Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

WiLHoN  r.  Si.\!i'5)os,  0  How.,  loo. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1H40.  Ueterred  to,  as  involving 
till'  points  that  an  action  to  restrain  the 
unlawful  use  of  a  machino  may  ho  iiiNti- 
tuted  in  the  district  where  the  owner  is, 
except  when  necessary  to  proceed  against 
the  iiiai'liine  itself,  when  it  should  ho 
hrought  where  the  machine  is  located. 
W'ihon  Y.Shermini,  1  15latchf.,541.— N.Y., 
1H5(),  Kxamiiicd,  as  to  the  apparent  de« 
cisidji,  that  the  right  of  assignees  of  an 
original  patent  is  limited,  under  a  renewal 
thereof,  to  the  use  of  the  partif  nlar  ma- 
chines in  use  at  the  time  the  extended 
term  commenced;  and  held  that  such  pre- 
cise ijuestioii  did  not  necessarily  arise  in 
the  case.  Day  v.  Union  Bub.  Co.,  3 
Blatchf.,  40;J.— N.  Y.,  1856. 

Wii-soN  V.  'PriiNKU,  7  Law  Hep.,  527. — 
Md.,  1845.  Allirnied.  Wilson  v.  Turner, 
4  How.,  712.— Sup.  Ct.,  1815. 

WiNANS    V.    lioSTON  &  I'llOV.    R.  R.,    2 

Story,  412. — Mass.,  184.'l.  Kxplained,  as 
to  the  position  that  a  new  application  is 
not  entitled  to  a  pulont.  Jfnlchkisn  v. 
(/rcenwood,  11  How.,  270.,  Dis.  Opin. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

WiNANH  r.  T)KffMKAn,  15  How.,  830. — 
Sup.  Ct.,  1855.  .Approved,  and  held  not 
to  conflict  with  ()'  Ileillij  v.  Morse,  15 
How.,  62  ;  and  Corninr/w  Jhirden,  15  How., 
208.— Sup.  Ct.,  1853.  Singer  v.  Walms- 
/r//,  MS.— Md.,  1859.  Reconciled  with 
McCormick  v.  Talcott,  20  How.,  402,— 
1857,  as  to  the  right  of  an  original  in- 
ventor to  invoke  the  doctrine  of  equiva- 
lents.    Ibid, 

W^ooDWORTii  V.  Rogers,  3  Wood,  k  Min., 


priiieijiici 
tion  of  (u 
Ay,  .NfS.- 

NV'ooDM 

.Mass,,   IH 

of  thu  Con 

render  <.f 

one,  is  con 

llrooks  v. 

lH5;i.     Ap 

"acting  C., 

valid.    Sini 

5;l.— I'a.,    1 

entee  eaniKi 

patent,  affce 

whom  ho  In 

'■its    withoi 

llollinid,  .M.v 

WoCDWOI 

-Sup.  Ct., 
mliniiiiiHd'afoi 


TAULK  OF  CASKS,  C. 


89 


UAiM  ArrmiiHU,  ORrriciHHi>,  irro. 


i:i:>. — Mum.,  1HI7.      AppMVcd,  a;*  t'l  thti 
|iiinri|ili'H^i>vi<niii);{  iiiotioiiHfnr  u  iliMHulii- 

linll   of  III!     injlllirtitlll.         /ftLIMIf/V,     W'/litl- 

1,11,  MS.— Oliin,  18(11. 

NVnoiiwtiiiTii  »'.  Sritvi:,  :l  Stniy,  710. — 
MiiH-*.,  IHlTt.  .\|)|»riivt'<l,  tliut  till'  lutiiiii 
of  tlio  (,'(HiimiH«ii»iii  r  in  iic<'('|»tiiitf  the  Hiir- 
ri'iiilcr  of  a  piitciit  ami  iiiH^^iiitinr  a  new 
oiii',  in  cuiii'liisivc,  niilt'srt  fiimd  lie  hIiuwii. 
liroiikss.  Flxkr,  1,')  II. .w,,  'Jl'H.— Siii..('l., 
IH.V'J.  Approved,  tliat  tlie  ai-tinii  tt'i  mi 
"aetiiij;  <'<>iiiiniHsioner"  will  In-  preHunied 
valid.  Smith  V.  i\fnrii;i  \Vi  >t.  I.aw  .Imir., 
,s;l. Pa.,  IHKI.  Approve<l,  tiiat  a  pat- 
entee cannot,  Ity  a  Hitrrendei'  of  iiis  letters 
patent,  atfect  the  rij^lits  of  third  person^  to 
wliotii  ho  liad  previously  eonveyeil  inter- 
ests without  their  consent.  I'othr  v. 
Jl„ll,in<l,  MS.— O.,  1858. 

WuCDWOKTII   /'.    WlI.SON,  4    llow.,   1\'l. 

— Sup.  Ct.,    1H45.       Approved,    that   an 
mIniiuiNll'iltnr,   to  whom  a  renewed  patent 


luiM  Iteon  isNued,  need  not  produce  hit 
letterH  of  adniini^>triition  in  any  Nuit  ho 
may    institute,        W'lHxlirnrth   v.   Jfull,   1 

W I.  ,^-    Mill.,  251.— Mass.,  iHtH.      Kx- 

plained,  that  the  ipieslion  whether  ('on- 
^resH  eiui  ),'raiit  in  an  '  \tension  ri^jhtH  to 
assij^nees,  wan  not  directly  raiseil  in  thin 
case,  lint  wan  disitiissed.  Illnin-h.  (inn- 
SlucK-  Tiiriiinj  Co.  v.  \l'i(nin\  1  niatehf., 
L'7H.— Ct.,  IHIO. 

WvKTii  I'.  HriiNK,  1  Story,  27n. — Mass., 
iHlo.  .\pproved,  that  a  patent  niiiy  cover 
a  ei>iiiliiiiatii>n,  and  also  iiirliide  a  ri;{iit  to 
each  di>tiii'  t  ini|)rovemcnt.  J'itla  v. 
niil/innn,  2  Story,  (Jl'I. — Mass.,  1843. 
Kxaniincd,  and  explained  as  to  aliovc  posi- 
tion. A'ini'r»iin  v.  //(»////,  'J  I'lliitchf.,  H. 
— \.  v.,  1845.  Ifiii/f;  V.  Kmvrson,  0 
Mow.,  4m:j. — 1817.  Approved,  a.^  to  same 
positi<iii.  //".'/.'/  V.  Eiiuraon,  11  How., 
(105,  OUO.— 1850. 


4 


t 


*^%.' 


,>:w\».. 


'wp' 


■>-•.' 


''»'Vf| 


^V¥ 


'ytf\ 


WW> 


•B5  I 


^^    jgrl 


Li    i 


"«4 


i\ 


A.    Or  Cop 
II.    Orixvf 

1.  /i 

2.  A 

3.  L 

4.  r 

C,    Of  1u.u 
A.     Of  Ci 


'^1 


;:*4s 


xi&j- 


"«•*.: 


1.  TllBd, 
work  ill  a  p 
Navy  J)t'j);ii 
chart  ii  pub 
may  CKpy. 
390.— 'I'lioM 

2.  Tl.c  lb 
autlior,  for  t 
not  ail  al>;in( 
Jiartlett  \,  ( 
— MoLkan, 

3.  Nor  dfl 
it  hy  penult 
take  coj)ii's  t 

4.  The  pi 
out  liavini;  ,S( 
icaiion  of  it 
been  floiio,  i 
Bartktt  v.  ( 
— 3IcLeax,  , 


I. 

r 


^k». 


DIGEST. 


ABANDONMEm. 


01 


A.  Or  CoPTRtrtiiT  on  Manubckipt     , 

B.  Orl.NVKNTlOV. 

1.  liffitre   J'atetil  granUJ 92 

2.  After  I'aU  ,t  ijniHted. 05 

3.  Dvfth-tof;  lelio  to  iUeuit, 00 

4.  Proof  oj , 07 

C.  Or  Tiudk-Maukn 07 

Ai    Of  Cot'YiuiiiiT  OB  Manitkohift. 


8.  Tlie  right  of  proij>orty  In  a  inanu* 
«f'rii>t  may  he  t raiisiVrrcd  of  ubumlonod, 
the  Slum*  UK  any  oiliof  right  of  jiropor- 
ty.     [hid,  \\. 

0.  An  lU'tiuii'soencc  in  the  ]nil)lioiition 
of  II  tnMUUMcript,  or  in  th*-  reiiiil)lic!iliou 
of  11  jirintcMl  book,  iiullioriz.s  u  proHiunp- 
tiiin  of  aM»«ignmunt  or  ubunduiniiunt. 
Ibid.,  41. 

7.  IJut  u  gift  of  a  copy  of  a  innnu- 


ftoript  i»  t»ot  a  transfi-r  of  tho  rlgf  ',  "T 
1,  TiiK  (h'posit,  by  the  autlior,  of  liiH  I  :iii  ahiuiib.nnu'nt  of  it,  any  nioro  than 
work  in  a  piiblio  uflicc,  as  a  rhart  in  tiic  j  the  gift  of  a  copy  of  a  prinletl  Iiouk  is  a 
Navy  Dojtartnicnt,  «Kjos  not  mako  sucli  j  transfor  or  abandouinont  of  tho  cxclu- 
chart  a  piiblit;  «h)cnint>nt  wliiili  any  one  |  sivo  right  to  repiib(ii<h  it.  /A»(/.,  41. 
may  copy.     Jilunt  v.  Putkn,  2  I'aino,       8.  An  autiior  may  iiconso  tho  piibli- 


390.— TlloMPsox,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  IH*J«. 

2.  Tlio  usi!  of  a  niannscript,  by  the 
author,  for  thi'  ])urposi>  of  instruction,  i^ 
not  an  aban(h)ninent  of  it  to  tho  publie. 
Bnrtlrtt  \.  Crittetuh'tiy  4  aMcLoan,  30.']. 
— McLicAX,  J. ;  Ohio,  1847. 

3.  Nor  does  ho  al)an(h)n  his  right  in 
it  by  pcnnittihg  his  pupils  or  frionds  to 
take  copies  thereof.     Ihid.,  303,  304. 


cation  of  liis  inamiscript.  Hut  iniless  a 
copyright  is  secured,  the  lirst  pul)lica- 
tion  of  it  will  abandon  it  to  the  public. 
Pnlte  V.  Derby,  6  3IcIa  an,  332. — Mc- 
Lean, J.;  Ohio,  1852. 

9.  The  publication  of  an  ofticial  re- 
port, until  T  the  direction  of  Congress,, 
and  for  the  benefit  of  the  pid)lic,  is  a 
dedication  of  it,  and  of  what  is  contain- 


4.  Tho   publication  of  a  work  with-  ed  in  it,  to  the  public,  and  .any  one  niay 


out  having  soeuretl  a  copyright  is  a  ded- 
ication of  it  to  the  public  ;  that  having 
been  done,  any  one  ntay  republisli  it. 
Barthtt  v.  Cn'ttnub-ii,  5  McLean,  37. 
—McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 


ro}>riiit  it.     I/iiiic  v.  ApplcUms,  4  lilalchf. 
— Inueksoll,  J. ;  X.  Y.,  18.57. 

10.  Where  sketches  and  drawings 
were  made  for  the  goveriunent,  and  in 
corporated  in  such  a  report,  IIM,  that 


aur 


^r  -  ■ 


■■^,v 


aTTL 


i%fift 


*^« 


i3*!*;*^C 


ytii 


o 


nrk 


i^.M 


■"H«»g 


i'U^  i 


VMIf^ 


m 


S^w 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


/. 


^ 


M/ 


1 1.1 

1.25 


iAai2.a 


12.2 


1.4    ii.6 


6" 


V 


vf' 


^s 


<^# 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WE^T  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  873-4503 


M 


^\ 


^% 


s\ 


mm 


,<!f 


* 


02 


AHANDONMENT,  B.  1. 


Of  INVKNTIOK.    BBFOKE:  PATKNT. 


IJ 


I't 


tlio  artist  could  iiave  no  copyrifiht  in 
tlic'in,  but  that  any  person  could  use 
tlu'iii.     Ibid. 

1 1 .  As  regardd  private  letters,  tlic 
riglil  of  piiMlc.'vtion,  as  one  of  literary 
property,  remains  for  a  reasonable  length 
of  time  (to  allow  its  asscriion  by  publi- 
cation), in  the  writer  and  liis  personal 
representatives.  After  such  a  period 
has  elapsed,  that  there  ceased  to  be  a 
probability  that  such  right  to  publish 
Avas  treated  as  a  legal  right,  any  one  may 
publish  who  c.ui  obtain  copies,  l^yre  v. 
Jlil/bee,  22  IIow.  Pr.,  207.  —Gould,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1801. 

II.    Op  Invention. 

1.  Before  Patent  granted. 

As  to  what  delay  in  applying  for  a 
patent  will  take  away  a  right  thereto, 
see  Ai'iM.icATioN  fok  Patent,  A. 

As  to  what  use  before  ai)plication  will 
amount  to  an  abandonment,  see  Pkiob 
Use. 

1.  If  an  inventor  suffers  his  invention 
to  be  used  freely  and  fully  by  the  pub- 
lic, he  will  be  deemed  to  have  made  a 
gift  of  it  to  the  public,  as  much  as  a 
person  who  voluntarily  opens  his  land 
as  a  highway.  Whittemore  v.  Cutter, 
1  G.all.,  482. — Story,  J.  ;   Mass.,  1813. 

2.  If  an  original  inventor  do  not 
choose  to  obtain  a  patent  for  his  inven- 
tion, it  becomes  public  property  by  his 
ab.andonment  of  it.  Ho  can  maintain 
no  action  against  any  person  for  using 
it,  nor  can  any  other  person  obtain  a 
patent  for  it.  £Jva7is  v.  Eaton,  Pet. 
C.  C,  348,  349. — Wasuington,  J.;  Pa., 
1816. 

3.  No  man  is  to  be  permitted  to  lie 
by  for  years,  and  then  take  out  a  pat- 


ent. If  he  has  been  practising  his  in- 
vention with  a  view  to  improve  it,  that 
will  not  prejudice  ;  but  it  should  always 
be  a  question  for  the  jury,  what  was  the 
intent  of  the  delay  of  the  patent,  and 
whether  the  allowing  the  invention  to 
be  used  without  a  jiatent  should  not  be 
considered  an  abandonment  or  present 
of  it  to  the  public?  Morris  v.  Hunt- 
itigton,  1  Paine,  354. — TuoJirsoN,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1824. 

4.  If  an  inventor  dedicates  his  inven- 
tion to  the  public,  he  cannot  afterward 
resume  it,  or  claim  an  exclusive  right  in 
it.  It  is  like  the  dedication  of  a  public 
highway,  or  other  public  easement. 
Mellun  V.  Silabee,  4  Mas.,  111. — Story, 
J. ;  Mass.,  1825. 

6.  His  acts  are,  however,  to  be 
construed  liberally;  that  is,  he  is  not 
estopped  by  licensing  a  few  persons  to 
use  his  invention  to  ascertain  its  utility, 
or  by  any  such  acts  of  peculiar  indul- 
gence and  use,  as  may  fairly  consist 
with  the  clear  intention  to  hold  the  ex- 
clusive privilege.     Ibid.,  111. 

6.  If  the  inventor  proclaim  his  inten- 
tion to  all  the  world,  and  suffer  his 
invention  to  go  into  general  and  pubUo 
use,  without  objection ;  if  he  assert 
no  exclusive  right  for  yeavs,  with  a 
full  knowledge  that  the  public  are  led 
by  it  to  a  general  use,  such  conduct 
amounts  to  strong  i)roof  that  he  waives 
the  exclusive  right,  and  dedicates  the 
invention  to  the  world.    Ibid.,  111. 

Y.  If  an  inventor  makes  his  discovery 
public,  looks  on,  and  permits  others 
freely  to  use  it,  without  objection  or 
assertion  of  claim  to  the  invention,  of 
which  the  public  might  take  notice,  he 
abandons  the  inchoate  right  to  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  the  invention,  to  which  a 
patent  would  have  entitled  him,  had  it 
been  applied  for  before  such  use ;  and  it 


makes  no 

pid)licly 

was  mad 

who  did  s 

the  inven 

Wash.,    5 

1825.     {A 

8.  Thoi 

intended  t 

covery  to 

posed  tha 

particular 

thing,  he  c 

given  his  i 

tors  not. 

tioi!    but   I 

from  the  c 

att'octiiig   t 

Ibid.,  5-14. 

n.  If  befc 

inventor  lot 

going  into 

tion  on  his 

conduct  as 

ment  or  tn 

to  the  pub 

Wash.,  708. 

10.  An   i 

invention,  a 

to  the   pul 

thus  once 

resumed  at 

are  once  mr 

they  becon 

Dialogue  2 

Ct.,  1829. 

11.  Undo 
the  voluntai 
inventor  in 
his  inventio 
a  patent,  : 
right  ti  a 
disability  to 
conditions  o 
ceive  a  pate 


1^^ 


AHANDONMENT,  B.  1. 


98 


or  INVENTIOH.  nKKORB-  PATENT. 


ni.'vkes  no  difTuronco  that  the  article  so 
publicly  ust'(l  and  afterward  patented 
was  made  by  a  particular  individual, 
who  did  so  by  the  private  i)erniissi()n  of 
the  iiiventor.  Pennock  v.  Dvtloifne,  4 
Wash.,  544. — Wahminotox,  J.;  Pa., 
1825.     (Affirmed,  \H2Q,poHt  10.) 

8.  Thoufjfh  the  inventor  may  not  have 
intended  to  give  the  benefit  of  hi.s  dis- 
covery to  the  public,  and  may  have  snj)- 
posed  that  by  giving  permission  to  a 
particular  individual  to  mani;facture  the 
thing,  he  could  not  be  presumed  to  have 
given  his  invention  to  the  public,  it  mat- 
ters not.  It  is  not  a  question  of  inten- 
tioi'.  but  of  legal  inference,  resulting 
from  the  conduct  of  the  inventor,  and 
aftocting  the  interests  of  the  public. 
Ibiil,  5-14. 

0.  If  before  the  patent  is  taken  out,  the 
inventor  looks  on,  and  sees  his  invention 
going  into  genr'-al  use,  without  objec- 
tion on  his  part,  the  court  will  treat  his 
conduct  as  equivalent  to  an  abandon- 
ment or  transfer  of  his  exclusive  right 
to  the  public.  Treadioell  v.  Bladen,  4 
Wash.,  TOS.— Wasuinoton,  J.;Pa.,  1827. 

10.  An  inventor  may  abandon  his 
invention,  and  surrender  or  dedicate  it 
to  the  public.  This  inchoate  right, 
thus  once  gone,  cannot  afterward  be 
resumed  at  his  pleasure :  where  gifts 
are  once  made  to  the  public  in  this  way 
they  become  absolute.  Pennock  v. 
Dialogue,  2  Pet.,  16. — Story,  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1829. 

11.  Under  the  Patent  Act  of  1793, 
the  voluntary  act  or  acquiescence  of  an 
inventor  in  the  public  sale  and  use  of 
his  invention  before  his  application  for 
a  patent,  is  an  abandonment  of  his 
right  to  a  patent,  or  rather  creates  a 
disability  to  comply  with  the  terms  and 
conditions  on  which  alone  he  could  re- 
ceive a  patent.    Ibid.,  24. 


12.  No  matter  by  Avhat  means  an  in- 
vention may  bo  coinmunicafetl  to  the 
public  before  a  patent  is  obtained,  any 
acquiescence  in  the  public  use,  by  the 
inventor,  Avill  bo  an  abandonment  of 
his  right.  If  the  right  wore  asserted 
by  him  who  fraudulently  obtained  it, 
perhaps  no  lapse  of  time  could  give  it 
validity.  But  the  public  stand  in  an 
entirely  different  relation  to  the  inven- 
tor, iihaw  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet.,  320. — 
McLkax,   J.;    Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 

13.  If  an  individual  witness  a  salo 
and  transfer  of  property,  in  which  ho 
has  an  equitable  lien  or  interest,  and 
does  not  make  known  his  interest,  ho 
caimot  afterward  be  permittod  to  as- 
sert it.  On  this  principle  it  is,  that  a 
discoverer  abandons  his  right,  if  before 
the  obtaimnent  of  his  patent  h'S  dis- 
covery goes  into  public  use.  But  hii 
right  would  be  secured  by  giving  public 
notice  ihat  he  was  the  inventor  of  the 
thing  used,  and  that  he  should  apply 
for  a  patent.     Ibid.,  321. 

14.  The  acquiescence  of  an  inventor, 
however,  in  the  public  use  of  his  in- 
vention, can  in  no  case  be  presumed 
where  he  has  no  knowledge  of  such 
use.  But  this  knowledge  may  be  pre- 
sumed from  the  circumstances  of  tho 
case.  And  if  the  inventor  do  not,  im- 
mediately after  this  notice,  assert  his 
right,  it  is  such  evidence  of  acquiescence 
in  the  public  use  as  forever  afterward 
to  prevent  him  from  asserting  it.  Ibid., 
321. 

15.  A  strict  construction  of' the  cct, 
as  it  regards  the  public  use  of  an  in- 
ventioTi  before  it  is  patented,  is  not 
only  required  by  its  letter  and  spirit, 
but  also  by  sound  policy.  Th^  doctrine 
of  presumed  acquiescence,  where  the 
public  use  is  known,  or  might  be  known 
to  the   inventor,  is  the  only  safe  rule 


^*u.n. 


I/Vt*u 


8---- 


mull 


irwT'^.':;^; 


"Illy 

ill"   < 


^^^'^W. 


i  li 


ll«/;  li 


04 


ABANDONMENT,  B.  1. 


OF  IKVENTION.      BRrOHR  PATKNT. 


%^- 


'■*^M««ir'it 


which  can  bo  adopted  on  this  subject. 
Ibid.,  321,  322. 

10.  Tho  question  of  abandonment 
does  not  turn  upon  the  intention  of  the 
itivontor.  \yhatever  may  bo  his  in- 
tention, if  he  suffers  his  invention  to  go 
into  public  use,  through  any  means 
whatever,  without  an  immediate  asser- 
tion of  his  right,  he  is  not  entitled  to  a 
patent;  nor  will  a  patent  obtained 
under  such  circumstances  protect  his 
right.  Ibid.,  323. 

17.  The  inventor,  and  he  alono,  is 
competent  to  abandon  his  invention  to 
the  public,  and  no  use  by  the  public, 
except  with  his  knowledge  and  consent, 
can  be  deemed  an  abandonment  of  his 
invention.  Fiersonw.  Eagle  Screw  Co., 
3  Story,  407.-St(.i  Y,  J.;  R.  I.,   1844. 

18.  Neither  a  stipulation  for  the  sale 
of  au  invention  before  it  is  completed, 
nor  a  sale  of  such  invention  during  his 
application  for  a  patent,  is  an  abandon- 
ment, or  such  a  use  as  gives  it  to  the 
public.  The  inventor  may  do  this 
without  vitiating  his  claim.  Sparkman 
\.IIiggins,\  Blatchf.,  209. — Beits,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1846. 

19.  Whether  the  sale  and  manufac- 
ture for  some  few  months,  before  the 
application  for  a  patent,  of  an  article,  as 
an  ornamental  button,  for  tlie  design  of 
which  letters  patent  had  been  granted, 
and  which  design  was  apparent  on  the 
article  itself,  would  amount  to  an 
abandonment,  is  a  question  of  fact  to 
be  settled  by  the  jury.  Booth  v.  Gar- 
elhj,  1  Blatchf.,  240,  250. — Nelson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1847. 

20.  A  right  to  an  invention  or  dis- 
covery, like  every  other  right,  may  be 
surrendered  or  dedicated  to  the  public ; 
and  such  right,  when  abandoned,  can- 
not be  resumed,  3fcGay  \.  Burr,  6 
Penn.,  153.— Gibson,  Ch.  J. ;  Pa.,  1847. 


21.  But  a  license,  restrained  to  indi- 
viduals, is  not  an  abandonment.  Ibid.^ 
164. 

22.  Where  experiments  as  to  an  in- 
vention were  imperfect  and  unsatisfac- 
tory, and  sjibsequently  the  inventor 
threw  aside  his  temporary  model,  and 
wholly  neglected  for  years  to  follow  up 
liis  experiments,  so  as  to  produce  a  per- 
fect machine,  Held,  that  such  acts  af- 
forded strong  and  decisive  evidence  of 
an  abandonment  of  the  thing  as  a  fail- 
ure. Parkhurst  v.  Kinsman,  1  Blatchf, 
494.— Nklson,  J, ;  N,  Y.,  1 849. 

23.  An  inventor  may  abandon  his 
invention  witliin  two  years,  or  at  any 
time  before  the  procurement  of  the 
patent,  Pitts  v.  Hall,  2  Blatchf,  237. 
—Nklson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

24.  The  mere  use  or  s.alo  of  the  in- 
vention, however,  within  the  two  years, 
M'ill  not  alone  or  of  itself  work  an 
abandonment.  The  use  or  sale  must 
be  accompanied  by  some  declarations 
or  acts  going  to  establish  an  intention 
on  the  part  of  the  inventor  to  give  to 
the  public  the  benefit  of  the  improve- 
ment.    Ibid.,  237. 

25.  The  mere  expression  of  an  in- 
tention not  to  take  out  a  patent,  or  the 
mere  declaration  of  an  intention  to  ded- 
icate an  invention  to  the  public,  cannot 
be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  an  actual 
dedication.    Ibid.,  238. 

26.  Abandonment  or  dedication  is  in 
the  nature  of  a  forfeiture  of  a  right, 
Avhich  the  law  does  not  favor,  and  it 
should  be  made  out  beyond  sill  reason- 
able doubt.    Ibid.,  238. 

27.  The  question  of  abandonment 
must  always  depend,  in  a  great  measure, 
on  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  subject 
matter.  The  mere  sale  of  a  peculiar 
manufacture — as  vulcanized  rubber — 
which  does  not,  on  its  face,  disclose  the 


natJiro  ( 

of  produ 

merit,  G 

J. ;  N.  J 

28,  El 

sale  in  ] 

her  good 

held  not 

a  use  of 

self  did  1 

ing  it — a 

granted  1 

subsequei 

29,  Th 
or  disco v( 
is  not  an  i 

30,  If,  1 
invention, 
.and  dedic.i 
for  Avhat  r 
he  recallec 
of  JVew  I 
1856. 

31.  An  i 
vention  to 
declaratior 
nlficant  w: 
stance,  aa 
knowledjxe 
by  others, 
329.— Dan 
32.  The 
hf/ue,  2  Pot 
7  Pet.,  292; 
cases  upon 
tion  or  reli 
ileges  as  re; 
tion,  from 
from  use  kn 
329. 

33.  If  an 
improvemer 
m.ade  a  mif 
proveraents 
a  patent  for 


AHANDONMENT,  B.  2. 


05 


or  INVEKTIOV.     AmtR  PATENT. 


natiiro  of  tlio  comimiintl,  or  tho  mode 
of  proiluciiig  it,  is  not  Hiich  an  abandon- 
ment. (Joodycar  v.  Day,  MS. — Gitiicu, 
J.;  N.  J.,  1852. 

28.  Even  under  the  English  laws,  tlio 
sale  in  England  of  manufactured  rub- 
ber goods  imported  from  abroad,  was 
held  not  to  be  an  abandonment,  or  such 
a  use  of  the  thing — as  the  material  it- 
Holf  did  not  diselose  the  means  of  mak- 
ing it — as  would  invalidate  a  patent, 
granted  to  an  original  inventor  there 
subsequently  to  such  sale.    Ibid. 

29.  The  piiblication  of  an  invention 
or  discovery  by  a  defective  specification 
is  not  an  abandonment. —  Ibid. 

30.  If,  after  an  inventor  has  made  rai 
invention,  ho  deliberately  abandons  it, 
and  dedicates  it  to  the  public,  no  matter 
for  what  reason,  the  dedication  cannot 
be  recalled.  Ransom  v.  Mayor,  <6c., 
of  New  York,  SIS.— IIaix,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1856. 

31.  An  inventor  may  abandon  his  in- 
vention to  the  public,  either  by  express 
declaration  or  by  conduct  equally  sig- 
nificant with  language — such,  for  in- 
stance, aa  an  acquiescence,  with  full 
knowledge,  in  the  use  of  his  invention 
by  others.  ICendall  v.  Winsor,  21  How., 
329.— Daniel,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 

32.  The  cases  of  Pennock  v.  Dia- 
logue, 2  Pet.,  1 ;  and  of  Shaio  v.  Cooper, 
7  Pet.,  292 ;  may  be  regarded  as  leading 
cases  tipon  the  questions  of  the  abroga- 
tion or  relinquishment  of  patent  priv- 
ileges as  resulting  from  avowed  inten- 
tion, from  abandonment  or  neglect,  or 
from  use  known  and  assented  to.  Ibid., 
329. 

33.  If  an  inventor  claims  two  distinct 
improvements  in  a  machine,  and  has 
made  a  mistake  as  to  one  of  the  im- 
provements claimed,  but  is  entitled  to 
a  patent  for  the  other,  he  c.innot  be 


said  to  have  abandoned  either  din-ing 
a  litig.ition  as  to  both.  Adams  v. 
Jones,  MS.— GiiEiK,  J.;  Pa.,  1859. 

34.  Tho  application  of  the  doctrine 
of  abandonment  depends  upon  tho  cir- 
cunistanccs  of  each  case — it  implies 
laches  on  tho  part  of  the  original  inven- 
tor. Mix  V.  Perkins,  ^IS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— ;Morsell,  J. ;  D.  C,  1859. 

35.  A  statement  in  .nn  original  patent 
that  a  part  is  old,  or  a  disclaimer  of  a 
part,  does  not  necessarily  operate  as  a 
dedication  of  such  part  to  the  public, 
or  prevent  it  being  claimed  in  a  reissued 
patent ;  though  it  seems  it  would  have 
that  etfect  if  made  advisedly,  and  not 
by  inadvertence,  accident,  or  mistake. 
Laidley  v.  James,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
Meerick,  J.;  D.  C,  1800. 

2.  After  Patent  granted. 

1.  Afler  an  invention  has  been  pat- 
ented, no  disuser  of  it  will  amount  to 
an  abandonment,  so  as  to  deprive  the 
patentee  or  his  assigns  of  the  exclusive 
I'ight  to  it  for  fourteen  years.  Gray  v. 
James,  Pet.  C.  C,  403. — Wasiiixgtox, 
J.;  Pa.,  1817. 

2.  After  the  right  of  an  inventor  is 
perfected  by  a  patent,  no  presumption 
arises  against  it  from  a  subsequent  use 
by  the  public.  Shaio  v.  Cooper,  7  Pet., 
321.— McLeax,  J;  Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 

3.  After  patent  obtained,  a  patentee 
may  abandon  or  surrender  his  rights, 
by  overt  acts,  or  express  declaration. 
And  if  for  a  series  of  years  be  acqui- 
esces without  objection  in  the  known 
public  use  by  others  of  his  invention,  or 
stands  by  and  encourages  such  use, 
such  conduct  will  aiford  a  strong  pre- 
sumption of  such  actual  surrender  and 
abandonmcTit.  Wye.th  v.  Stone,  1  Story, 
282.— Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1840. 


*^'!*'*'"-.. 

.V**.; 


■\hiK\ 


Mil) 


'»i««< 


'W 


'»"*<W, 


''He    llMi^ 


Vi^ifl 


<b.^W>-'te 


jLSI 


SI5.1 


■ii-1 


00 


ABANDONMENT,  B.  3. 


or  INVEKTIOV.      KBrKNOB  OF;   WHO  TO  PKCIDK. 


>• 


n^ 


H'^' 


d§ 


4.  A  J'ortiori,  the  doctrhio  will  ap- 
ply to  II  (!ii«c,  where  tho  patcntoo  lias 
openly  ('iK'oiinnjcil,  or  Nilftifly  ac(pu- 
csccil  in  HHoh  use,  by  the  very  <U'fi'ml- 
aiits  whom  he  jiftcrwanl  seeks  to  pro- 
hil»it,  liy  iiijiiiietion,  from  any  further 
use.     If)i(f.,  282. 

5.  And  it  in  no  answer  to  stjch  a  pro- 
suinptiou,  that  the  lefeiidants  used  the 
invention  in  a  difterent  branch  of  trade 
from  that  in  wliieh  the  inventor  was  en- 
^aj^cMl  in  using  his  invention,  and  that 
therefore  there  was  no  .actual  interfer- 
ence.    Ibid,  283. 

0.  If  a  patentee  meana  to  surrender 
his  exclusive  rij^ht  in  a  qualified  man- 
ner, he  shoidd  {jive  ]>ublic  notice  of  iho 
nature  and  extent  of  his  allowance,  so 
that  the  public  may  bo  on  their  guard. 
Ibid.,  283. 

v.  A  court  of  oqnity  will  not  inter- 
fere, in  behalf  of  a  patentee,  either  to 
grant  an  injunction,  or  to  give  him  any 
relief,  in  respect  to  any  alleged  violatit)n 
of  his  patent,  if,  afler  having  obtained 
his  i)atent,  he  has  surrendered  or  dedi- 
cated it  to  tho  public,  or  acquiesced  for 
a  long  period  in  the  public  use  thereof, 
without  objection — as  his  own  conduct 
may  be  considered  as  having  led  to  such 
use,  or  application,  or  acts  of  the  de- 
fendants.    Ibid.,  282,  284, 

8.  A  citizen  patentee  cannot  lose  his 
right  by  7ion-iiser,  uidesa  it  amounts  to 
evidence  of  aji  abandonment  of  the 
patent ;  the  question  of  abandonment 
is  a  question  of  fact  for  a  jury  on  a 
trial  at  law.  Hildreth  v.  Heath,  MS. 
(App.  Caa.) — CitAxcn,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C, 
1841. 

9.  If  a  patentee  neglects,  in  his  speci- 
fication, to  assert  his  invention  as  to  a 
certain  part,  and  omits  to  claim  specifi- 
cally such  part,  and  suffers  his  patent 
so  to  stand  for  a  number  of  vears,  he 


cannot  allerwanl  surrender  it,  and 
take  a  reissue,  claiming  such  part,  as 
llie  use  under  the  former  patent,  with- 
out any  claim,  will  be  a  dedicition 
thereof  to  the  public.  lidtteii  v.  2\ig- 
gci't,  2  Wall.;  Jr.,  102.— Kank,  J. ;  Pa., 
1851.     [Overruled,   \HrA,p(>at  10.] 

10.  The  decision  of  the  court  below 
in  this  case,  as  to  a  dedication  of  an  in- 
vention by  a  description  of  it  in  the 
8j»ecification  of  a  former  patent,  unac- 
comp.'uiied  by  notice  that  he  was  right 
in  it,  or  desires  to  secure  those  rights,  is 
erroneous.  I5y  the  defects  mentioned 
in  tho  statute,  and  to  remedy  winch  a 
surrender  and  reissue  is  pi  rmitled, 
nothing  passes  to  the  public  from  the 
specifications  and  claims,  Avilhin  tho 
scope  of  the  p.atentee's  invention.  Bat- 
ten V.  Taggert,  1 7  How.,  83,  84. — Mc- 
Lkax,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  185 1. 

11.  A  patentee,  subsequent  to  his 
patent,  may  abandon  his  invention  to 
the  public,  and  waive  tho  exclusive 
privileges  secured  to  him ;  and  the  jury 
may  infer  such  an  abandonment  from 
an  acquiescence  in  the  use  of  his  inven- 
tion by  others,  a  neglect  to  assert  his 
claims  by  suit  or  otherwise,  an  omis- 
sion to  sell  licenses,  a  neglect  to  make 
efforts  to  realize  any  adv.antage  from 
his  patent,  and  similar  circumstances. 
Ilanaoni  v.  Mayor,  &c.,  New  York,  MS. 
— IIaix,  J;  N.  Y.,  185G. 

12.  An  inventor  may  abandon  his 
right  to  a  patent,  as  well  after  patent 
granted  as  before,  but  in  the  former 
event  it  would  require  a  strong  case  to 
be  made  out.  Bell  v.  Daniels,  MS. — 
Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1858. 

3.  Defence  of ;  who  to  decide. 

1.  The  question  of  dedication  is  one 
for  the  consideration  of  the  jury.    Whit- 


m  issue,  ai 


ABANDONMENT,  IJ.  3. 


n: 


or  iNriMTioK.   oiriNCfc  or;  wiio  to  dicidi. 


tetnore  v.  Cutter^  I  Gull.,  482. — Stout, 
J.;   Mass.,  1813. 

2.  It  slioiiKl  ahviiyH  lie  n  qiicstion 
KiibinitteJ  to  tlu.' jury,  what  was  the  in- 
tent of  the  (K'lay  t)f  tho  jtatcnt,  uiid 
whether  tho  allowlnu^  the  itivoiition  to 
bo  nsi'il  without  a  jiatent,  shouM  not  be 
concidcrotl  an  abandonment  or  prcseiit 
of  it  to  the  |)id)lie.  Jforrin  v.  //>iii(i/i(/- 
ton,  1  Paine,  354. — Thomtson,  J.  ;  N. 
v.,  1824. 

3.  The  (|uostion  which  generally  arises 
at  trials  is  a  question  ol"  faet,  ratiier  than 
of  law,  whether  tho  acts  or  aequiescence 
of  tho  party  furnish  in  tho  j^iven  ease 
satisfactory  jiroof  of  an  abamloiunent  or 
dedication  of  the  invention  o  the  jtub- 
lic.  But  when  all  the  facts  are  given, 
there  does  not  seem  any  reason  why 
tho  court  may  not  state  tho  legal  con- 
clusion deducible  from  them.  Pennock 
\.Dliilo(fi(ef  2  Pet.,  IG. — SrouY,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1829. 

4.  If  a  defendant,  in  an  action  for  an 
infringement  of  a  pateiit,  wisli  to  avail 
Linist  If  of  the  defence  of  abandonment 
or  acquiescence  of  the  plaintitt'  in  the 
public  use  of  his  invention,  ho  must  set 
forth  such  defence  in  his  answer,  and 
put  it  in  issue.  If  the  point  i.i  not  put 
in  issue,  any  evidence  as  to  it  will  bo 
iirelevant,  and  cannot  be  looked  to. 
Wyeth  V.  Stone,  1  Story,  284.— Stouy, 
J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

5.  Theiiucstion  of  forfeiture  or  aban- 
doiunent,  is  a  question  of  fact  for  a  jury- 
on  a  trial  at  law.  Hlldreth  v.  ITeatli, 
jMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Cbaxoii,  Ch.  J. ;  D. 
C,  1841. 

6.  Under  g  7  of  the  act  of  1830, 
tho  question  of  delay  or  abandonment 
is  not  submitted,  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  commissioner  of  patents  in  deter- 
mining as  to  the  issuing  of  a  patent. 
Ibid.     [Qualified,  1 85  8, 2iost  13.] 


7.  When  an  abandonment  is  rolied 
on,  it  sho\dd  be  state<l  in  the  plea,  and 
the  fac'ts  on  which  the  pleadt  r  rdies,  as 
siiowing  an  abiindonmcni.  liimt  v. 
liiUl,  4  McLean,  179.— McLi;an,  J.; 
Ohio,  184(J. 

8.  Whether  the  matuifactnre  and  sale 
of  nn  article,  as  an  ornamentiil  button, 
ibr  the  design  <tf  which  K'tters  pati'Ut 
had  been  obtained,  for  some  few  months 
l)eforo  the  application  for  a  iiatent. 
would  amount  to  an  altandnnmcnt,  is  a 
(jueslion  of  fact  to  be  settlcil  by  a  jury. 
liovthv.  Gareliy,  1  JUatehf,  '-'19,250. 
— Nklson,  J.;  New  York,  1H17. 

9.  If  a  party  wishes  to  introduce 
evidence,  in  an  acti(jn  of  abandonment, 
there  nnist  be  the  proper  allegations  to 
tiiat  effect,  in  the  jileadings.  Wilnon 
V.  /Stolht/,  4  McLean,  270. — McLkax, 
J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

10.  It  is  ft  question  for  the  jury 
whether  an  invention  has  been  aban- 
doned to  the  public.  .Batten  v.  'J\igijert, 
17  How.,  85. — McLean,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1854. 

11.  Under  the  statute,  the  commis- 
sioner has  jurisdiction  of  the  question 
of  abandonment,  at  least  when  it  grows 
out  of  a  jiublic  use  or  sale  with  the  ajj- 
jilicant's  consent.  Hunt  v.  JI()>i\\  M.s. 
(App.  Cas.)— MoKSKLL,  J. ;  U.  C,  1855.) 

12.  Whether  an  inventor  lias  aban- 
doned or  surrendered  his  invention,  au<l 
whether  this  is  sought  to  be  proved 
from  his  declarations  or  acts,  or  from  a 
forbearance  or  neglect  to  act  or  speak, 
is  an  in(|uiry  or  conclusion  of  ^f act  for 
the  jury  to  decide  Jvendall  v.  Wlnsor. 
21  How.,  331.— Danikl,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1858. 

13.  The  question  of  abandonment,  re- 
ferred to  in  midrcth,  v.  Heath,  and  in 
Pomcroi/  V.  Connison,  and  which  it 
was  held  was  not  within  the  jurisdic 


'« 


I 


"i  ».l 


'''tife^i, 


■CSl 


<•«. 


i^;^i 


>?•( 


■^vVl 


S3    n- 


w^t...    J,  /  LLa^ 


^wwWi 


•  'i 


It,  —i.      ij      -. 


^;^p;st^i,Wii- 


Wf  '  >;.:2r*! 


'♦* 


■••^1- 


i^\ 


0t 


AHANDONMENT,  C— ABIUIKJMKNT  OF  IJOOK, 


or  TBADB*MAMCI. 


WHAT  II;   WHIN  MO  I'lKAcr. 


tlon  of  the  roininis>4ioii(>r,  in  (l('c'nliiif» 
nH  to  tln)  isHiiiiij;  of  a  psiti'iit,  in  that  of 
ilclay  or  j^ciiciul  :ili;iiiil(tiim('ril,  atnl 
which  iiitt'iiiioii  nixi  s|i(>('i:tl  circiiin- 
BtfUici'M  cotiHtitiitc.  Mtnn'if  v.  ffurhcr, 
MS.  (Api..  Cas.)— MoKrtKi.r,,  J.;  1).  C, 

It.  Kilt  as  to  th(!  nhaM(h)Miii(Mit  or 
fttalutoiy  ilisaiiility  of  an  a|)|)Hrant  to 
asBort  hin  right  to  a  patent,  because  of  a 
piihlic  UHe  or  sale  by  others,  with  his 
kno\vh'<Ii;c  and  consent,  of  the  inventeil 
maehiiK',  lor  more  tlian  two  years  be- 
fore application  for  a  patent,  the  ooin- 
inissiomr  has Jnrisdiction.     Ifn'd. 

ITi.  Same  position  held  in  Ellithorpc 
V.  liohii-fsoti,  MousKi.i,,  ,1.,  lHr)H;  in 
M'ic/it r.s/iKtn  v.  fSim/ii;  Mkkuuk,  J., 
IH.')!);  in  ASpi'fir  V.  iStitart,  I)i\sr,oi',  J., 
1850;  and  in  Sturtci'unt  v.  Grce»ou(jhy 
AIkukick,  J.,  IHdo. 

111.  Tlie  jiuisiliclion  of  the  conimis- 
Bioner  of  patents  over  the  (piesti«)n  of 
aban(h)nment,  is  clear  under  section  V, 
net  of  iH.'tO,  witliout  resort  t<»  section  8, 
."ct  of  iHiiO.  Wioktrslntm  v.  Si/it/cr,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— MicKUK  K.  .1.;  1).  C,  18:)!). 

17-  The  (piestion  of  aban<h)nment,  in 
a  suit  for  an  infringement,  is  a  ('uestioii 
of  fa<t  for  a  jury,  but.  on  an  ap/tlimticn 
to  thi'  coininissioiu'r  for  the  issue  of  a 
patent,  it  is  liis  duty  to  decide  all  (pies- 
tions,  both  of  law  and  fact,  which  go  to 
establish  the  right,  or  the  absence  of 
n'(//it,  in  the  applicant  to  a  jiatont. 
3farn/  v.  Trotter,  MS.  {\\>\}.  Cas.)— 
DuNLOP,  J. ;  I).  C,  1 800. 


to  the  UMO  or  iinita'ion  of  his  Iradn 
mark  nuiy  be  inferred  from  hi  knowl- 
edge and  silence;  but  such  I'onsenf, 
whether  express  or  implied,  may  be 
withdrawn  ;  it  is  no  more  than  a  revu- 
cable  liconKe.  Amuaktaij  Mnmif.  Co., 
V.  Spear,  2  Sand.,  S.  C,  015.— DirRu, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

The  neglect  of  a  party  to  carry  on 
his  business  under  its  well-known  name, 
for  a  numb'r  of  years,  does  not  pre- 
vent him  fV(Ha  resuming  the  same,  or 
entitle  another  to  tise  the  name  of 
his  business.  JIow«  v.  iSeariiifj,  10 
How.  IV.,  25.— lIoPFMAV,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1800. 

Though  a  trade-mark  may  have  been 
used  previously,  if  its  iise  has  been  so 
long  discontinued  nH  to  justify  tin;  in- 
ference that  it  had  I  .  in  abandoned,  it 
may  be  taken  up  by  another  dealing  in 
the  same  article,  whose  rij.,ht  will  he 
protected  if  used  exclusively  by  him, 
and  long  enough  to  bo  roeogiii/.ed  as 
the  indicia  of  his  ownership.  (■onpin\. 
Ihthj,  Tpton  on  Trade-i^Iarks,  190.—. 
KouEKTsoN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1800. 


AIJKIDGMENT  OF  BOOK. 


4.  Proof  of 
See  EviDExcE,  II.  1. 

C,  Of  Tuadk-Mauks. 
The  acquiescence  of  a  nianuf.icturer 


1.  The  (piestion  as  to  an  abridgment 
is  made  uj)  of  various  considerations; 
whether  it  is  a  honajide.  .abridgment,  or 
only  an  evasion  by  the  omission  of  un- 
important pa:  ts  ;  whether  it  will  pre- 
judice or  '  .ipcrsede  the  original ;  whe- 
ther it  will  be  adapted  to  the  same  class 
of  readers,  ifec.  Gray  v.  Russell,  I 
Story,  19.— Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1830. 

2.  The  doctrine  that  an  abridgment 
is  not  a  piracy  of  the  original  copyright 
must  be  received  with  many  qualifica- 
tions.    Ibid.,  19,  20. 


.•I.  A 
of  an  ( 
llie   coi 

fair  and 
t'leinos 
cin-uuiNi 
V.    ^rart 
J.;  M;.N 
4.  A  I 
rangeme 
so  as  to 
'■ompass, 
'I'lierc  nil 
sat  ion  i»f 
labor  an<| 
Ibid.,  107 
.'■•.   If  til 
abridge  a 
and  ih.'it  I 
done,  it  is 
by   I  he  ow 
I'liiicipal  u| 
iIk^    abrid- 
coiorabh'  o 
I'i>iO(  rs,  2 
"I  KV,  J.; 

('•  An  ;i 
epitoiiu' 
priiiciplcs 
"ligiiial  b(, 
combr^  4  J\I( 
IH47. 

7.  A  me 
raiigenient 
"■ork,  so  as 

COIllp.'lSS,  in 

"lUst  be  re 
"f  the  ni.atel 
and  jndgiiK 
"<>t  merely  f 
or  extracts 
stituting  the 
work,     nid 

8.  A  fair 
considered  a 


of 


••.♦ 


AUUIDGMKNT. 


09 


WHAT  M;    WliaN  NO   PIRAflT. 


3.  A  fiiii"  imtl  honit  Jiile  nl>ri<lf;iiu'iit 
of  III!  original  work  im  not  ii  pirikcy  of 
||i<>  I'op}  ri'^lit  ;  Ixit  wliul  coiistitiitoH  a 
fuir  iiiul  liimtijhlt'  :ilK'i<i;{iiiriit,  is  dih'  i>f 
tlio  must  ilitliriilt  pniiitN,  uiiih'i-  piirliniliii' 
ciirunisfaiici'H,  that  «'iiu  ariMc.  l'\>lHnin 
V.  Miirxh,  J  Story,  100,  107.— Htouy, 
J.;  Mass.,  iHtl. 

4.  A  im  <•>>  Ni'ltu-tioii,  or  (liir«>ivtit  fir- 
r»ii;;t'nu<iit  tif  parts  o'!  tlio  original  work, 
HO  as  to  l)riii}r  tlio  work  into  a  Niiiallcr 
(■()iii|)asN,  is  not  Niicli  an  al>riil;^iiH>iit. 
'I'licrc  must  ))(>  r«>al,  Niiltstanlial  (>oii<lfii- 
MiUioii  of  {\w  materials,  and  int<'IK<(rtii!il 
labor  aii<l  juil;{mi'iit  In'Mtowtul  tliurcon. 
Iln<l.,  H)7. 

r».  If  lli(!  IiMilin^  (Icsif^ii  is  truly  to 
filiriilm'  a  work  and  dioapuii  tlu>  price, 
aiul  tliat  by  nu-ntal  lalxu'  is  faithfully 
(l(»uo,  it  w  no  ^rnuind  for  a  pros«'(Milion 
l»y  the  owner  of  a  eopyrij^ht  of  tho 
principal  work.  Hut  it  is  <ttliorwis(!  if 
the  :il)rid;^ineut  or  Himilar  work  bo 
colurabic!  or  a  nu-re  substitute  Wfhbw 
I'i>iotra,  '2  Wood.  &  Min.,  520.— Wooo- 
lUKV,  J.;  IMass.,  1847. 

0.  An  abrid<ifment  should  contain  an 
cpllomo  of  tho  work  ubridj^od — tho 
]iriiicipleM  in  a  (M»ndeiisod  form,  of  tho 
original  book.  Story^n  Kxrs.  v.  IIol- 
conihc,  4  McLean,  308. — Cuuiam,  Ohio, 
1847. 

7.  A  mere  selection,  or  different  ar- 
ran<,'ement  of  the  jiarts  of  the  orij^inal 
Mork,  so  as  to  brinjjj  it  into  a  snuiller 
compass,  is  not  an  abridgment.  There 
must  bo  real,  substantial  condensation, 
of  the  materials,  and  intellectual  labor 
mid  judjjfinent  bestowed  thereon,  and 
not  merely  the  facile  use  of  the  scissors, 
or  extracts  of  tho  essenti.il  parttf,  con- 
stituting the  chief  value  of  tho  original 
work.     Ibid.,  311. 

8.  A  fair  .abridgment  of  any  book  is 
considered  a  new  work,  as  to  write  it 


re(|tiireH  labor  and  exercise  of  judgment. 
It  is  «inly  new,  howevi'r,  in  llie  si'uso 
that  the  view  of  the  author  is  given  in 
a  condensed  form,     /bit/.,  :i|l. 

0.  Such  a  work  must  not  only  con* 
tain  the  arrangement  of  the  book 
abridged,  but  tlie  ideas  must  be  taken 
from  its  pages.  It  must  ite  in  good 
faith  an  abridgment,  not  l  treatistt  in- 
terlarded with  citations.      Ibitl.,  WW. 

!(),  To  copy  certain  passages  from  a 
book,  omitting  others,  is  in  no  just 
sense  an  abridgnu'iit.  Thejuilgment  is 
not  j'xercised  in  <'ondensing  tho  views 
of  the  author.  This  langu.'ige  is  copied, 
not  condensed.      Ibitl.,  :tl  I. 

11.  To  abridge  is  t(»  preserve  the 
substanc(\  tho  <'sscnco  of  the  w«»rk,  in 
langii:ig(t  suited  to  sik^Ii  purpose;  it  rn< 
•  piires  the  «>xercis(!  of  the  mind  ;  it  is 
not  copying.  T<t  c()mpiio  is  to  copy 
from  various  authors  into  ono  work. 
Ibid.,  311,  313. 

12.  Such  a  work  entitles  the  compiler, 
under  th(!  statute,  to  a  right  of  prop- 
erty  ;  whi(rh  right  may  bo  com|»ared  to 
thiit  of  a  patentee,  who,  by  a  combin.a- 
tion  of  known  niechanicial  structures, 
has  produ(^od  anew  result.     Fbiif.,  314. 

"'{.  lU'tween  a  compil.ation  and  an 
abridgment  there  is  a  clear  distiiuti<»n. 
A  compilaticm  consists  of  selected  ox- 
tracts  from  different  authors  ;  .'in  abridg- 
ment is  a  condensation  of  the  views  of 
the  author.     Ibid,,  314. 

14.  The  former  cannot  be  so  extend- 
ed as  to  convey  the  same  knowledge  .as 
the  original  work  ;  the  latter  conlaing 
an  epitome  of  the  work  abridged,  and 
conscMpu'iitly  conveys  substantially  tho 
same  knowledge.  The  ffirmor  cannot 
.adopt  tho  arrangement  of  the  work 
<'ited;  the  latter  must  .adopt  the  ar 
rangement  of  the  work  abridged.  Ibid.^ 
314. 


H 


T^"... 
'•'•*•*: 


iii> 


'?^*«»\iv 


'U* 


<,' 


;^\ 


i^i' 


±  L 


^1 


ACCOITNT  OF  ruDriTS. 


WIIKII  URIIHHHI);    WHAT   AC'UOIJNTKI)  rOH. 


15.  Till'  fMriiicr  liifriiiiji'"*  lln«  ('i»|>y- 
ri,i;lit,  if  I  III'  iiiattiT  tratisiTilii'il,  wlini 
|iulilis)i('(i,  mIiuII  itii|i:iii'  tli.>  value  of  tliu 
ori;;iiial  Itoolc ;  u  (air  ulM-iilgiin'iit,  tliiiii;;li 
it  may  iiijiiru  the  urigiiiul,  U  lawful. 
Ihi,!.,  :iU. 

10.  Till'  al>riil};ini'iit  of  a  W(»rk,  for 
whieli  ft  t'()|>yrij4lil  lian  hwn  Hi'otirt'il,  (itiil 
wliii'li  li:iH  Ix't'ii  pulilicly  cirriilatuil,  iri 


af  law  to  a^MOH"*  fho  ilainn^cM,  Atten  v, 
Jilii/if,  I  Illalrhf,  4«0,  4»7.— Nki.ho.v, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1H40. 

•i.  Till'  ilcfciKliUit  in  rvii  nlcil  iim  hav- 
ing ItCfll  !.l   till)    IIMO    aiul     UlljoyiMl'Ilt  of 

till-  |iro|i<'rty  of  tlii'  patctitfr,  aiil  an  lir- 
iii<;  Ixiitml  ill  t'<|iiity  to  acroiiiit  for  lliu 
profltH.    l/»i(l.,  4M7. 
8.  An  ovriii'r  of  an  iniiliviili'il   intor- 


not  .•III   iiifriiiiTonu'iit   of  tin'    sfatulory  '  <'sf  in  a  patnit  in.uUi  an  a^xrci'inciit  with 
jirivili'jic;  but  nucIi  an  aliiii|;^iiu'iit  would    llic  pati'iili'o  as  to  ilirir  l»fcoinin;^  joimlv 


violate  tlic  rijjht  of  the  liierary  proprii 
tor  of  ft  hook  of  wliicli  llie  ciriMiI.alion 
li:i(l  Itceii  privafe  only,   /x'ecnev.  U7(«''</- 
/»y,  0  Anier.  l.uw  Hei^.,  H-'. — Cahwai.- 
L.vi)i;i:,  J.;  Pa.,  ISOO. 


ACCOUNT  OF  rilOFITS. 
Sco  niso  Damages. 

1.  If  there  is  a  re.isonable  doubt  as 
to  the  pI.iinliirH  right,  or  tlie  validity  of 
the  patent,  ho  may  iirst  he  reipiired  to 
Huhst.'intiate  his  right  in  a  court  at  law, 
before  ho  can  have  his  ri'ini'dy  for  an 
ji'-count.  Of/le  V.  Ki/e,  4  Wash.,  585. — 
Wasiiixotox,  .1.;  T.i.,  IH'Jti. 

2.  Equity  will  decree  a  perpetual  in- 
jiinetion  to  restrain  the  use  of  another's 
trade-iiKirk,  and  will  decree  an  account 
as  to  damages,  with  the  costs  of  suit. 
Coat8  V.  ILAhrool\  2  i^'and.  Ch.,  595, 
590.— Sandkoud,  V.  Ch. ;  Ct.  Chy., 
N.  Y.,  184.5. 

3.  On  an  injunction  bill  filed  for  an 
infringement  of  a  patent,  where  there 
is  no  dispute  as  to  title,  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  liavc  power  under  §  17 
of  the  act  of  1836,  to  refer  the  cise  to  a 
master,  to  take  and  state  an  account  of 
the  profits  which  the  defendant  lias 
made,  instead  of  sending  it  to  a  court 


interi'Htud  in  the  manufacture  of  the 
patented  article,  and  nhariiig  tho  prof- 
its of  such  m.'iiiuf  let  lire  nccording  to 
the'!'  respective  interests  ;  ntid  siuh 
agreement  was  made  with  a  kiiowle(|;,'o 
of  the  alleged  t^l.aims  of  a  third  person  us 
being  the  first  inventor  of  the  tliiii!^ 
patented.  To  a  suit  for  an  iiijunetion, 
and  an  account  brought  by  the  jialeii- 
tee  against  such  joint  owner,  ////</, 't 
was  no  dcfejice  that  the  patentee  was 
not  the  first  and  original  inventor,  hut 
that  such  third  person  was  such  inven- 
tor. Pnrklmrfit  v.  Kinsman^  1  Illatclif., 
405. — Nklsox,  J.;  New  York,  1849. 
[Afiirnu'd/w.y^  17.] 

0.  An  order  in  a  suit  in  etpiity,  requir 
ing  tho  defendant  to  file  a  nionthl\  .ic- 
count,  on  o.ath,  of  all  "  iron  safes  here- 
after manuf ictured  or  sold  by  him," 
will  be  sufriciently  complied  with.  In- 
giving  their  inside  dimensions,  with- 
out stating  the  prices  at  which  sold,  or 
the  names  of  the  purchasers.  Wililr 
v.  Oaijlcr,  1  IJlatchf.,  511. — Nelson,  J.; 
New  York,  1849. 

7.  A  knowledge  of  the  names  is  not 
essential  to  tho  ascertainment  of  the 
manufacture  .and  sale  of  tho  .-irticle,  or 
of  tho  profits  arising  therefrom.  Ibid, 
512. 

8.  It  is  sufficient  to  describe  the  ar- 
ticles in  the  account,  so  that  person.s  in 
the  trade  can  determine  the  value  or 


'T.^i...:' 


ACCOUNT  OK  I'UOI'ITH. 


101 


walk  OROiRRD;  «aAT  ACcouMrar  roR 


jirico  of  tlu>m  in  tlu'  m:irk«'t,  witli  ii 
view  to  tluuimount  i»r|»n>(ilH.  /A/*/.,  fll'J. 
0.  WluM't'  uii  iiil'iiii;^iMiu'iit  is  i'li'iir, 
aixl  till'  ri;{lit  to  an  iiijtiiirtion  iiituiili'Mt, 
at)  injiiiiftioii  will  not  lio  Htayoil,  on  llut 
(|»'f«Miilaiitn'  ^riviiij^  Htu-iirity,  ami  n-ndi-r- 
ing  a  |K'rio(lical  ai'niiiiil  of  llu-ir  nalos, 
t'ViMi  thoii^li  till!  ili-f\'iiilaiit  Im  II  |ii'fHoii 
of  iH'ciiniai'y  ri'M|ioiiHil(ility.  'IVmy  v. 
Torrry,'!  nialilit'.,  '270.— Nki.hon,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  iH.-il. 

10.  A  Miiil  <li'maii(linj^  a  iliscovcry  of 
the  i'\lnit  of  an  inlVinj^i'niriit  of  a  pat- 
ent, utnl  till  ai'coiint  of  tito  profits  real- 
i/.cil  tluTcfroin,  is  a  caso  arisinj;  niuh'r 
till'  pati'iit  laws,  as  wi'll  as  \vlicri«  an  iii- 
jiiiiction  is  aski'il  for.  AV/'///.i  v.  John- 
Hiiu,  :\  r.latrlif.,  Hi5. — Nki.son,  ISktth,  JJ.  ; 
.V.  Y.,  ISM. 

11.  Acoirdinuly,  wliiTi- the  plaintiflfH 
patent  had  exitired,  and  a  liill  in  ('<|inty 
filed  by  liiin  alli'Ljed  an  iiifrin;^einrnt  of 
tlio  patent,  and  prayed  for  a  di.scovory 
an<l  an  aceumit,  but  not  for  an  iiijnnet  ion, 
Jit  til,  on  a  deinnrrer  to  tliu  iiill,  that 
the  eoiirt  had  jurindiction  of  sueh  a 
suit.     I/>hl.  B3. 

12.  In  a  bill  filed  for  nn  injunction, 
and  for  an  aeeouiit  of  profits  which  had 
ac'i'iuod  to  the  defendant  from  the  use 
of  the  machines,  which  were  an  infrinj^e- 
luent  upon  the  plaintilfs  patent,  the  de- 
fendant Is  accountable  for  such  profits 
as  he  has  actually  made,  and  not  for 
such  as  '*  with  due  diligence  and  pru 
deuce"  might  have  been  m.ade.  X/i'- 
iin/ston  v.  Woodioorth,  l.*)  How.,  550; 
— Danikl,  J.;  Sup.  Ct,  185,'}. 

l.T.  An  account  of  jirofits  may  bo 
docieed  to  the  owner  of  a  copyright, 
as  incidental  to  an  injunction,  but  it 
nuist  be  prayed  for ;  but  it  cannot  in- 
clude pen;ilties.  ASffvcns  v.  Cifdi/,  2 
Curt.,'200,201.— Cl-KHs,.T.;  U.  T.,lH54. 

l-i.  An  account  for  profits,  may  be 


ordere<l  under  the  prayer  for  j^enornl 
relief.  Stii'fnuv.  Uliiitilinij,  17  llow., 
■Iflft. -Cuim^,  .1.;  Sup.  Ct.,  Ih.m. 

1ft.  The  right  to  an  account  I  <r  prof- 
itH  irt  incidental  to  tlio  right  to  tin  in- 
junction in  copy  and  patent  riglit  caNex. 
[hid.,  -t  .5. 

I(».  ,\  di'iree  for  an  account  cannot 
be  had  against  a  workman,  as  he  hart 
nothing  to  do  with  tho  profits.  S>ir- 
t/<«itit  V.  f^iintal,  2  Curt.,  310.  -Cun- 
TiH,  J. ;  Mass.,  is.'i.'i. 

17.  ;\n  agreement  made  withii  patcn- 
teotonianiificture  his  patented  machines 
upon  certain  conditions,  and  making  and 
selling  of  such  machines  uiiib-r  the 
patentee's  title,  estcips  such  party,  in 
an  action  for  ai-itount  brought  by  tlio 
patentee,  fi()m  alleging  the  invalidity 
of  the  patent.  Kiiisnmn  v.  I'tirA'/iurtit, 
IS   How.,  2',>:t.— Ct'iuis,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 

IH.'-).'). 

IH.  AikI  even  if  tho  patent  was  in- 
valid, it  would  not  have  rendered  tho 
sales  cf  the  machines  illegal,  so  as  to 
releasi!  such  party  from  the  obligation 
to  account.      I  hid.,  20!l. 

10.  And  if  such  nn  agreement  was 
void,  ,'is  against  public  policy,  it  would 
fiiniifih  no  answer  to  !i  claim  for  an  ac- 
I'ount  of  profits  reali/ed  from  tho  busi- 
ness.    Ihid.,  204. 

20.  In  the  .\merican  courts,  in  patent 
c.ises,  a  decree  for  an  account  may  bo 
made,  when  an  injunction  will  not  bo 
granted.  SkklcH  v.  Glou.  Munuf.  Co.^ 
.MS.— GijiKu,  J.;  N.  J.,  1850. 

21.  ^Vhencver  tho  subject  matter 
cannot  be  as  well  investigated  in  an  ac- 
tion for  money  had  and  received,  or 
indehitittua  assuvipsit,  a  court  of 
eipiity  exorcises  a  sound  discretion  in 
decreeing  an  account.     Ifnd. 

22.  Commissions  received  from  the 
sales  of  a  printed  copyright  are  profits 


\    -k 


•  ■  ■  -^j 


1 
*.ij. 


m 


*44 


i  .  L 


i^' 


^^^k^ta^«#wW« 


'BiBir 


.,ta^w^V: 


109 


ACTIUNS. 


AC  fo  oorTftioHTs  AH»  MkmimKun,  wam  wiu  ui. 


1 

'i. 


ti. 


wliii'h  miiKt  Ik)  o«*ooiiiiti>tl  for  by  tli«> 
|Kirly  Hi'lliii^  on  coiiiiniitiiion,  on  u  hill 
l»y  (ln»  |iro|)ri<'l<'r  of  lln>  tM>|»yri;;lit. 
Uttiuna  V.  (itiiililinij,  '1  Curl.,  OOH  6lo. 
— CiiitTiK,  J.;  |{,    I.,  iH.MJ. 

2'A,  It  U  coratnon  in  t'UHi'of  »  |>il|  lllcil 
for  lUi  infrin^cirifiit  iirxl  uiotioM  ni:i<ii> 
for  ;i  |ii'i'liiiiiiiary  itijiiiirtioti,  wli«.>r(i  tlio 


want««l.     fJrint/Mhm  v.  Jnnm,  3  Wall, 
Jr.— Onikh,  J.;  I'li.,  IN«n. 

'JH.  An  iirroiiiit  titiiiint  hi<  r<'<|ii!r«>il 
unli"«i«  mIhm'i'  a  kiioH  IoI^i'  of  till'  |ii-oliU 
niiidt'  Ity  till'  iiifiiii^tr  i>t  ni'i'mnikry  to  a 
Jimt  tiflcrniiniition  of  tliu  controvoriijr. 

2\).  Whttri'Vi'r  II  ilrft'hilnrit  |iri'<«i>ntii  • 


({iii'htiiiM  of  infi'in^t'rnt'hl  in  not  nitknif«!<*t,  cixno  nIiowIm};  in  fii«*l.  it  Imnn  jlde  ii«oi<> 
iiriil  t'lijoinin^  tlii>  tleffiiilant  wonjil  pro  .  of  law,  or  ii  primn  J'ii<'ii<  rifl[ht  to  fon- 
i!uc('h(<rioiiH  litirilM|ii|iuni|  tiiconv«>ni(Mi(H>  tintio  liix  iniiniifu-tiiri',  ii  pri'litninitry  in- 
of  Ills  iHiHincxx,  to  witliliolil  tli«>  injnnc-  Juiii'tion  will  not  Im>  ^nintnl,  liut  lin 
tioii  on  tlu)  tlt>ri'Miluiii'.i  ki't>|iiii^' an  iic  '  may  l)t<  ri><|nirfi|  to  ku«'|>  iin  iircount. 
count,  or  yivinj;  niu-nrity  for  tliim!i>;«>K  </oo«/y«</r  v.  Dunhur,  ;J  Wall,  Jr.-* 
iiconiihif.  Tiii/iam  V.  LiiwfxT,  4  Itlatchf.  (iniicu,  J. ;  N.  .1.,  iHdi. 
—  N'l.i.MoN,  J.;  N.  v.,  IS57.  :iO.  WluTt*    ii   iltf»'niliint  wiw  innnu< 

'H.  All  account   oi' prolits   nccil  not   fitcturih^    uii<lcr   u  p:ttftit,   wiiicli    wnR 


lie  liiiiitc'l  to  til*)  time  of  tilt' coiuiiicncit- 
nuMit  of  tht>  Hiiit.  Tito  pnu'ticu  ia  to 
t;ik(f  tlio  account  tlowri  to  tijv  time  of 
the  hcarini;  hcforc  the  m;i^tcr,  if  ilio 
infriii;;eineiit  continues  to  that  porioi' 
therehy  proventinj^  the  nei'en.sity  of  ex- 
penso  of  a  now  suit.     Il/Ul. 

'J5.  Ami  Hucli  account  may  he  so 
coiitinuetl  thouj:;h  some  of  the  det'erul- 
ants  in  ly  have  ceased  to  become  liiihle; 
but  in  such  caso  their  liubility  should 
bo  properly  apportioned  in  makiiii;  up 
the  decree,  and  iiom?  should  lu.  entert>d 
fo>'  accriiiiij^  profits  .■unjiust  any  one  atVcr 
his  liability  cease*!.     I/»i(/. 

20.  An  account  may  bo  ordered  and 
other  relief  jjranted,  thoii;;h  for  any 
rcasop,  as  tho  expiration  of  the  patent, 
an  injunction  to  restrain  its  infriiij,'eiiieiit 
cannot  issue.    Ltilay  v.   Nor.  <t'  \Vor. 

Ii.   It.    Co.,   MS. — IVGEKSOLL,    J.;    Ct., 
1858. 

27.  Where  a  patentee  has  been  ac- 
customed to  grant  licenses  to  use  liis 
invention  on  the  payment  of  a  certain 
fee,  his  appropriate  remedy  for  the  use 
of  such  invention  without  authority  is 
an  action  at   law ;  an  account  is  not 


claimed  to  l)c  an  inlViiii^ement  of  another 
and  an  older  tntent,  the  conn  refusrcl 
to  grant  u  preliminary  injumttioti,  but 
oniered  the  defendant  to  keep  iiii  ac 
count  of  all  goods  nianul'ucturcd  and 
Hold  by  him.      find. 

For  form  of  a  decree  ordering  a  r«'f 
erenctt  to  a  master  to  take  and  state  an 
acc«mnt,  «ee  I'urkhni'nt  v.  JCinainan,  1 
nialchf.,  408.     (Note.) 


ACTIONS. 

A.  In  Uknheot  to  Copykkuhs  andMantt- 

HI  UII'IS 10.1 

II.  In  Ukspkot  to  Patknth. 

1.  liiijhtnf  wtion  nnii/rrinripleif  ijov- 

erniiig 101 

2.  Wlure  Ui  be  brought  and  how  com- 

venced 1 08 

3.  rartif.^lo 110 

a.  riMntllh 110 

b.  Hi  fcnilfints. 113 

4.  Dinmnlinuance  of,  by  wliom. ...  1  l.'i 

6.  Defences  to 1 1  •'> 

6.  rieiuiinijs  in 1 1.^> 

C.  Is  Resi'kct  to  Tuade-Mark8 115 


A*  An 

A.vi 
TO. 

Sen  III 


I.    At 

ntntiiiMcri 

tt"y  one  1 

deavorM  t 

Ileal  ion. 

647.— .M. 

2.   \Vh. 

ti-tl  in  re 

ll      '=11    . 

to  ,.r«»lee| 

the  aiiitio 

cojiyii^rlii 

account,  n 
court  of 

[n'occcd  at 
//'irjtcr,    .1 
Cms,  V 
'   3.   It   is 
f^>nii   the 
wlielhor 
iiii'orjiora 
Ills  copyr 
tain  an  ad 
I  Story,  I 
■i.  To  e 
tlio   infring 
'lot    necess 
greater   p: 
taken.     If 
pair  the 
,  that  the 
are  substan 
will   lie. 
115. — Sroit 
5.  Tho  ( 
tlie  propert 
no  defence 


^U.*^A 


ACTIOVS,  A. 


108 


Afl  T«>  OUPTMllliril   4MI>   MANIM'HII-m      WIIKK    WII.I.   ME 


A*  AcTIONN  KlIi'Ki'IiMt)  CorvittOIITH 
AVU  MANVMCItiflN,  AMU  DbKKNOKh 
TO. 

8«'n  nUo  (^ouuTS,  A.;    KtjiriTY,   A.; 

ISKUIMIKMKNI',  A.;    iMJDNt'lKtN,    A. 

1.  At  conirnon  li»w  flu*  niillior  of  u 
iiiuiiiiMi'i'i|>t  iitit)  iililaiii  rcitri'MH  ikj^iiiiiMt 
lift)  otic  will*  tU'|»rivoM  iiiiii  of  if,  or  en- 
i|i>uvorM  to  ri<ali/.f  ti  pn^llt  from  \\a  |miI>- 
lit'ittion.  W/teu/on  v.  I'lhrti,  H  IVt., 
•I.'VT.—Mi  Kkan,  .1. ;  Sup.  I'l.,  1h:11. 

'J.  Wliin'  »  wnmji^  liuH  Immmi  t'oiiiniit- 
tt'«l  in  rt*N|M'i'i  to  u  litcniry  worit,  Init 
tl  '  'II  ilocH  nut  a.HJc  an  itijiiiiftlon 
til  ,ii-«(ti>i-t  tint  coiniiioii  liiw  rights  of 
tliu  itiitlior,  or  tlif  viiiititioti  of  nuy 
i'ii|iyri^ht  h«>ciii-i>i|,  Ittit  only  RHkit  iiti 
ui'i'oiint,  rnlri'HH  I'liiniot  Ix*  Nought  in  ii 
court  of  »'<|iiity,  Imt  tlu'  parly  must 
|<rofi't'(l  at  law  for  damaj^os.  Vu/<A  v. 
I/'trjter,  A  K.lw.  Ch.,  110,  'il.~M. 
Coirv,  V.  Ch. ;  N.  Y.,  1837. 
*  3.  It  in  of  no  ronsi'(|in'tit'o  iti  what 
form  tho  works  of  aiinlhcr  nni  iiscil, 
wlit'llier  it  lu'  a  wimpK'  ri'i»riiit,  or  Ity 
iiicorporatitijj  in  some  other  work.  If 
IiIh  copyright  in  violatetl,  lie  ran  main- 
tain an  at'tioii  llicri'for.  (Jr<i>/  v.  HukmiU, 
1  Story,  10.— SjoKV,  J.;  Mass.,  1H:»1). 

4.  To  etititie  a  party  to  an  adion  for 
tho  infringement  of  a  ettpyrijjht,  it  is 
tiot  nece«s;iry  that  the  whoh',  or  u 
proater  part  of  his  M'ork  shonld  he 
taken.  If  su  much  is  taken  as  to  im- 
pair tlio  value  of  the  original,  or  so 
tliiit  tho  labors  of  tae  original  autlior 
are  snV)stantially  appropriated,  an  action 
will  lie.  Ftdaoni,  v.  Mamh,  '2  Story, 
115,— Stouy,  J. ;  Mass.,  1841. 

5.  Tho  entirety  of  tho  copyrigltt  is 
tho  property  of  the  author ;  and  it  is 
no  defenee  that  another  has  approjnua- 


((•<]  only  A  part  nf  mtch  property  nnd 

not  the  whole.      ///!(/.,  I  Iti. 

ti.  If  a  eopyright  haH  been  iiiXMiled, 
whether  the  parly  kni'w  iIk  wurk  waM 
eopyrighled  or  not,  lie  is  liable  to  tho 
prniill_\  for  violation.  MilUtt  v.  Siinw 
liiti,  I  Wemt.  Law  Joiir.,  '2H).  IIkith, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  iHi.i. 

7.  A  defcinlant.  may  show  that  iho 
work  eopyrighteil  was  not  original 
with  ihe  author,  or  that  il  was  an  abre> 
viatlon  or  all«'ralion,  ami  the  jury  (>an 
deeidi-  whelhcr  it  was  ealeiilated  to 
deeeive.      ///<(/.,  '240. 

H.  An  ai'tion  un  l/te  rune  is  the  proper 
form  of  action  to  recover  damages  for 
a  violation  of  a  copyri'dit :  tnt/xiMH 
will  luitlic.  AttPi'lly.  l-\tr>tf,  2  IMatchf., 
47,  4H.— Mkith,  J.;  N.  V.,  lH4ti. 

0.  If  the  similitu<le  between  the  do* 
feiidant's  work  and  the  one  copyrighted 
by  the  plaintitfcan  be  supposed  to  havo 
arisen  from  accident,  or  iiece  sarily  from 
the  nature  of  the  subject,  the  def«>iidant 
is  not  liable  /'Jnnrnon  v.  J)<n<l$,  3 
Story,  701. — Sroitv,  J.  ;  Mass.,  1845. 

10.  rnder  the  acts  of  1700  and  IHIO, 
as  to  patents  .and  copyrights,  the  own- 
ers of  copyrights  and  p.ateiits  do  not 
have  redress  or  relief  in  luiy  cases 
where  they  could  not  before  liave  had 
ri'lief  in  some  court,  either  of  e(piity 
or  law.  PicrjMnt  v.  Fuwlf,  2  Wood.  & 
Mill.,  1'7.— VYooDHi  uv,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

11.  These  acts  merely  eii.abled  them 
to  prosecute  such  <laims  in  the  Circuit 
Court  as  ihcy  legally  had  done  before, 
but  without  going  to  the  state  tribunals: 
tho  public  interest  recjuiretl  a  uniform 
construction  to  be  pl.aced  by  one  tri- 
bimal  on  all  important  questions  con< 
nected  with  rights  so  lield.     Ibid.,  27. 

12.  A  book  may  in  one  p.-^.rt  of  it  in- 
fringe the  copyright  o''  another  work, 
and  in  other  parts  bo  no  infringement ; 


;  *  ■  ^^ 


't*!tlSili^ 


ti^, 


*i»; 
./ 


<•« 


J   J   .  1  i 


^V^*.. 


Inriii 


/tu4 


--  .  VI 


m'^ 


^*L 


ti 


m 


11  u 


'm 


104 


ACTIONS,  B.  1. 


AS  TO   PATENTS.     KlflllT  TO;    I'KINCU'I.KS  OF. 


in  s'ich  a  cumo  tlio  romcily  will  not  he 
cxtentU'd  lnyond  the  injury.  *^V(»/•y'^^ 
JCxru.  V.  J/'jlromhe,  4  McLean,  315. — 
MuLka?.-,  J.;  Ohio,  18J7. 

13.  lM<l('i)i'n(li'ntly  of  the  statnto,  tlio 
nutl'or  of  .k  nianuscript  may  obtain  rr- 
tlri'ss  airiinst  one  who  has  su'Toptitions- 
ly  gained  jtow.'ession  of  it.  ItKrilitt  v. 
(Iritte.tuhv,  4  ?iIcLe.".n,  301. — Mi'Lka.v, 
J.;  Ohio,  1817. 

1  1.  At  coiiniion  ];nv  an  author  may 
maintain  an  action  for  the  <lainai;cs 
wiiicli  lie  iiii!.rlit  sustain  by  his  manu- 
script bcidijf  sir.Tciititiously  prinft'il  by 
others.  ILyytx.  Mr/\'i/ix''e,i)  Harb.  Ch., 
32.'].— WAi.woinir,  (Ml.;  X.  Y.,  IHIH. 

]').  In  .'i  suit  umlcr  tli.'  co|»yri<]flit 
.acts,  the  plaintiff  must  make  out  a  title 
to  sue  umbu-  iiis  copyriufht.  The  court 
cannot  interfere  to  pi  event  the  use  of 
tlic  title  of  a  Avorlv  in  f.ivor  of  the 
])laiMtitl',  ui)on  principles  relating  to  the 
<.(()0(l-\vil'  of  trades,  ,/ollie  v.  Jaqurs^ 
1  Blatehf ,  G27.— Xklsox,  J.  ;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

10#  A  suit  arising  out  of  .an  agree- 
ment .as  to  the  publication  of  a  manu- 
script, .and  to  determine  the  rights  of 
the  parties  under  it,  is  not  a  suit  under 
the  copyright  laws,  of  which  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  has  jurisdiction,  by  reason 
of  the  subject  matter.  Pidte  v.  Derby,  5 
McLean,  330.— ^McLkax,  J. ;  Ohio,  1 852. 

17.  An  assignee  of  the  exclusive 
right  of  acting  and  representing  a 
drama  in  cert.ain  places  may  maintain 
.an  .action  in  his  own  name,  even  after  a 
representation  by  liiin,  for  an  injunction 
to  prevent  its  being  represented  by  an- 
other within  such  places.  Roberts  v. 
My  err.,  13  Mo.  Law  Kep.,  400,  401. — 
Spragite,  .1.;  Mass.,  1800. 

18,  And  such  action  may  be  main- 
t.ained  although  the  author  or  assignee 
has  only  filed  his  title  p.age,  and  has  not 


pid)lished  the  work  or  play.  Ibid.,  308, 
401.     [CoMXY\\,post  1{).J 

10.  A  person  who  iias  only  ad>jpted 
measures  to  secure  a  «"oj)yright  ibr  a 
drama,  but  who  has  not  fully  completed 
such  copyright,  has  no  st.atutory  right 
of  reilress  for  an  unauthorized  theatrical 
representation  of  sutrh  drama.  JCeene 
V.  W/it'(itft'i/,  0  Am«.'r.  Law  Keg.,  45. — 
CADWAf.r.Aiticn,  J.;  Pa.,  1800. 

20.  If  a  play  has  never  been  printed, 
the  liter.ary  proprietor  may,  independ- 
ently of  the  statutes,  maintain  a  suit 
for  damages  for  its  imauthori/.ed  repre- 
sentation, if  such  representati(jn  has 
not  bei'u  preceded  by  a  representation 
by  the  proprietor.  If  the  previous  per- 
formanc  y  the  proprietor  has  been 
the  me.an.T  of  enabling  the  defendants 
to  bring  it  out,  no  action  will  lie. 
Ibid.,  49,  92. 

11.  I-v  Respect  to  Patents. 

1.  Iliijht  of  action,  and  jmncipka 
(jovcrniny. 

See  also  Courts,  B.  ;  Equity,  B.  1 ; 
Injunction,  B. 

As  to  what  constitutes  Infringement, 
see  Comkination,  B.  ;  Composition  of 
3Iattkr,  C.  ;  Infi{inc.kmknt.  B. 

1.  An  action  of  infringement  will  lie 
for  making  a  machine  fit  for  use,  .and 
with  a  design  to  use  it  for  profit,  even 
though  there  is  no  actual  user,  .and  no 
actual  d.amage ;  the  Law  implies  damage. 
Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  431.-— 

Stouy,  J. ;  Mass.,  1813. 

2.  But  the  making  a  patented  ma- 
chine, merely  for  philosophical  experi- 
ments, or  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing the  sufliciency  of  the  machine  to 
produce  its  described  effects,  is  not  an 
infringement  for  which  an  action  will 
lie.     Ibid.,  i31. 


3.  T 
pl.'iintil 
nuMit  o 
from  br 
niont  fo 
inachiiu 
irient. 
M.iss.,  1 
4.  To 
an  aclioi 
chine  mi 
tlic  patoi 
of  the  hi' 
Sawin  V 
J.;  Mas 
5.  A  p 
for  a  viol 
what    j)r 
tween  Jiii 
interest  ii 
made  a  le 
liis  intere 
Little,  3  V 
Pa.,  1813. 
G.  A  SI 
ciitee  of 
action  .ag; 
en tee  of  t 
his  right. 
430.— Sro 
7.  An.i 
ed  on  the 
claim  no  i 
tlie  j)atent 
tion  of  tl 
action  is  t 
tlie  patent 
tiiougli   th 
special  law 
law  under 
is  under  th 
Jaw.     Um 
345.— V>-As 
[^QQpost  9 
8.  If  au 


ac 


ic 


^"3 


m 


3  •'•J 


ACTIONS,  B.  1. 


105 


AS  TO  PATENTS.    RIOUT  TO ;    PKINCIl'LES  OF. 


n.  Tilt!  rccovci  V  of  H  viTilic't  1>y  llic 
jilaiiitirt'  in  an  action  for  tlio  iiifrini;;"- 
inoiit  of  a  pali'ut,  will  not  iircvent  liiin 
from  brinj^iti^  anotluT  art  ion  of  infrinL,'o- 
nient  for  a  future  \jse  of  tlio  (It'fciitlant's 
inaoliine;  uvory  future  use  is  an  infrincje- 
lucnt.  S.  (J.,  1  Gall.,  484.— Srouv,  J,; 
Mas3.,  181.3. 

4.  To  constitute  an  offence  for  which 
an  action  will  lie,  the  making  of  a  ma- 
chine must  bo  with  an  intent  to  infringe! 
the  patont-right,  and  deprive  the  owner 
of  the  lawful  rewards  of  his  discovery. 
tSawin  V.  Guild,  1  Gall.,  480. — Stoby, 
J.;   Mass.,  1813. 

5.  A  patentee  is  entitled  to  recover 
for  a  violation  of  his  patent,  no  matter 
what  private  agreement  subsists  be- 
tween iVun  and  any  other  one,  as  to  an 
interest  in  his  invention,  unless  he  has 
iiiado  a  legal  assignment  and  transfer  of 
liis  interest  in  tlie  invention.  Park  v. 
TJfth,  3  Wasli.,  197.— Washington,  J.; 
Pa.,  1813. 

G.  A  subsequent  inventor  and  pat- 
entee of  a  machine,  cannot  maintain  an 
action  against  a  prior  inventor  and  pat- 
entee of  the  sr.Tue  tiling,  or  oust  him  of 
his  right.  Woodcock  v.  Parker,  1  Gall., 
439.— Story,  J.  ;  Mass.,  1813. 

v.  An  action  for  infringeme»>t  is  found- 
ed on  the  patent,  and  the  plaintift*  can 
claim  no  riglit  vrhich  is  not  included  in 
tlie  ])atont.  The  patent  is  the  founda- 
tion of  the  action,  and  the  gist  of  the 
action  is  the  violation  of  a  right  which 
the  patent  has  gr.intcd.  And  this  even 
though  the  j>atent  is  issued  under  a 
special  law,  and  is  not  as  broad  as  the 
law  under  which  it  is  issued — the  right 
is  under  the  patent,  and  not  under  the 
law.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  Pet.  C.  C,  340, 
345.— Washixgtox,  J.  ;  Pa.,  181G. 
[See  post  9.] 

8.  If  an  inventor  do  not  choose  to 


obtain  a  patent  for  liia  invention,  it  be- 
comes   public    jiropcrty;    and    he   can 
maintiiin  no  action  against  any  one  for^ 
using  it.     Ibid.,  34S,  340. 

0.  In  construing  a  patent,  the  in« 
tention  of  the  parties,  who  are  the  gov- 
ernment and  the  p.atentee,  is  entitled 
to  great  consideration  ;  the  act  author- 
zing  the  issue  of  the  patent,  the  petition 
for  the  issue  of  the  patent,  and  the 
specification,  may  all  be  resorted  to  for 
such  intention.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  3 
Wheat.,  600,  507. — ^Marshall,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 

10.  Where  a  plaintiff  claims  several 
distinct  and  independent  improvements 
in  the  sarne  m.achine,  and  procures  a 
patent  for  them  in  the  aggregate,  ho  is 
entitled  to  recover  against  any  person 
Avho  shall  use  any  one  of  the  improve- 
ments so  patented,  notwitlistanding 
there  has  been  no  violation  of  the  other 
improvements.  Moody  v.  Fiske,  2 
Mas.,  115,  118. — Story,  J.;  Mass., 
1820. 

11.  Where  a  declaration  goes  for  the 
user  of  a  machine  during  a  limited  pe- 
riod, a  verdict  and  judgment  in  such 
action  is  no  bar  to  a  subsequent  action 
for  a  i-.ser  during  another  and  subse- 
quent period.  Earle  v.  Saicyer,  4  Mas., 
14. — Story,  J. ;  INIass.,  1825. 

12.  Whether  a  patentee  is  ever  re- 
quired to  give  notic(!  to  one  actually 
using  a  machine  In  violation  of  his  pat- 
ent, in  order  to  maintain  an  .action 
against  him,  even  though  such  machine 
may  have  been  erected  and  put  in  use 
before  the  patent  issued  ;  query.  Ames 
V.  Jfoioard,  1  Sunin.,  488. — Story,  J.; 
Mass.,  1833. 

13.  Without  obtaining  a  patent,  a 
person  has  no  exclusive  right  or  privi- 
lege to  make  and  sell  the  thing  invented 
or  discovered  by  him ;  wit'.iout  a  patent, 


lilll 


''-4*«^j  ij 


^mm 


■-^^ 


i  J 


j± 


iiUJ 


;CVWWW 


twto.'w•^V^  ■'' 


106 


ACTIONS,  n.  1. 


AH  TO  PATENT8.     IIUIHT  TO;    I'RIKCII'I.KS  Of. 


) 


the  T)rrht  to  make  and  sell  is  coininoii  to 
all.  Thompson  v.  Wini'htnUry  11)  Tick., 
210,  2lV.— SiiAW,  Cii.  J. ;  Mass.,  IH.'J?. 
It.  If  another  person  niaki-i.  such  in- 
vention, of  an  inferior  <|UAlity,  and  sells 
it,  ami  liy  this  means  brinj^s  tiie  tliiiii^ 
into  disrepute,  the  inventor  ean  main- 
tain no  action,  as  there  is  no  infrinfjje- 
nient  of  his  rij^hf,  nor  recover  damajjes, 
unless  the  person  so  makin<jf  ami  sellinj; 
passes  olf  the  tliins^s  sold  as  made  by 
the  plaint  ill*.      Ibid.,  217. 

16.  If  a  patent  is  for  two  distinct  ma- 
chines, 4  onduciiiijf  to  a  common  end, 
and  either  one  is  used  by  tlio  di'fend- 
ant,  the  pl.-wntitl'may  maintain  an  action 
therefor,  under  tho  acts  of  l8.'iG  and 
1837.  Wi/i(h  V,  Stone,  1  Story,  287. 
— Stouv,  .1.;  3Iass.,  1840. 

10.  The  .let  of  lH;t7,  i<  0,  gives  to  a 
patentee  a  rij^ht  of  action  for  the  ]>irat- 
ical  use  of  any  one  of  his  invented  m»- 
]trovemcnts,  which  is  distiuotly  stated 
in  his  patent,  althoui^h  he  may  liave  in- 
cluded sometliing  of  which  lie  was  not 
the  original  inventor.  Pitts  v.  Whit- 
tnan,  2  Story,  021. — Srouv,  J.;  Maine, 
1843. 

17.  A  surrender  of  letters  patent  ren- 
ders void  all  assignments  under  such 
patent,  so  far  as  those  are  concerned 
who  assent  to  such  surrender.  It  is 
necessary  that  a  prior  assignee  should 
have  a  new  assignment,  before  he  can 
maintain  an  action  for  an  invasion  of  the 
p.atent.  Gibson  v.  Jiiehards,  Index 
Pat.  Dec,  No.  376. — Nelsox,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  1845. 

18.  In  an  act'  >n  at  law  for  a  breach 
of  a  patent,  it  is  indispensable  to  es- 
tablish a  brea  a  before  the  suit  was 
brought.  But  in  equity,  a  bill  will  lie 
for  .in  injunction,  if  the  patent-right 
is  admitted  or  established,  upon  well 
grounded  proof  of  an  ai)i)reliended  in- 


tention of  tho  defendant  to  violate  tho 
patent-right.  Woodu'orth  v.  fStonr,  3 
Story,  752. — Srouv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

11).  An  attempted  pin-chase  from  tho 
defendants,  of  a  piitented  article  l)y  an 
agent  of  the  plaintilf,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  entrap|>ing  the  defendants,  is 
not  such  a  sale  as  will  rend(>r  them 
liable.  Sjuii'kunDi  \.Jlii/i/in,i,'2  lilatchf, 
;t(),  31.— IJkitk,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

20.  To  entitle  a  plaint  ill'  to  recover 
in  an  actioi  i'l'f  an  infringement,  tho 
jury  must  bo  ti:itislied  that  tho  inven- 
tion embra«'ed  in  the  plaintiff's  ])atenl  is 
new  and  useful.  The  patent,  however, 
raises  the  presuniption  of  the  novelty 
and  utili.y  of  the  plaintiff's  invention. 
Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  jSIcIiOan,  00. — Leav- 
irr,  J.  ;  Ohio,  1849. 

21.  A  contract  to  use  a  patented  ma- 
ehiiu',  during  the  continuance  of  the 
patent,  and  to  pay  therefor  a  fixed  pro- 
portion of  the  value  of  the  fuel  saved 
thereby,  will  not  support  an  action  un- 
til tho  expiration  of  the  patent.  Woah. 
Alex.  <bc.  Stecun  Pack.  Go.  v.  Siekles, 
10  How.,  441. — GuiEU,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1850. 

22.  It  is  an  entire  contract;  but  if 
the  defendants  had  agreed  to  pay  by 
instalment  at  the  end  of  certain  times, 
an  action  would  lie  for  every  breach,  as 
occurring.     Ibid.,  441, 

23.  Upon  the  breach  of  the  condi- 
tions of  a  license,  the  patentee  or  licen 
ser  has  a  right  to  avoid  the  contract  and 
be  remitted  to  his  origin.al  rights,  and 
prosecuto  the  licensees  for  an  infringe- 
ment of  tho  patent.  Woodworth  v. 
Oook,  2  Blatchf.,  160. — Nelsox,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

24.  An  action  for  an  infringement 
cannot  be  maintained  by  an  inventor 
against  any  one  for  using  his  invention 
before  a  patent  is  obtainetl.     Guyler  v. 


ill 


W#HNi 


ACTION'S,  ]].  I. 


107 


A8   TO   I'ATU.NiH.     UllllH'    In;    I'UIM'II'I.K.S  OF, 


ir/AAr,  in  ITo«-.,  403— Tankv,  CIi.  J. ; 
Sup.  Cl.,  In.">0. 

'.'.').  To  Mii|)|t()rt  nil  at'tinii  for  a  vio- 
liilinii  of  ii  piitoiit,  tliei'u  iiiiiHt  bo  injury 
mill  dunia;^!' ;  injm'y  '•>'  Ji  violation  of 
llic  i'i;j;):t,  and  daina^i*,  ut.  least  nominal, 
nrcsunied  hy  law  to  arise  from  such 
violation.  Jtynm  v.  Jiullanl,  1  Curt., 
103. — CuKTis,  J. ;  JSIasH.,  iH.'j'i. 

20.  A  sale  of  tlie  thing  palenti'd  to 
an  agent  of  the  patentee,  employed  by 
him  to  make  the  purchase,  and  on  ac- 
count of  the  patentee,  is  not  an  act  from 
which  <lamage  will  be  presumed,  as  it 
must  be  supposed  to  have  been  done  for 
the  patentee's  benefit,  or  at  least  not  to 
have  been  to  his  loss.  //>i<f.,  103,  104. 

27.  After  a  patent  has  expired,  the 
court  may  maintain  jurisdiction  of  a 
bill  filed  for  its  infringement,  and  for 
a  dis(!0very  and  acirount  of  i)rolits, 
though  no  injunction  is  prayed  for. — 
yevins  V.  Johnson,  3  lUatchf.,  83. — Nel- 
50N,  r.KTTS,  JJ.;  N.  v.,  1853. 

28.  No  satisfactory  reason  exists  why 
the  part  owner  of  a  patent-right  can- 
not, Wki'  the  part  owner  of  a  cluittel, 
hiive  his  remedy,  by  an  action  on  the 
case  against  his  co-proprietor,  for  the 
exclusive  appropriation  of  llie  joint 
property,  in  the  saiMo  form  us  though 
the  plaintiff  were  the  sole  owner  and 
tlu'  dofV'inljtnt  a  stranger.  J'itla  v.  Hull, 
}  Klatclif.,  208.— Hall,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1854. 

29.  In  such  an  action  against  liis  co- 
owner  for  an  infringement  of  the  patent, 
he  can  recover  his  actual  damages  ac- 
cording to  his  interest  in  the  patent, 
without  regard  to  the  amount  which  bis 
co-proprietor  has  received  by  means  of 
the  infringement.     Jbid  208. 

30.  A  patent  issued  is  probable  cause 
for  a  suit  against  one  who  infringes  it, 
unless  it  is  invalid,  and  known  to  he 
so  by  the  patentee.    Beach  v.  Wheeler^ 


24  Penn.,  213,  214.— Knox,    J.;    I'ju, 
lti55. 

31.  If  there  is  an  actiial  infringement, 
or  if  the  patentee  really  believed  there 
was,  liis  belief  being  reasonably  found- 
ed, there  was  probable  cause  for  the 
institution  of  the  suit ;  if  there  was  no 
infringement,  and  the  patentee  had  not 
reasons  which  would  iiuhu^e  a  person 
of  ordinary  sagacity  to  believe  his  right 
had  not  been  infringed,  there  w<mld 
be  no  probable  cause,  and  from  its  ab- 
sence malice  may  bo  inferred,  imless 
disproved  by  other  evidence,  and  the 
party  may  be  liable  for  malicious  pros- 
ecution.    Ihul.,  215. 

32.  The  approval  of  an  improve- 
ment, secured  by  a  ])atent,  by  a  party 
who  however  refuses  to  jtay  the  price 
asked  for  it,  furnishes  no  excuse  for 
using  it,  but  the  party  so  using  will  be 
liable  in  damages. — iSimpson  v.  Mad 
Eiver  li.  M.,  0  McLean,  003,  004.— 
McLkan;  Ohio,  1855. 

33.  Where  in  an  action  for  an  in- 
fringement of  a  patent,  no  plea  or  an- 
swer is  put  in,  the  charge  in  the  declara- 
tion is  considered  as  admitted.  Parker 
V.  Jiamker,  G  McLean,  032. — McLkan, 
J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

34.  The  infringement  of  a  patent  is  a 
tort/  but  the  wrongful  act  not  being 
committed  with  direct  force,  the  form 
of  action  is  that  descrii)tion  of  tort 
called  trespass  on  the  case.  Stein  v. 
Goddard,  1  McAllis.,  82. — McAllisteu, 
J.  ;  Cal.,  1856. 

35.  If  a  patentee  be  an  original  in- 
ventor of  a  machine,  or  thing,  lie  has 
the  right  to  treat  as  infringers  all  who 
make  a  like  invention  operating  on  the 
same  principle,  and  performing  the 
same  functions  by  analogous  means  or 
equivalent  combinations,  even  though 
the  infringing  machine  may  be  an  im- 


t^^ 


Itlit^^, 

1    /^1 

>Q 

KL 

J'^^X 

'^i, 

•  .  '\^ 

Wn^  - 

*"H 

^fi«- 

t  "*i 

jH' 

l't«ii| 

•^M 

^^^ 

S^'^ 

^c^ 

fcT/ 

•ll^^ 

JTW^ 

i'J^S 

frlH 

lra 

5^a 

1^ 

S 

sSi 


i  i 


wWwb^w'^ 


f 


^wWO- 


r 


108 


ACTIONS,  IJ.  2. 


AS  TO   I'ATKNTH.     WllCIlt:   BUOUdllT;    UOVT  COMMGNCKD. 


If.l' 


provemciit  on  the  origiiiul  and  patcut- 
jiblo  !i9  sucli.  McCoi'mu'k  v.  7'alcott, 
20  How.,  405. — GitiEu,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1857. 

no.  It  is  competent  for  a  patentee  to 
enibnico  two  iinproveineiits  on  the 
same  niacliino  in  the  same  patent,  and 
if  a  person  use8  either  or  both  o^  the 
impnVvonients,  he  is  an  infringer.  Mor- 
ris v.  jBarrett,  MS. — LEAvrrr,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1858. 

37.  There  is  no  act  of  Congress 
limiting  the  time  in  which  a  suit  may 
be  brought  for  an  infringement  of  a 
])atent-right,  Parker  v.  JlallocJc,  MS. 
— GiMKU,  J.;  Pa.,  1858. 

38.  By  statute,  the  remedy  for  an 
infringement  of  a  patent  is  an  action 
on  the  case;  but  an  infringemont  of  a 
patent  is  a  cause  of  action  at  common 
law,  and  tiie  party  injured  may  waive 
the  tort  and  sue  in  assumpsit  on  the 
implied  contract  for  the  use  of  his 
property.  Shreeve  v.  U.  States,  MS. — 
LonixG,  J. ;  Ct.  Claims,  1859. 

39.  There  m.ay  be  a  claim  for  two 
inventions  in  the  same  patent,  if  they 
both  relate  to  the  same  machine  or 
structure;  and  an  action  can  be  sus- 
tained for  the  infringement  of  either 
one  or  the  other  of  these  separate  in- 
ventions, where  claimed  as  separate  and 
distinct  in  their  character.  JJee  v. 
Blandy,  MS. — McLisan,  Leaviit,  JJ.  ; 
Ohio,  18G0. 

40.  After  a  patent  has  been  surren- 
dered, an  action  cannot  be  maintained 
for  damages  for  an  infringement  oc- 
curring under  the  old  patent,  before 
the  surrender.  Moffitt  v.  Garr,  MS. — 
Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  18G0. 

41.  Where  a  patentee  has  been  ac- 
customed to  grant  the  use  of  his  inven- 
tion upon  the  payment  of  a  license-fee, 
an  action  against  an  infringer  is  best 


brought  at  law,  as  the  price  or  value  of 
the  license  is  the  true  measure  of  the 
actual  damage  sustained,  and  the  C(mrt 
may  treble  the  verdict,  where  the  de- 
fendant has  acted  wantonly  or  vexa- 
tiously.  Sanders  v.  Logan,  9  Amer.  Law 
Ileg.,477,  478.— GuiKU,  J.;  I'a.,  1801. 

42.  A  patentee  whoso  invention  is 
only  valuJible  because  used  by  all  who 
pay  a  license-fee,  and  who  sutlers  no 
other  wrong  than  the  det^iution  of  such 
fee,  needs  none  of  the  remedies  which 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  ch.ancellor  to  give 
for  such  protection.  Liringaton  v. 
Jones,  3  Wall,  Jr.— Guiek,  J.;  Pa.,  1801. 

43.  A  court  of  law  is  his  proper  re- 
sort, the  only  remedy  to  which  he  is 
entitled  being  a  judgment  for  a  given 
sum  of  money,  with  interest ;  and  then 
he  may  recover  a  penalty  to  the  extent 
of  treble  damages,  if  the  judge  sees  fit 
to  inflict  it.  Penalties  and  })unitive  dam- 
ages can  be  recovered  only  in  courts 
of  law.    Ibid. 

2.  Where  to  be  brought  and  how 
commenced. 

As  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit 
Courts.    See  Courts,  B.  2. 

1.  Proceedings  by  bill  in  equity, 
under  §  16  act  1830,  and  §  10  act  1839, 
against  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  to 
compel  him  to  issue  a  patent,  must  be 
commenced  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the 
United  States  for  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia, and  cannot  be  brought  else- 
where. No  tribunal  out  of  the  District 
has  jurisdiction  over  the  person  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Patents  as  such,  and 
the  Patent  Office.  Prentiss  v.  Ells- 
worth, 3Iir.  Pat.  Off.,  36. — Randall, 
J.;  Pa.,  1840. 

2.  Consent  of  parties  cannot  confer 


jurisdici 
judgmei 
which  it 
Dndfnj  ' 

.Sl'JJO.MJ, 

3.  Wh 

for  an  inj 

a  patent 

fondant   i 

question 

such  cons 

tion,  and  i 

on  the  g 

hatl  no  ju 

cases.    7"^ 

4.  Undi 
Circuit   C 
have   not 
jurisdietio 
the  patent 

5.  §  11  , 
requiring  c 
defendant, 
state  whei 
not  ajjply 
patent    hn 
give  jurisi 
process  is 
defendant 
is  brought 
clause  of 
Blunt,  1 
N.  Y.,  184 

6.  The 
the  w^rit  or 
the  service 
made  withi 
brought. 

7.  When 
license  Ava 
was  broug 
suit  brougl 
iug  the  un 
that  proc 
menced  agi 


^•^*fc»^ 


ACTIONS,  D.  2. 


109 


AH   TO    I'A TKNTH.     WIIKKK    IIIIOUOIIT  ;    HOW    OOMMKXCEI). 


jtiristliotioii,  or  rcinlcr  ('(TfotuHl  tho 
jiitlfjinciit  of  a  tribunal  in  ii  inattor  of 
whicli  it  li:iH  not  by  law  any  coi;nizanoo. 
Dmlhy  V.  Mayhcw,  3  Coins.,  12-10. — 
SriioMi,  J.;  N.  Y.,  iHtO. 

n.  Wliero,  therefore,  a  bill  was  filed 
for  an  iiijiinetion  for  an  infrinfjftMnent  of 
a  patent  in  a  state  court,  and  tlio  de- 
fondant  stiinilated  not  to  raise  the 
question  of  jurisdiction.  Held,  that 
such  consent  could  not  confer  jurisdic- 
tion, and  that  tho  bill  must  be  dismissed 
on  the  ground  that  the  state  courts 
hail  no  jurisdiction  of  acti'iis  in  patent 
cases.     Ibid.,  10-10. 

4.  Under  !^  17  of  the  act  of  1830,  tlie 
Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States 
have  not  only  orUjlnal,  but  exduaive 
jurisdiction  of  all  actions  arising  under 
the  patent  laws.     Ibid.,  14. 

5.  §  11  of  the  Judiciary  Act  of  1780, 
requiring  ono  of  the  parties,  plaintilT  or 
defendant,  to  be  an  inhabitant  of  the 
state  Avhere  the  suit  is  brought,  does 
not  apply  to  actions  arising  under  the 
patent  laws.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
give  jurisdiction  in  patent  cases  that  the 
process  is  served  personally  upon  the 
defendant  in  the  district  where  the  suit 
is  brought,  as  provided  by  the  latter 
clause  of  §  11  of  that  act.  Allen  v. 
Blunt,  1  Blatchf.,  486. — Nklsox,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1840. 

6.  The  return  of  tho  marshal  upon 
the  writ  or  subpoena  should  state  that 
the  service  of  such  writ  or  subpoena  was 
made  within  the  district  where  suit  is 
brought.     Ibid.,  487. 

7.  Where  an  alleged  violation  of  a 
license  was  in  Vermont,  and  the  suit 
was  brought  in  New  York,  Held,  in  a 
suit  brought  for  the  purpose  of  restrain- 
ing the  unlawful  use  of  the  machine, 
that  proceedings  were  rightly  com- 
menced against  the  party  concor:iod  i:i 


the  infringement,  and  that  the  action 
could,  under  {5  11  of  tlie  .Fudidary 
Act  of  1780,  bo  brought  in  the  district 
where  the  defendant  resided,  or  where 
ho  might  be  found  at  the  time*  of  serv- 
ing the  writ.  Wihon  v.  Shenmm,  1 
JJIalehf.,  .>n .— Nki.sov,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

8.  Jlut  where  it  might  become  ne- 
cessary to  proceed  directly  against  the 
machine  itself,  as  in  extreme  cases  of 
contumat^y,  or  fraudulent  contrivance  to 
evade  an  injimction,  tho  proceedings 
should  be  instituted  in  the  district 
where  the  machine  is  located.  Ibid.,  541. 

0.  Although  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Circuit  Courts  embraces  cases  both  at 
law  and  in  ccpiity,  arising  under  the 
patent  Laws,  for  infringements  of  letters- 
patent,  without  regard  to  the  citizenship 
of  tho  parties,  or  the  amount  in  con- 
troversy, the  provisions  of  §  11  of  the 
Judiciary  Act  of  1780,  as  to  the  com- 
mencement of  suits,  applies  to  these 
cases  as  well  as  to  others ;  hence  such  a 
suit  cannot  bo  brought  in  any  other 
district  than  that  whereof  the  defendant 
is  an  inhabitant,  or  in  which  he  shall  bo 
found  at  the  time  of  serving  the  writ  or 
process,  and  whatever  the  character  of 
such  proisess.  Day  v.  Newark  I.  H. 
Co.,  1  Blatchf.,  630-632.— Nelsox,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

10.  The  right  to  attach  property,  to 
compel  the  appearance  of  persons,  can 
properly  be  used  only  in  cases  in  which 
such  persons  are  amenable  to  process  in 
personam,  and  in  such  case  also  an  at- 
tachment against  his  prope'"ty  cannot 
be  issued,  except  as  part  of  or  together 
with  process  to  be  served  upon  his  per- 
son.    7iu7.,  630,  631. 

11.  In  order  to  give  jurisdiction  to 
the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States, 
the  party  defendant  must  be  an  inhabi- 
tant of  the  district  in  which  the  suit  ia 


.•?i? 


ijljj^fj 


m. 


•II 


■111  „/ 


^^^^t 


>^.  ^    ^ 


w^ 


L 


■'  v-;r.' 


■■•^.W*7 


Vfi 


4 


■•Kl, 


'iyW»'ta<'W 


K 


'••litfiyfiij 


«?.       1     J 


I 


110 


ACTIONS,  B.  3. 


AH  TO   PATKNT8.       I'ARTIKH  TO;    I'LAINTIfKH. 


M 


brniij^ht,  or  lie  nnist  ho  found  within  it 
ut  tliu  lime  of  the  si'ivii'c  of  this  original 
l»ro('t'»H,  and  whati'vor  njuy  bo  the  na- 
ture (tr  «'hara(tt('r  of  tlio  process  used. 
If»i(l.,  (i;il,();tii. 

12.  Where  a  corporation  vas  created 
by  the  hiws  of  New  Jersey,  and  had  its 
place  of  business  in  that  state,  but  also 
had  a  store  in  New  York,  where  its 
goods  were  soKl,  and  a  suit  was  eoin- 
nienced  against  it  in  New  York  by  at- 
tachuu'ut  of  its  goods,  and  by  service  of 
jtrocess  on  its  j)resident,  wiio  happened 
to  be  in  New  York,  //»/(/,  that  the 
corjjoration  was  not  an  itdiabitant  of 
New  York,  or  found  within  it  at  the 
time  of  the  service  of  the  process,  and 
that  the  court  had  no  jurisiliction  of  the 
action.     Ilnif.,  G'M], 

13.  The  j)urchaser  of  an  implement 
or  macliine,  for  tise  in  the  ordinary  pur- 
suits of  life,  does  not  become  possessed 
of  a  portion  of  the  franchise  or  monopo- 
ly conferred  by  the  patent — he  exer- 
cises no  right  conferred  by  Congress ; 
but  when  the  machine  passes  uito  his 
hands  it  is  no  longer  within  the  limits 
of  the  monopoly,  or  under  the  protec- 
tioii  of  the  acts  of  Congress ;  and  if  his 
right  is  infringed  he  must  seek  redress 
in  the  courts  of  the  state,  and  accord- 
ing to  its  laws,  and  not  in  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  or  under  the  acts  of 
Congress.  Bloomer  v.  Mc  Queioan,  1 4 
IIow.,  649.— Taney,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1852. 

14.  A  process  of  attachment,  whether 
direct  or  foreign,  by  which  the  proper- 
ty of  a  defendant  is  attached,  by  virtue 
of  state  laws,  cannot  give  the  Circuit 
Court  jurisdiction  over  a  person  not  an 
inhabitant  of,  and  not  fotuid  within  the 
district.  Saddler  v.  Hudson,  2  Curt., 
7. — Curtis,  J.;  Me.,  1854. 

15.  If  a  defendant  is  (^sucd  out  of  his 


district  he  must  pleatl  liis  personrd  privi- 
lege. Toko  v.  /7«/yw,  1  iMeAllis.,  17. 
— M(.'Am,I8TKK,  J.;  ('al.,  1855. 

1(1.  Under  }5  1 1  of  the  Judici.iry  Act 
of  17H11,  jurisdiction  of  the  person  of  n 
defendant  ('vho  is  an  iidiabitanl  of 
another  state)  can  only  be  obtained,  in 
a  civil  action,  by  service  of  process  on  his 
jierson  within  the  district  where  th(> 
suit  is  instituted,  (j/ioffce  v.  Jlayward^ 
20  How.,  215.— Catuon,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1857. 

1 7.  And  this  provision  is  not  changed 
by  any  of  the  process  acts,  or  by  the 
act  of  Congress  conferring  jurisdiction 
on  the  Circuit  Courts  in  patent  cases, 
without  regard  to  citizenship,  g  1 1  of 
the  Judiciary  Act  is  not  affected  by 
the  subse(pu'nt  process  acts,  and  it  ap- 
plies to  idl  civil  suits.     Ibid.,  210. 

3.  Parties  to. 
See  also  Equity,  B.  2. 
a.  PlaintiOf). 

1.  Under  §5  of  the  act  1793,  an  assi- 
gnee of  a  part  of  a  patent-right  cannot 
maintain  an  action  for  a  violation  of 
it.  Tyler  \.  Tuel,  0  Cra.,  327.— Cuuiam; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1810. 

2.  But  if  a  patentee  has  sold  a  moiety 
of  his  invention  to  another,  a  joint  action 
lies,  under  such  section  5,  by  himself  and 
such  assignee,  for  a  violation  of  the  pat- 
ent. The  action  is  brought  by  those  who 
have  the  whole  patent  in  themselves, 
which  distinguishes  it  from  the  case  of 
Tyler  v.  Tuel.  Whittemore  v.  Cutter, 
1  Gall.,  430. — Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

3.  The  executor  or  administrator  of  a 
joint  patentee  may  maintain  an  action 
jointly  with  the  surviving  patentee  for 
an  infringement.     Ibid.^  431 


'-It 


^<.:: 


ACTIONS,  B.  3.  a. 


Ill 


AH  TO    I'ATKNTH.     rAHTIKH   TO  >    I'l.AINTirM. 


•t.  A  p:it(>nt(>o  oiuuiot  iiiaintiiiii  an 
ftctioii  for  iiii  iiifiiiijtji'im'iit  iifh-r  hv  hsis 
iimdu  an  nKsi^iiniciit  uf  liis  iiivcution; 
but  the  suit  tntist.  lit'  Itroiij^ht  l»y  the  as- 
fii<;n«'c.  Jfrttert  v.  Adania,  4  Mas.,  15. 
— Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  IH-JS. 

5.  And  it  will  niako  no  diflToronou 
that  tlm  asHi^nniont  was  nia<lo  hi'foro 
pati'nt  issued,  and  t lie  patent  alU-rward 
taken  out  in  tliu  nuino  of  the  inventor. 
Ibid.,  16. 

0.  Whether  nu  assijrnco  of  jiart  of  a 
])atent,  eireuinscrilted  as  to  the  interest 
by  loeal  limits,  can,  in  his  own  name,  or 
with  the  ])atentee,  maintain  a  suit  at 
law  or  not,  thero  can  oxist  no  doubt  btit 
that  he  may  support  a  suit  in  e(piity  to 
ciijiiin  third  persons  from  infriiij^ini;  the 
))atent,  and  for  an  aeeoimt.  0</lf  v. 
B/e,  4  Wash.,  584. — WAsiii.\<iTo\,  J.; 
I'a.,  1826. 

7.  An  assijrnoo  of  a  ])art  interest, 
wliieh  is  exclusive,  in  a  patent,  may,  at 
law  or  in  equity,  maintain  a  suit  for  in- 
fringement, without  joining  the  paten- 
tee. Jirooks  V.  liickndl  H  McLean, 
250.— McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  184H.  (So 
held  in  fact,  as  the  suit  was  by  an  as- 
signee without  joining  any  other  [lerson, 
but  no  question  raised  as  to  parties. 
-En.) 

8.  An  action  for  a  violation  of  an  ex- 
clusive right  in  a  patent  can  only  be 
brought  by  the  owner  of  such  a  right. 
Washhimi  v.  Gould,  3  Story,  131,  100. 
—Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

9.  The  assignees  of  an  exclusive  rijrht 
in  a  ])atent  are  the  proper  persons  to 
mnintain  an  action  for  a  violation  of 
such  right.     Ibid.,  131,  167. 

10.  The  grantee  of  an  exclusive  right 
under  a  patent,  though  such  right  may 
be  limited  to  the  use  of  a  certain  niun- 
ber  of  machines  within  a  certain  terri- 
tory or  district,  has  such  an  exclusive 


right  as  will  enabh;  him  to  maintain  an 
action  for  an  infringement  of  the  patent 
within  that  district,  under  }5  14  of  tho 
act  of  18;trt.  WUmm  v.  lioa-iaiu,  4 
How.,  080,  088.— Nki.ho.v,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1845. 

11.  An  exclusive  right  of  action  ex- 
ists in  favor  of  a  soU(  assignee  oidy  in 
two  cases,  namely,  where  he  actpiires 
by  assignment  the  whole  interest  in  the 
patent,  or  a  grant  or  conveyance  of  the 
whole  interest  within  some  particular 
district  or  territory.  Sii>/d<i)n  v.  Ddt/, 
•2  lllatchf,  23.— Nklson,  lUriTS,  JJ.; 
N.  Y.,  1840. 

I'J.  \\y  ^  11  of  the  act  of  1830,  taken 
in  comiection  with  i^  14  of  the  same  act, 
an  action  is  given  only  to  such  party, 
composed  of  one  or  more  persons,  us 
possesses  the  whole  interest.    Ibid.,  23. 

13.  Where  a  party  has  an  interest  in 
only  a  part  of  a  jiatent,  as  a  license  to 
use  the  invention  patented,  only  in  the 
maimfacture  of  a  particular  kind  of 
goods,  he  cannot  maintain  an  action  for 
an  infringement.     Ibid.,  23. 

14.  In  an  .action  by  an  adn»inistrator 
it  is  not  necess.ary  that  he  should  pro- 
duce his  letters  of  administration.  Tho 
patent,  being  renewed  to  him  as  admin- 
istrator, is  i)roof  that  he  had  satisfied 
the  officer  authorized  to  grai\t  a  renew- 
al, of  his  being  .administrator,  and  it 
is  not  competent  for  the  court  to  go 
behind  tb.at  decision.  Woodworth  v. 
Hall,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  254.— Wood- 
nuRY,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

15.  Where  a  patentee  granted  an 
exclusive  license  to  C  to  use  his  patent 
for  a  specified  purpose,  as  a  grant  by 
Rlanchard  of  a  license  to  use  his  patent 
for  turning  irregular  forms,  lor  turning 
lasts,  boot-trees,  &e.,  and  a  third  party. 
E,  infringed  by  turning  lasts,  Held, 
that  such  grant  to  C  did  not  vest  any 


JiS'Wl 


't^M^^ 


112 


ACTIONS,  B.  3.  a. 


AH  TO  I'ATKNTH.     fAHTlKd  TO;    l-I.AIMTirrH. 


logiil  tittu  littliu  pittciil  ill  liiin,  aii*l  ihut 
titu  action  fur  hiu'Ii  ititViiiguiiiciit  was 
))rii|h>i'iy  1)i'i)iix'il  ill  tlut  iiiuiic  of  tlic 
palcnti'i'.  Jtliiiii'li(ii'(l  V.  Klili'iiliji\  I 
Wall,Jr.,;JU.— (;uii:k,J.;  I'a.,  iHjy. 

lU.  Ill  ail  action  of  iiifriii^uinont 
foumluil  upon  tho  noii-iici-foriiiuiicn  of 
till'  coiiditioiis  of  a  licoiisc,  tiio  oriixiiial 
pati'iitci'  ami  lii'cii.Hi'r  ari'  )ti'o|M'riy  joiin-il 
as  partii's  jilaiiitin',  iiotwitli.sta'idiiiy  tiio 
wholo  bniufic'ial  iiiti>i-c>»t  is  ui  liis  ati- 
hi;;iii'i',  iiiasiiiucli  as  Ju'  was  a  party  to 
the  aLMVciiioiit  or  lict'iisi',  ami  may  In-  iii- 
tctvsli'il  ill  the  patent  and  in  iiplioliliii;^ 
it.  Woodworth  v.  Cook^  2  IMatclif., 
101.— Nkihov,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

17.  An  assi^nco  of  an  invention, 
under  an  asslgmiieiit  made  before  i>at- 
ont  issued,  and  sueh  patent  beintf  also 
issuv-d  in  tlio  naino  of  the  inventor  or 
nssiifiiee,  may  maintain  !in  action  in  his 
own  name  for  an  iiilViii<j;e;nent.  (^i-ty- 
ler  V.  Wilder,  10  How.,  493,  494.— 
Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

18.  Hut  to  enable  an  assignee  of  a 
sectional  interest  in  a  p.-itent  to  suo  in 
his  own  name  under  §  14  of  the  act  <jf 
1830,  he  must  liave  the  exclusive  right 
or  entire  and  unqualilied  monopoly 
which  llie  patentee  held  in  the  territory 
specified,  ex(^liiding  the  patentee  liim- 
self  as  well  as  others.     Ibid.,  494. 

1 9.  An  agreement  j)urporting  to  grant 
an  exclusive  right  to  make  and  sell  a 
patented  article  within  a  certain  terri- 
tory, but  reserving  to  the  patentee  tho 
right  to  manufacture  and  make  and 
Bcll  tho  article  within  such  territory,  is 
not  such  an  assignment  as  will  enable 
tho  assignee  to  bring  an  action  in  his 
name,  but  it  should  bo  brought  in  the 
name  of  the  patentee.    Ibid.,  495. 

20.  A  patentee  or  his  assignee,  in  as- 
Bigiiiiig  the  use  of  a  patent  within  a  par- 
ticuhv  district,  may  reserve  the  right 


to  Hiic  fitr  infringements.  Hut  if  ho 
aAcrward  asnigns  all  his  right  in  hiicIi 
district,  the  owner  of  tlie  patent  may 
sue.  liirhneU  \,  '/'(xld,  !'>  .McLean,  210. 
-M.  I.K.VN,  J,;  Ohio,   1851. 

21.  A  mere  licensee  need  not  bo 
niskde  a  party  plaint itf  in  nn  action  of 
iiifringemciit,  though  li«!  may  bo  bene, 
lited  by  the  decree  or  Juilginent  in  tlii; 
case.  Goix/i/ctir  \.D(ty,  .MS. — Gnuca, 
I)i<;ki;i{S(».v,  JJ.;  N.  J.,  1862. 

22.  Neither  need  a  )>arty  iiitereHfod 
as  re.itni  qio:  (runt,  in  the  prolits  of  tin- 
patent,  be  made  a  party,  when  the  coii- 
veyance  to  such  party  reserves  to  the 
patentee  the  whole  and  sole  power  of 
disjiosal,  and  consecpiently  the  legal 
title.     I/>id. 

23.  Under  g  14  act  of  18.10,  an  action 
at  law  is  properly  brought  in  the  name  of 
the  patentee  in  behalf  of  a  licensee  who 
is  damaged  by  tho  infringement.  Good- 
yeitr  V.  Jf-Jiurney,  3  J'.latclif.,  'M.— 
Nici.sox,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1863. 

24.  If  to  such  an  action  a  release  from 
the  i)atcnteo  is  set  up,  tiie  plaintilfiiiay 
file  a  replic.'ition  setting  up  the  li<'ens('. 
tho  bringing  of  suit  for  the  benelit  of 
the  licensee,  notice  to  the  defendants  of 
such  license,  and  its  recording  prior  to  the 
release,  want  of  power  to  give  the  re- 
lease, and  that  it  was  given  without  tlio 
consent  and  authority  of  the  licensee. 
Ibid.  33. 

25.  Tlie  assignees  of  a  patent,  thoiiirh 
their  title  accrues  to  them  by  sevenil 
deeds,  may  all*  join,  as  t)ie  holders  of 
tho  title,  in  ar^  action  for  the  recovery 
of  daiii.'iges  for  an  infringement  of  tlie 
patent.  tStciti  v.  Goddard,  1  3IcAlli.s., 
84. — McAllistkr,  J. ;  Cal.,  1850. 

20.  Where  a  license  had  been  granted 
to  a  person  to  use  a  patent,  and  tho 
patentees  had  covenanted  not  to  license 
any  other  persons,  nor  use  the  i)ateul 


theniscJ 
/or  inlri 
to  the 
Ji'td,ih 
could  n<i 
the  licfi 
tt'es  wei 
parties. 

OKKSOI.f.j 

27.  A  ; 
nction  at 
terest  or 
lliilliind, 

28.  A  I 
for  lii.s  ow 
patentee,  1 
rerjiiin.  in,] 

V.  Jiixhop 

I8(J0. 

29.  Who 
otiiertheex 
liis  i>atente(| 
territory,  f 
tain  Niini  1 
sol'l,  I'littlu 
of  sending 
faetiire  intc 
such  contra( 
the  ])atente 
such   territc 
liccnso    to 
therein;  .anc 
maintain   ai 
against  thos 
action  coul 
of  his  gran 
Ms. — ^Leavi 


See  also  C 

1.  Whenev 
a  patent,  con 


ACTIONS,  B.  8.  b. 


IIS 


AR  TCI  IMTKNTtt.     I'AIITIKH  TO;    UKrKNIiANTfl. 


lliPinsi'lvt'H,  Itiif  ikll  (liktiin^fx  rerovoi't'ii 
for  itirriiu^ciiii'iil  wfiMto  Itt'lorij^  (■({uully 
to  tho  piUoiitei'M  mill  u\wU  lici'iisiM>, 
Jf'ld,  thiituii  iintiini  lor  ail  iiilViiii^i'iiiciil 
(■(lulil  not  \n'  iiiaintaiiit'il  in  |lu<  iiiitiu>  of 
till'  licuiiMuo  aloiii',  l>iit  that  tliu  pati'ii- 
tt'os  wore  botli  jiroper  and  iiucos«ury 
partiiiH.  North  v.  Journ,  4  lllatclif. — In- 
ciKiiHoi.T,,  J. ;  N.  v.,  |M.")7. 

'J 7.  A  more  lictiiHi'O  cannot  brinj?  an 
notion  at  law  for  a  violation  of  his  in- 
terest or  riyht  in  a  patunt.  PotUr  v. 
Jft>ll<tn(f,  iMS. — iMiiiUHOLL,  J.;  ('(., 
ISJH. 

28.  A  liconseo  may  briiij^  an  action 
for  his  own  benefit,  in  the  name  of  tlie 
patentee,  but  the  nominal  iilaiiitilV  can 
rotpiH'e  inilk'iiiiiity  for  costs.  (Joodi/iitr 
V.  Jiidho}),  MS. — Xklson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1800. 

29.  AVlicro  .1  patontpo  f^rantcd  to  an- 
other tlie  exehisivu  riL!;Iit  to  make  and  sell 
his  patented  invention,  within  a  certain 
territory,  for  wliich  he  was  to  pay  a  cer- 
tain sum  for  each  m.acliine  so  made  an<l 
sold,  but  the  patentee  ri'served  the  right 
of  sending  machines  of  his  own  nianu- 
frtcluro  into  such  territory,  JIdif,  that 
such  contract  was  not  an  assignment  of 
the  patentee's  interest  in  tl»o  jiatent  in 
Buch  territory,  but  a  mere  grant  or 
license  to  make  and  sell  tho  article 
therein ;  and  that  tho  patentee  could 
maintain  an  action  in  hia  own  name 
.igainst  those  infringing,  and  that  such 
action  could  not  bo  brought  in  the  name 
of  his  grantees.  Ifiifiscy  v.  W/utelei/, 
MS.— Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1801. 


b.  Dofendauts. 

See  also  Cobpobations. 

1.  Whenever  any  person,  previous  to 
a  patent,  constructs  a  machine  discov- 
8 


erod  by  another,  he  eonstnicts  it  sub- 
jeet  to  the  right  of  that  otiier,  and  his 
right  to  use  it  is  (pialilie<l  l>y  the  parn- 
mount  right  of  the  inventor  to  pres«'ribe 
the  cntnlitiuiis  nn  which  he  shall  use  it, 
and  he  may  behehl  in  damages.  I'Jntut 
V.  Jonlinty  I  llroek,  '25'2. — Makhuam,, 
Ch.  J.;   Va.,    1H13. 

'J.  'riie  purehase  of  a  nianuractured 
article,  made  in  violation  of  a  patent 
o.  a  third  person,  but  without  any  con- 
nection on  the  part  of  such  purchaser 
with  the  manufacture,  except  as  a  pur- 
chaser, will  ni»t  make  the  party  buying 
guilty  of  an  infringement  of  the  rights 
of  the  jiatentee,  as  having  used  the 
pateiiti'd  invention.  A  contract  to  pur- 
chase articles  manufactured  in  xiolation 
of  a  pati'ut,  is  not  of  itself  an  infringe- 
ment of  such  patent.  KipUiiyvr  v. 
I>e  YontKj,  10  Wheat.,  305. — Wasiiino- 
Tov,  J.  ;  Sup.  C't.,  IH'jr). 

;i.  A  mere  workman  employed  by  a 
person  other  than  the  iiatenteo  to  make 
parts  t)f  a  patented  article,  is  not  liable 
to  an  action  lor  damages.  Diiatio  v, 
Si'olfy  Gilpin,  497,  408. — IIuiKixsox, 
J.  ;  I'a.,  IHJU. 

4.  Tho  seller  of  an  article  is  tho 
ow  icr  for  whom  it  is  hold;  not  the 
man  or  boy  in  tho  shop  who  delivers  it 
to  the  liuycr,  and  receives  tho  money. 
Ibid.,  408. 

5.  Whether  a  person,  who  acts  as 
the  mere  agent  of  another,  is  resjionsi- 
ble  in  damages  for  the  infringement  of 
a  patent,  and  may  be  enjoined  ;  query. 
Boyd  V.  McAlpine,  3  ]\IcLean,  430.^ 
McLeax,  J. ;   Ohio,  1844. 

G.  Tiiere  are,  however,  strong  reasons 
why  the  interest  of  a  principle  should, 
by  an  action  at  law,  and  also  by  a  bill  in 
chancery,  be  reached  through  his  agent. 
Ibid.,  431. 

1.  An  action  for  infringement  will 


•ii      h 


"••^iter. 


ill'' 


?S'«'V  " ' 


««»^ 


■■"■  -,"<^ 


Swc.^-i^ 


-TT* 


114 


ACTION  H,  n.  a.  b. 


AS  TO  PATKNTM.    I'AHTIItS  TO;   (JRrKNDANTa 


lio  n;{iiiiif*t  tl;o  |>nrtii>K  tiuikin^  nil  nrtlclo 
Aviiicli  in  piitt'iitiMl,  tlmiij^li  Hucli  |ti'rMniiM 
un^  ciiiitloycil  hyotluTH  to  ilo  tlu»  work. 
Jh'i/ce  V.  J>"r>;  :»  Mc-lAtiui,  583. — Mo 
Lka.v,  J.;  -Mich.,  iHj.'s. 

8.  The  «lt'fiiHl;iiits  wero  («mjilo}'«Ml 
by  S.,  who  i'liniishcil  thciii  a  iikhU'I,  to 
Iimku  or  cast  (■«Ttaiii  jiatciiti'd  artidiw, 
Jfchl  hy  tho  com't,  lliat,  the  tltli'iidaiits 
yw'vo  lialilc,  ami  tliiit  il  was  not  ncccs- 
unry  to biiiij,'  tlio  action  against  S.  lOiil.y 

0.  A  purcliasor,  for  hi-t  own  account, 
of  articles  niaiiiifaotiiri'il  l)y  a  patented 
luaciiine,  though  piirdiased  with  a  fid! 
knowK'tlge  that  they  were  tnnnufactiirud 
in  violation  of  the  patent,  cannot  Itc  en- 
joined, or  iiehl  liahlo  in  any  other  way. 
Anon.,  3  "West.  Law  Jour.,  144. — N.  Y., 
1845. 

10.  An  ngont  selling  an  article  •which 
infringes  on  the  plaintiirs  patent,  may 
be  joinetl  as  a  party  difemlant  with  the 
one  who  nianuiiicture.s  snch  article,  .as 
they  are  joint  trespassers,  and  are  lialdc 
to  bo  sued  jointly.  JinrJc  v.  Ci>l>h  rC' 
Henna  nee,  9  Law  llep.  O.  S.,  5t7. — 
CONKMXO,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1840. 

11.  A  purchase  from  tho  defendants 
of  a  patented  article,  by  an  agent  of  the 
patentee,  and  for  the  ])iirposo  of  eiitra]>- 
ping  the  defendant,  is  not  such  a  sale 
as  will  render  them  liable.  Sparkmnn 
V.  Ilhjiiins,  2  ])latchf,  30,  31.— Bkits, 
J.;  N.'y.,  1S40. 

12.  If  ix  machine,  as  made  by  the  de- 
fendant, was  not  an  infraction  of  the 
plaintilf's  patent,  the  alteration  of  it  by 
a  third  party,  will  not  make  the  defeiul- 
ant  liable;  but  if  the  machinn,  as  made 
by  the  defendant,  Avas  intended  by  him 
to  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to  violate 
the  plaintiff's  patent,  and  has  in  fact  so 
operated,  ho  is  a  party  to  the  infringe- 
ment,  notwithstanding  the    ingeimity 


with  which  ho  may  iinvo  Nought  to  diii* 
guino  luH  wrong.  Kniijht  v.  OavU, 
Mir.  Tut.  Oir.,  133.— K.1NK,  J.;  l»o., 
1840. 

13.  An  ai'lion  of  infringement  catmot 
bo  maintained  against  a  mere  purchaser 
of  nrtidus  manufacture<l  in  violation 
of  a  pattMit,  after  they  have  been  man- 
ufactured, unless  hu  is  concerned  in  the 
numuficture.  /•''  'n,-/i.  (inn-Stuck  Turn. 
Co.\.Jiicoh», ..  -l.itchf.,  70,  71.— IIktth, 
J.;  N.  v.,  1H47. 

14.  The  directors  of  a  niamifacturirif* 
corporation,  who  manage  and  Nuperin- 
tend  its  l)usiness,  and  under  whoso  di- 
rection artidcH  are  niamifactured  which 
are  an  infringement  of  a  )iatent,  and  the 
agents  who  conduct  tho  business  of  sell- 
ing such  articles,  are  responsible  for 
such  infringement,  and  may  bo  restrairi- 
od  by  injunction.  Goodjear  <f'  N.  K 
Car  Si>rln'j  Co.  v.  /'/«//).<(,  3  lilatchf.,  92. 
— Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IHr)3. 

15.  S.  being  an  inventor  of  an  im- 
provement in  dragoon  and  pack  saddles, 
made  application  for  a  patent  therefor 
before  May,  1H47.  In  November,  1847, 
before  such  application  was  acted  on, 
C}.  made  application  for  a  patent  for  tho 
same  invention  ;  but  notice  of  interfuf- 
I  !ice  was  not  given.  In  December,  1847, 
the  secretary  of  state  addressed  tho 
Connnissioner  of  Patents,  that  an  early 
issue  of  a  patent  to  G.  would  facilitate 
a  supply  of  saddles  to  the  government ; 
(J.'s  ai)plication  was  taken  up,  and  a 
patent  issued  Dec.  11,  1817—  S.'s  appli- 
caticm  remaining  not  .acted  upon,  and 
postponed,  Jfthl,  that  the  wrong  duiio 
to  S.  was  not  conunitted  by  the  United 
States,  or  by  any  of  its  ofHcers,  so  .ns 
to  render  them  pecuniarily  responsiblo 
therefor.  IVn'stlc  v.  United  States, 
l^evereaux,  130. — Scaruuugu,  J.;  Ct. 
CLoims,  1850. 


Ifl. 

ncglor 

Jit'eiiMo 

ahamh 

ground 

fdted, 

friri'^er. 

liKwir 

17.  T 

Helves  p 

thostoci 

of  a  cor; 

from  bei 

an   actio 

heitsen  v 

y.,  1801. 

4.    Di 

1.  The 

continue 
brought  /; 
such  real 
the  suit  c( 
ymt'  V.  // 
Y.,  18(30. 

2.  The 
over,  cLiin 

3.  It  wi 
nominal 
inrringcrs, 
he  lijilile  t( 
lafion    doe; 
lieonsoes  t 
provided, 
tlio  wrono'( 


See  Def 


See  Pj, 


E.' 


ArnoN's,  r. 


IIS 


AH  TO  TIIAI>»:  UUtk      lif.tk.M'Kt  TO. 


HI.  If  a  i)«'r«<m  tiiko  n  lii'onno,  l»nf 
nofjloct  for  II  Ion;;  tim»t  to  |>fiy  tln> 
lioeriMo  pr'h'o,  fui<l  when  prnsynitj'il, 
nbiiiulon  it,  or  ili'loml  ii|ioii  otiior 
^ruiiiulN,  t'lo  lii'oii^(>  will  1m«  iUm«iiii>iI  for- 
tVitcil,  mill  lio  will  l>o  liiililf  us  tw  in- 
fritiu'.T.  //.//  V.  }ri'('>tn<,>Kjh,  MS.— 
Lkwiit,  J. ;  Oliif ,  18flH. 

17.  Tho  fiiot  timt  ftH  Ix'twccn  tlwin- 
nclvi'H  pjirtit"*  iiri- {•oiUH'clcd  toi^ctlicr  iis 
thostockhnitlcrs, iii!iri:i;;('rs,;uiil  Hcrvants 
of  »  corponitioii,  will  not  »'X<>mpt  tlii>rn 
from  licinjj  t>njoino<l,  or  hciii^  liabU'  to 
nn  .'U-'tion  for  infriii'^ciiiciif.  I*o/>/irn- 
ftfitif>en  V.  Fiilkc,  IMS. — Siiii'M.w,  J. ;  X. 
Y.,  1801. 

4.   Di'si'i)ntlntt(iHce  of.,  hj  whom, 

1.  The  nominal  pTainfiff  cannot  dis- 
oontiinio  n  Hiiit,  which  is  in  reality 
hroii^ht  for  tlu'  bonclit  of  a  liconsoo,  hut 
sucli  real  plaint  ill"  in  inforost  may  have 
the  suit  continue  for  hiHl)enetit.  Good- 
ymi'  V.  Bishop,  MS. — Xelsox,  J. ;  X. 
Y.,  1800. 

2.  The  nominal  plaintiff  may,  how- 
ever, claim  indemnity  for  costs.     Ihld, 

'.],  It  will  make  no  tlilU'rence  that  the 
nominal  plaintitf  has  covenanted  to  sue 
iiilVinLjurs,  upon  which  covenant  he  may 
l)i>  liahle  to  his  licensees.  Such  a  stipu- 
lation does  not  tako  aw.ay  from  the 
licensees  tho  remedy  which  the  law  has 
provided,  of  proceeding  directly  against 
tlio  wrongdoer.     Ih'ul. 

5.  Defences  to 
See  Defexces. 

C.  Pleadings  in. 
See  PLEADixa. 


C  In  Uesi'iot  to  Ti!viie-m.\ukh,  and 
1)kI'i;.n»'K«j  to. 

A«  to  right  of  a1ion«  to  m.ilnlain  Huch 
actions,  SCO  Amenh,  H. 

See  ulso  Coi  lira,  C ;  Ixpuinukmknt, 
C;  iNJirxcriONs,  C. 

1.  To  an  action  for  tho  lnfring<>tn(»nt 
of  a  trade-mark,  it  is  wholly  immaterial 
whether  (he  simidated  article  Is  or  in 
not  of  equal  goodness  afiil  valuo  with 
the    real  article.     Taylor  \.  C>tr}t<  )iftr., 

II    I'aige,    '208.— W.vi.wourii,   (,'lian.; 
N.  v.,  IHII. 

2.  It  is  no  defence  to  an  action  for 
violation  of  plaintilV's  labels  and  trade- 
marks, that  \\w  deft'udauts  have  not, 
uxed  all  the  plaintiiV's  labels;  it  is  suf- 
ficient, if  there  be  a  violation,  in  imi- 
tating and  using  any  of  such  labels. 
Tii/!"r  v.  C'irpt'nhr,  3  Story,  40-',  403. 
— SroKV,  J. ;  Mass.,  1844. 

n.  Xor  is  it  any  excuso  that  others 
have  iisod  such  labels;  this  rather  ag- 
gravates than  excuses  tho  misconduct, 
unless  done  with  tho  const-nt  or  .acipii- 
esceiico  of  the  plaintilf.     Ibid.,  4tj4. 

4.  It  is  no  excuso  for  n  violation  of 
phuntilfa  trade-mark,  that  the  imitated 
article  is  as  good  as  the  original.  Cauts 
V.  ILdhrook,  2  Sand.  Chy.,  .10.-,.-- 
Saxofouu,  V.  Ch. ;  Ct.  Chy.,  X.  Y., 
1845. 

5.  Xor  is  it  .iny  defence  to  an  action 
for  a  fraudulent  use  of  such  trade- 
marks, that  other  persons  ar^  engaged 
in  like  infringcmonts.     H4d.,  590. 

0.  Xor  that  tho  maker  of  the  imita- 
tion, or  the  commission  merchant  who 
sells  to  the  jobber,  told  tho  purchaser 
that  they  were  selling  .an  imitation  or 
si)nrious  article.     Ibid.,  597. 

7.  Evidence  of  a  usage  or  custom 


,WI»».^ 


1 1 


mit 


l^ 


'"yU 


^M. 


VJWwWw 


ii« 


AcriDNs,  c. 


AN  TO  TIIAI>l-M.iHKM.     ItKrHNI'M  TO 


,.<|Jafc;. 


ill  tho  riiiti'il  MtritPM,  Kiii^litiiil,  Ai*.,  to 
tixo  ttiiil  iinitntf  till*  tni<ii'-riiiirkM  of  i'or- 
ri{;ticrM  with  iiti|)iiiiiry  \n  not  n  ^imxI 
«lo!«'iift'  to  mi  tu'lioM  (iir  u  wroni;t\il  if*«» 
of  a  tiinlf-iiiiirk  :  no  iimi^'o  i<«  foiii|M-ti'iit 
eviiU'iii'it  ill  lU'tt'iu'i'  of  u  \vroiij».  7</y- 
ior  V.  Ciirj>cnf<ry  'J  Wood.  A  Miii.,  7.-- - 
WooKiituv,  J. ;  MiixH.,  lHi«K 

H.  It  iiii>,'lit  \h>  «Miiii|M>ti'tit  in  iiuTt' 
l)iiti<^ulion  of  <liiiii!i;,'tw,  NO  fiir  a^  iT;L,'ar<lH 
unart-moiH'y,  or  viriilii-tivo  <lamaj;»«n,  if 
■tu'li  wcri!  |u'rminMil(lo,     I/iiil.,  8, 

0.  A  ncylfct  to  |ii'o<*i(Mil»«  iiifiiiiift'- 
niC'iitM  of  a  tradc'-iiiarii,  hccaiisi!  oiu-  Itc- 
llovcil  hu  huil  no  ri^litH,  or  from  mum-i' 
]iro(>raMtination,  is  no  hnr  to  an  nftion 
for  Hucli  iiifriiiLfcmnit,  I'M'fjit  tiiiilfr  llic 
Statute  of  LiiiiitatioiiM,  or  iitidi't-  hoiiu> 
|iositivc>  htatiitc,  like  that  as  to  patents, 
Mliich  avoids  tlio  riylif,  if  thu  invt-ntor 
|t('rmits  till'  piiMit?  to  iih»«  tlii'  patent  for 
noiim  (itiio  l»i'lor«  takiti;^  out  lotttTs. 
Ifii,/.,  H. 

10.  It  is  no  dofi^nco  to  nn  action  for  a 
vrori;,'fiil  nso  of  the  plaint ilf's  tradi-- 
liiark,  tliat  tlu)  articles  Hold  as  and  fur 
liis,  were  not  inferior  in  value  to  liis. 
Iffid,  20. 

11.  If  tho  uso  of  n  trado-nmrk  by 
one,  in  violation  of  tho  rij^lits  of  the 
orifjinal  possessor,  is  for  sueh  a  len^^th 
of  tiiiio  and  under  siicli  rireumstaiiees 
as  to  indicate  a  dedication  or  al).ind(jii- 
nient  of  the  marks  to  tlio  piihlic,  or  a 
license  to  use  them,  the  plaintiff  cannot 
recover.     IhUL^  20. 

12.  To  enable  a  party  to  ni.aintain  a 
bill  in  equity  to  rcstniin  tlie  use  of  trade- 
marks, lie  must  .'lUoge  .and  prove  that 
Biich  nse  was  for  the  purpose  of  ertectiiii,' 
a  false  representation,  and  that  the  arti- 
cles were  made  by  those  who  did  not 
in  fact  make  thera.  Ames  v.  King,  2 
Gray,  382. — Bioelow,  J.;  Mass.,  1854. 

13.  Tho  fact  that  a  person  has  discou- 


llniied  th«>  iiMinrnpnrtieiiliir  Irtnle-inark 
for  a  time,  and  luhipted  iiiiother,  w  ill  not 
deprivi'  hint  of  u  ri^lit  of  act  ion  a^aiimt 
a  parly  Helliii<x  an  article  uiili  mucIi  dU- 
iiiiitiiiiied  Iradc-niark.  A<//*o///»!  v,  (imt. 
ton,  2  K.  1).  Smith  Uep.,  :i47.— l).\i.v, 
.r.;  N.  Y.,  lHfl4. 

I  I.  Whtiher  till)  BuI'*  of  an  article, 
with  u  for;.(ed  or  counterfeited  lrad«'- 
mark,  to  the  owner  of  tho  trademark, 
would  b(>  Hiiflicient  to  j^ivu  a  ri^jlit  of 
action;  tjufty,     /bhl.y'MH, 

Milt  if  NO,  only  iiniiriiial  damngcK  coiild 
be  reciiviTcd.      Ifn'il.,  M  IH. 

10.  It  will  not  Hupport  an  action  for 
the  violation  of  n  trade-mark  that  tho 
imitation  trade-mark  or  label  has  n  re- 
Mciiililiince  to  the  original;  but  any  imi- 
tation is  actioiiabit*  which  reipiires  a 
careful  inspection  to  distiiij^iiish  itit 
marks  mid  appearances  from  those  of 
llie  mamifacture  imitated.  j}firrhniii'k 
MiiDiif.  i'o.v.  (j/(ir>iir,i  K.  I).  Smith, 
31)1,  .•»i»2.— Dai.v,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1H55. 

lit.  One  person  has  n  rijj^ht  to  imitato 
and  sell  the  Maine  style  of '^oods  as  those 
manufactured  by  another  ;  and  the  lat- 
ter has  no  rij^ht  to  complain  unless  tlio 
label  used  n]<on  the  article  in  imitation 
would  lea<l  purchas(!rs  to  suppose  tli.at 
they  were  buying  jjoods  actually  manu- 
factured by  him.     ffiid.,  :}02. 

1 7.  It  is  no  defence  to  an  action  to 
"estrain  the  use  of  the  pl.aintitrs  trade* 
mark,  that  the  article  upon  which  it  is 
used  is  not  patented,  or  that  the  words 
on  the  trade-mark  are  fictitious.  iStetS' 
art  v.  Smithson,  1  Hilton,  121. — IJka- 
i)V,  J.;   N.  Y.,  1850. 

18.  The  assij^nce  of  atradi  mark  .and 
of  the  articles  or  goods  to  which  it  is 
attached,  is  entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of 
tho  exclusive  rights  thereto,  .and  may 
maintain  an  action  in  his  own  name  for 
any  Avrongful  use  by   others  of  such 


%w, 


Anr>rnr>xs,  -  \i)Mi\Kr».\T<  >iw. 


lit 


TO   MIlOU  IIKU)M<». 


Moiim  or,  Ai  to  iMviwTioRa. 


tnwlMnnr'k,  to  tlio  »>nini>  (>xt«ht  n4  tlx' 
ortglnwlor  lliin'ol'.      H'd//"/!  v.  i'i'<nrl,.y, 
3  llUirhf..  tH.-IlKTiM,  J.;  N.  Y.,  iHflO. 
10.  Tliw  ri^lit  of  II  |)latlitifr  to  itiairi 
titiii  an  iiftiiiii  t'or  ii  violation  of  u  truilc 

riliU'lt,  i|oi'<t  tint  ilopi'liil  ll|ioli  till'  iliti'll 
tioti  of  tlio  ili'lt'iiilaiit  to  it|)|)ro|iritttf 
mu'ti  trailt'timrk  (violate  it) ;  It  in  fiioii^li 
if  it  \*  iiiadtt  to  n|)|>i'ar  that  lie  lian  <lniii' 
HI).  lhili<  V.  Smif/iunt),  I'J  vMib.  I'r., 
iiya.— Hilton,  J.;  N.  V.,  lt-(3l. 


Iiiritti'iit  or  |).'irt  of  till*  rni|)|o^vr'«  mtAn 
invention.    JijuL,  i[). 


ADDITION'S  TO  A  MTKIIAUY 
\V(M{K  Olt  MANUSCKIIT,  TO 
WHOM  ilKLONt}. 

1.  A'Mitions  to  n  fornicr  Tn;niu«<cri|»t 
avi<  not  iii(|r|irii(|i'iit  liti.'iar}'  inodiic- 
tions,  (Mpalilo  of  inili'pciult'nt  |iropri»'- 
torship;  l)iit  lltt  niri/  acci'iisioti/t,  whoso 
]iropii('toi«liip  is  iiuiili'tila!  to  that  of 
tlic    piiiiripal   composition.      Kmin   v. 

]\'/ii<itlii/,   [)  .\nu'r.  I^aw  Ki'g.,  17. — 
CAt)NVAt,l,A|)Klt,  J. ;  Pa.,  1800. 

2.  Antl  even  though  Mtieh    aililifiotis 
may  not  have  1  •■'H  inaije  liy  tlic  propri 
elnr,  hut  l»y  olhcrf,  |)roviilrii  Mich  pcr- 
HoiiH  wore  in  the  employ  of  the  proprie- 
tor.     //»/(/.,  4H. 

a.  Wliero  A  in  tlio  fjoneral  tlicafrical 
eniploytnent  of  II  was  I'liixa-jjeil  in  tlie 
ollifc  (»f  .assist ini;  in  the  uilaittation  of  a 
play  fcr  representation,  and  made  iiddi- 
tions  in  the  course  f)f  the  jierfonnaiiee 
of  his  duty,  Jfeld,  that  !>  Iteeanie  the 
proprietor  of  such  additions,  as  products 
of  his  intellectual  exertions  in  .i  partic- 
ular Kcrvicc  in  his  oinpUiyment.  Ih'ul^ 
49. 

4.  Whore  .-xn  inventor,  iti  the  course 
of  his  experiineiital  essays,  employs  uw 
assistant,  who  sugj^ests  and  adapts  a  sub- 
ordinate iiuprovenient,  it  is,  in  law,  an 


ADMIMSTIf  A'ronS.nTr.TTTM  AND 
roWKliS  ui',  A5)  TO  INVKN. 
TIONS. 

1.  An  rxeenfor  or  ndinlnUtrutor  of  n 
Joint  patent*'!'  may  maintain  an  actiou 
jointly  with  the  hurvi\in;(  |tat«'nteo  for 
un  infrinj^eiiH'nt.  \V hitti  mnec  \ .  Cutter, 
I  (tall.,  4:il.  -Sioia,  .1.;  Mass.,  IH|;l. 

'J.  riidcr  the  act  of  1h:ui,  |j  |H,  tho 
Itoard  of  Conmiissiiiners  appointed  to 
V(rant  nn  uxteiiMion  of  a  pati'iit  may  allow 
such  extension  to  the  le;j;al  rejjresefitr* 
tives  of  a  patentee,  upon  their  applica- 
tion, in  the  same  manner  as  ihou;;h  the 
application  hud  been  tnade  in  the  lifu. 
tiino  of  the  patentee.  XifinniC$  Cmtv, 
.'t  Opin.,  440. — (iiuNDY,  Atty.-Gt'U. ; 
1h:j'.). 

.'I.  An  administrator  or  executor  of  a 
deceased  patetiteo  may  apply  for  an  ex- 
tension of  a  patent,  and  the  patent  may 
lawfully  issue  to  him  on  such  ajipliea- 
tioii.  I'l/i  Jlinth  v.  Si-itihhr,  A!8. — 
Thompson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1843.  (Cite.l  in 
lirookx  V.  JihkiuU,  ;t  McLean,  438.) 

4.  If  a  p;iteiiti'e  is  de|id,  his  adminis- 
trator may  apply  for  and  olitain  an  ex- 
tension t)f  the  patent,  under  the  provis- 
ions of  the  18th  sectl'^n  of  the  act  of 
iHitit.  Jirooh-n  V.  Jiirkiicll,  n  McLean, 
•258, 'ico.— .M»Li:an,  J. ;  Ohio,  1813. 

5.  The  administrator  of  a  ileceasod 
patentee  may  apply  for  and  obtain  a  re- 
newal of  the  patent,  origmally  granted 
to  such  patentee.  Jirooks  v.  Itiflcnell, 
n  ^McLean,  430,438. — MciLkax,  J.;  Ohio, 
1814. 

0.  And  such  an  administrator,  io 
whoso  natno  a  patent  has  been  renewed, 


■Hi 


rifw, 


i;*"M 


:?vy, 


^      ^\ 


s^^^f-^^^ 


IL 


I      > 


^Sr 


9^ 


118 


AD.MiMSriJATOliS. 


111(1  in H  or,  AS   Tl>   INVKNTIONH. 


limy  pnuit  an  assinnnuMit  of  uii  iiilorcst  \wor(h  v.  J/<ii/,  I  Wiui.l.  it  ^liii.,  L'5I.— 


ihiMviii.     IfiiJ.,  III. 

7.  All  I'xii'iisioii  of  !i  patent  may  bo 
tiikrii  Dut  l>y  nil  atliirmistiator  of  a  »lo- 
foasul  pati'iitoi'.  Washburn  v.  (ii>nl(f, 
;i  Story,  133,  137. — Stouy,  J. ;  Alass., 
184t. 

S.  An  ailiiiinlstra'of  in  cumiu'tcnt  to 
apply  lor  and  r  vAm'  a  n-m-wal  or  rx- 
toiision  ol'a  patent.  WlnufiPtirth  v.  .SV/cr- 
*ni(n,  3  iStory,  172. — Stokv,  .1.;  Mass., 
1814. 

0.  J5  18  of  the  aet  of  IBHtl  antliorizes 
the  e\teiisit>n  of  a  patent,  on  the  nppli- 
eation  of  the  exeeutor  or  atliniiiUtra- 
toi"  of  tlio  ileoeaseil  patentee;  and  al- 
thoiiLjli  the  patentee  had,  dniinj^  his 
hfetiiiie,  tlisposeil  of  all  his  interest 
in  the  then  i-xistiiii;;  patent,  haviiiix  :it 
the  time  of  liis  death  no  rii^ht  or  title 
to,  or  Interest  in,  tlio  orii^iiial  patiMit. 
IV I'fso/i  V.  liossiiiif,  t  How.,  07ri-077, 
—  Ni;i,s*)v,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  181.'). 

li>.  And  sneh  an  evteiision  inures  to 
the  l)enolit  of  the  adniiiiistiator  only  in 
siirh  eai>aeity,  and  not  to  assiLjiu'es 
•Tiid  uraiitees,  s.)  as  to  vest  in  them  any 
exclusive  ri<;lit  wiiatever.  Those,  how- 
ever, who  are  in  the  use  of  the  ])atented 
article  at  the  time  of  the  renewal,  may 
eoiitiiiue  ti)  use   such  machines   or  arti- 


cles. /^/(/.,  u70-t)Sl. — (.Mrl.io.w,  ,1.,  and 
Woonnrnv,  J.,  dissent iiiLj,  holdiiiLT  that 
Mich  e\tcnsi()ii  woiihl  inure  to  those 
!i>sii:;nees  who  had  bv  exin'css  aijive- 
nieiit  secure  1  an  inti-rest  in  the  exten- 
sion.) 

U.  An  administrator  may,  niuler  §  18 
of  tlie  aet  of  1830,  api)ly  for  and  take 
an  extension  of  a  patent.  IVoodworth 
V.  U7/*'(>//,  4  How.,  710. — Nki.sox,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

12.  The  renewal  of  a  patent  in  the 
name  of  an  administrator  iss^ood,  as  an 
invention  is  personal  jn-operty.    Wood- 


WooouiKV,  J.;  Mass.,  1810. 

l;l.  It  is  not  necessary,  in  an  action 
by  an  adiniiiislralor.  tiiat  lie  should  pro- 
duce his  li'tters  of  administialion.  'i'ho 
patent  beiiiLf  renewed  to  him  as  admin- 
istrator, is  ])roof  tliat  liu  had  satisfied 
the  odiccr  aiitl'ori/.cd  to  j^rant  a  renewal, 
of  his  bciii;^  adiiiinistrator,  and  it  ix  not 
eonipeteni  for  tJie  court  to  go  behind 
that  tlecision.     Ibid.,  'J.")4. 

14.  An  administrator  of  a  jiatenteo, 
residintjin  one  state,  may  commence  an 
action  in  the  rniteii  Sti.t'-s  Circuit  Court 
of  :uu)ther  state,  for  the  recovery  of 
damaj^es  for  an  infringement  of  u  pat- 
ent, without  taking;  outletters  of  admin- 
islration  in  the  latter  state.     iSinifh  v. 

!  Jfrrctr,  .'i  Venn.    Law    Jour.,    531.— 
Kank,  .1.;  Pa.,  184(i. 

15.  The  same  ritjht  extends  to  tho 
•grantee  or  assij^noe  of  such  administra- 
tor.    Ibid. 

10.  Administrators  of  an  inti'stalo 
have  no  riLrht,  as  administrators,  toi'ar- 
ry  on  the  biisiiu'ssof  manufacturinijf  ami 
selliui;  a  patenti'd  article,  by  virtue  of  a 
license  or  ai^reeir.ent  held  by  []w  intes- 
tate, fartlier  tiian  to  complete  the  ma- 
chines bej^iin  by  the  intestate  diirint.';  his 
lifetime,  and  imlinished  at  his  dcntli; 
I'ut  they  can  sell  and  transfer  such  ri;;Iii, 
and  the  purchaser  Avouhl  aecpiire  all  the 
riohts  securiHl  to  the  inti'stali'  diiriii;; 
his  lifetime.  l*itts  v.  Jiimeso/i.  1") 
r>arb.,  S.  C,  310. — Johnson,  J.;  N, 
Y.,    1853. 

1  7.  Under  §  10  of  the  act  of  1830,  if 
an  inventor  die  before  he  Iris  obtained  a 
patent  for  his  invention,  no  ])erson  other 
than  his  executor  or  administrator  can 
apply  for  a  patent  for  eueh  invention, 
and  the  jtatent  must  bo  issued  to  such 
j)ersons  in  trust  for  the  heirs  at  law  or 
ilevisees  of  the  inventor,     Sfiitqtson  v. 


1851). 

18. 

ill  the 

exeeiil 

it.     It 

set  for 

tee,  us 

does  ii 

devisoi 

whom  I 

Ibid. 


AGJ 


4.   ThcJ 


AiJKNT  AND  KMPl.OYKK. 


110 


MAUILIl'lKH  OK,  AH   1N»'UIMIKIIH. 


Jio(fvrn,   t   IMiiU'lit". — Inokusui.i,,  J.;   C't., 

inr)ii. 

18.  It  iR'uil  not  liowovorbo  exprossotl 
ill  tito  |>altMit  tliat  it  U  issiiod  to  niu-1i 
exoi'iitor  ///  tnti>t  /or  tlioHo  iMititli'il  to 
it.  It  will  Ito  sulVu'ii'Ut  tliiit  tlu'  |iiit*iit 
Hot  tbrtli  tliat  it  wiis  issuod  to  the  j.;nui- 
too,  us  I'Xi'oiitor.  Wiiat  the  v'xo('\it'.»r 
(looH  ill  ri'latioii  to  tlio  |>ro|n'rty  of  tlin 
ili'visor,  lie  (lot's  in  trust  lor  ilioso  to 
whom  such  proporty  is  given  hy  tlio  will. 
Bid. 


AGENT  AND  EMPLOYEE. 

1.  A  inoro  workman,  etnph)yetl  by 
others  than  the  patentee  to  in.ake  parts 
oi'  a  patenteil  artiele,  is  not  liable  to  an 
notion  I'or  intViiiijement  an-l  ilanuiges. — 
JJditnov.  iSrott,  (iilpin,  407,  41)8.— IIoi-- 
KiNsoN,  ,1. ;  Ta.,  1834. 

2.  The  seller  of  an  artiele  is  the  owner 
for  whom  it  is  sold ;  not  the  man  or 
hoy  in  the  sln)p  who  delivers  it  to  the 
buyer  and  receives  the  money. —  £l>hl., 
41)8. 

3.  Whether  a  person  who  acts  as  the 
mere  agent  of  another,  is  responsible 
ill  (hiniagc'^  for  the  infringement  of  a 
pjitriit,  and  may  be  i-iijoined;  gucri/. 
Jioyd  V.  M-A/piHC,'i  JMcLean,  430.— 
MrLK.w,  .1.;  Ohio,  1844. 

4.  There  are,  however,  strong  reasons 
why  the  interest  of  a  principal  should, 
by  an  action  at  law  and  also  by  a  bill  in 
chancery,  bo  reached  through  his  agent. 
Ibid,  431. 

5.  An  action  of  infringement  will  lie 
against  the  parties  making  a  machine 
which  is  ])alented,  thougli  such  persons 
arc  employed  by  others  to  do  the  work. 
But  if  such  parties  liavo  acted  without 


a  kii(>wh'dge  of  tliu  plaiiitilV's  right, 
only  noiiiiiial  damages  should  bi>  found 
against  them.  .AVycn  v.  /hrr,  3  JSIc- 
Lcaii,  68L',  683. — McI.kan,  J. ;  Mich., 
18  If). 

(i.  An  injunction  Avill  be  granteil  as 
well  against  an  agent,  wlio  merely  Hells 
the  article  which  infringes  a  patent,  a?, 
against  the  nmnufartuivr,  as  both  are 
joint  trespassers,  and  they  may  be  sued 
ji>intly.  Ilttc/c  V.  Co/ih  «£•  JLnndnce, 
0  Law  lup.,  O.  S,,  547. — Conku.no,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1840. 

7.  An  injunction  will  issue  against  ft 
person  who  runs  a  machine,  as  well  aa 
against  those  who  own  it.  Woodwurth 
V.  J'Alwdi'ds,  a  Wood.  A;  INlin.,  133. — 
\V«)oi)uiuv,  J.;   Mass.,  1S47. 

8.  iVii  jiction  for  an  infringement  of  a 
patent  will  lie  against  the  managing  di- 
rectors and  agents  of  an  incorporated 
company,  and  it  is  not  a  g«)od  objection 
(hat  they  are  not  liable  for  the  inlVinge- 
iiieiit  charged,  betiauso  they  are  only 
stoi'kholders  in  the  company,  (iood' 
tjMi'ibX.  I'l  Oar  iSprimj  Co.  v.  J'/ufptt, 
3  r.latchf.,  1)2.— Nklson,  J.;  M.  Y., 
lsr)3. 

9.  A  decree  for  an  account  cannot  bo 
had  against  a  workman,  as  he  has  no- 
thing to  «lo  with  the  prolit.  jSctrt/cant 
V.  /Atnied,  2  CUirt.,  340. — Cturis,  J.; 
Mass.,  1855. 

10.  ^\n  altachment  for  a  violation  of 
an  injunction  may  issue  against  the  agent 
and  acting  ollicer  of  the  «lefeiidaiit,  a 
foreign  corporation,  and  he  is  not  ex- 
emi)ted  therefrom  on  the  groiiiul  that 
ho  is  a  mere  8orv:mt  of  the  defendant. 
— Sickles  V.  Borden,  3  or  4  JMatclif. — 
IIai.l,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

11.  Where  the  violation  of  the  in- 
junction was  tho  nso  of  the  thing  pat- 
(Mited,  on  a  steamboat,  JIdd,  that  tho 
eiigintor  was  properly  made  a  party  to 


"•■4 1 


v$^^^. 


ii|| 


i.-'/l 


'i«l*i< 


^X*-?** 

P*'*'**^. 


H  i 


•Ww '«'*■•*" 


'iimp-^ 


*1-,5P,«- 


.,.„,, 


.vwwwy  . 


www  -^"V; 


120 


AGKEK.MENTS,  A. 


A8  TO  COl'VIUOIirS. 


tbo  proceeding,  and  lliat  an  attachment 
would  irtsuu  iijtjaiiiist  him. — Il>id. 

12.  The  i'aft  that  aH  between  tliom- 
solvos,  parlies  are  connected  topetlier  aB 
tlio  stock! lolders,  managers,  and  servants 
of  an  incorporated  company,  will  not  ex- 
empt them  frOm  heing  enjoined,  or  be- 
ini^  liable  to  an  action  for  infrinj^cniciit. 
J'opjH'iiIicjhHcn  y.Fidkcy  3IS. — Snir.MAx, 
J.;  X.  Y.,  1801. 


A. 
B. 


AGUEEMEXTS. 

As  TO  CoPYnKinis 120 

As  TO  Taikxts 121 

A.    As  TO  COPYIIIGHTS. 


1 .  A  contract  to  reprint  a  literary  work, 
the  copyright  to  wliich  lias  been  secured 
by  the  autlior,  is  void,  unless  it  is  en- 
tered into  with  the  consent  of  the 
author,  or  his  assignee.  Klchols  v. 
Jiwjtjles,  ?>  Day,  158.— Ct.,  1808. 

5.  A  printer  who  executes  such  a  con- 
tract with  a  knowledge  of  the  rights  of 
the  author,  can  recover  nothing  for  his 
labor.     Ibid.^  158. 

3.  Joint  owners  of  a  copyright  may 
make  a  contract  between  themselves  as 
to  the  printing  and  publishing  of  the 
work,  and  neither  will  be  permitted  to 
Bet  lip  against  the  other  his  original 
rights  as  a  joint  owner,  in  violation 
of  such  contract.  Gould  v.  Hanks, 
8  Wend.,  508.— Xelson,  J.;  X.  Y., 
1832. 

4.  Where  an  agreement  was  entered 
into  between  two  persons,  that  the  one 
should  prepare  for  press  a  cert.ain  vol- 
ume, and  the  other  agreed  to  pay  "for 
the  copyright"  of  said  volume  the  sum 


of  live  hundred  dollars,  Ifdd,  that  such 
agreement  nuist  be  c<mHtrned  as  having 
been  made  with  reference  to  the  then 
existing  term  of  fourteen  years,  and  did 
not  include  the  second  term  of  fourteen 
years.  Pierpont  v.  JAncle,  2  Wood.  & 
Min.,  £5,  43. — AYooduuuy,  J. ;  JIasa., 
1840. 

6.  A  further  .agreement  between  the 
same  parties  in  respect  to  other  volumes, 
provided  that  the  copyright  of  them 
should  be  "  considered  their  joint  and 
c(pial  property."  Jleld  also  as  to  this, 
that  it  was  to  be  construed  accordincr 
to  the  same  princi])le  as  referring  only 
to  the  first  term.     Jbid.,  25,  43. 

0.  If  the  second  term  is  to  be  embra- 
ced in  any  agreement,  there  must  be  lan- 
guage used  more  comprehensive  tlian 
"copyright,"  showhig  an  intention  to 
treat  as  to  the  future  interest.  Ibid.,  45. 

7.  Where  an  agreement  as  to  the  pub- 
lication of  a  manuscript  was  made  Avith 
a  party,  who  Avas  authorized  to  "  print 
as  many  copies  as  he  could  sell,"  Jlcld, 
th.at  this  did  not  apply  to  a  single 
edition,  but  Avas  intended  to  operate  as 
long  as  sales  could  be  made,  Pidte  v. 
Derby,  5  McLean,  332,  333. — McLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1852. 

8.  And  siiclr  party  is  bound  to  i)ub- 
lish  as  long  as  there  is  a  demund.  Ibid., 
335. 

9.  Where,  under  such  an  agreement, 
the  publisher  took  the  copyright  in  his 
own  name,  and  Avith  the  consent  of  the 
author,  such  copyi'ight  is  in  him  only 
for  the  purposes  of  such  contract.  He 
h.as  no  right  to  assign  it,  nor  to  publish 
the  Avork  except  upon  the  terms  of  such 
contract.     Ibid.,  335. 

10.  Xor  has  the  author  a  right  to  take 
out  a  copyright  in  his  own  name,  or 
publish  the  Avork,  in  disregard  of  the 
contract.     Ibid.,  335. 


See 

CENSE, . 

1.  w 

purchas 
Avriting, 
uiiderst: 
not  be  a 
cxplainc( 
ambiguit 
Wright, 
2.  Ao 
h,  Avho  d 
Avould  joi 
C  and  ji" 
join  Avith 
take  the 
agreed  su 
ness  was  c 
C  his  note 
ciiig  U  to 
to  buy;  bi 
terest  for  i 
an  action 
Jfdd,  that 
against  A  ; 
siitthi-ed,  b 
owner,  to  a 
of  the  pate; 
liad  sold  Jii: 
gave  for  it 
not  sustaine 
12  Coim.,  4 


AGREEMENTS,  B. 


121 


AS  TO  I'ATKNTS. 


B.  As  TO  Patents. 
See    also  Assignmrnt,  C,  and  Li- 

CBNSK,  A. 

1.  Where  a  contract  for  the  sale  and 
purcliaHo  ot'  a  patent  is  reduced  to 
writing,  it  is  Kup)tosed  to  embody  the 
luulerstaiulinii;  of  the  parties,  and  can- 
not be  altered  or  enlarged  by  parol,  or 
explained  except  in  respect  to  a  latent 
ambiguity.  Edwards  v.  Itichards, 
Wright,  597.— Lane,  J.;  Ohio,  1834. 

2.  A  offered  to  sell  a  patent-right  to 
li,  Avho  declined  to  purchase  unless  C 
would  join  with  him,  A  then  went  to 
C  and  agreed  with  liim  that  he  should 
join  with  B,  and  that  lie.  A,  Avould 
tiike  the  notes  of  each  for  lialf  the 
agreed  sum;  but  as  soon  as  the  busi- 
ness was  closed  ho  would  give  back  to 
C  his  note,  and  pay  him  for  thus  indu- 
cing B  to  buy.  B  Mas  thus  induced 
to  buy ;  but  he  afterward  sold  his  in- 
terest for  more  than  he  gave  for  it.  In 
an  action  by  B  against  A  for  the  fraud, 
Held,  that  B  had  a  right  to  recover 
ayainst  A  any  damages  he  might  have 
suttlired,  by  not  liaving  C  as  a  joint 
owner,  to  aid  or  assist  in  making  sales 
of  the  patent,  and  that  the  fact  that  lie 
li;\d  sold  his  interest  for  more  than  he 
g:ivo  for  it  did  not  show  that  he  had 
not  sustained  damage.  Gidver  v.  Webb, 
12  Conn.,  441,  443.— Waite,  J.;  Ct., 
1838. 

3.  Where  in  the  conditions  of  a  con- 
tract for  the  sale  of  a  patent,  it  was 
provided  that  if  certain  defects  were 
found  to  exist  in  the  patent,  the  con- 
tract should  be  void,  and  a  general 
clause  followed,  providing  that  if  there 
should  be  any  other  defect  lohatever^  the 
contract  should  also  be  void.    Held, 


that  this  Jiad  reference  to  defects  in  tho 
l)atent,  and  not  in  tho  mrtchino  itself, 
arte  'ting  its  intrinsic  value.  Vdiighan 
V.  Porter,  10  Verm.,  2G7,  270.— Ked- 
FIELD,  J.;  Vt.,  1844. 

4.  Where  it  was  stipulated  between 
A  and  B  that  B  sliould  bo  entitled  to 
use  A's  patent  three  days  in  a  week 
until  a  given  date,  and  that  A  would 
not  ])rosecuto  any  action  against  B  for 
any  former  violation,  provided  B  shoiUd 
not  use  sticli  patent  after  the  specified 
date,  or  by  any  other  machine  infringe 
A's  right,  Jldd,  that  such  proviso, 
introduced  by  the  plaintiff,  and  not 
placing  any  personal  obligation  on  tho 
defendant,  did  not  opei'ato  as  an  estop- 
pel against  B  to  prevent  him  showing 
tho  truth  in  regard  to  the  validity  of 
tho  right  of  A.  Jiich  v.  Ilotchkiss,  16 
Conn.,  41 9, 420.— Williams,  Ch.  J.;  Ct., 
1844. 

5.  If  a  party  has  been  misled  in  a 
contract,  and  on  that  ground  contends 
that  he  is  not  bound  by  it,  ho  must 
repudiate  it  and  claim  nothing  under  it. 
lie  cannot  claim  that  jiart  which  is  fa- 
vorable, and  reject  that  which  operates 
against  him.  Brooks  v.  Stolley,  3  Mc- 
Lean, 526. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1845. 

6.  But  if  ho  claim  any  right  under 
the  contract,  he  must  show  that  l.e  lias 
done  every  thing  on  his  part  equitably 
required  of  hhn,  to  entitle  him  to  the 
rights  asserted.    Ibid.,  527. 

7.  He  must  take  the  contract  as  it  is. 
A  court  of  equity  may,  for  fraud  or 
mistake,  direct  a  contract  to  be  delivered 
up  and  cancelled,  but  cannot  alter  it. 
Ibid.,  528. 

8.  Where  a  party  K.  entered  into  an 
agreement  with  a  patentee  P.  in  respect 
to  the  manufacture  of  the  machines  pat- 
ented by  P.,  and  P.,  though  an  origi' 
nal  hiventor  of  such  machine,  was  not 


'4^w« 


><s,*'^ 


M 


?« 


.    ml 


'■*  wilkbJi'  I  i, 


J  i 


ipp^lppjffc 


AGREEMENTS,  B. 


*.^ 


AS  TO    I'ATENT8. 


tljo  Jlrst  iiivonlor,  of  Avliicli  facts  how- 
ever K.  was  iiMaro  at  the  time  of 
inakin<r  such  a^'rocinont,  ITehl,  that  an 
injunrrioii  would  is.siio  agauist  lu  to 
restrain  iilin  from  malving  and  vendin<^ 
Bucli  inadiincs  in  violation  of  such 
aj^reemcnt.  Pa.'khurst  v.Junsman,  8 
K.  y.  Log.  Obs.,  V4.— Bkits,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
18t8. 

9.  While  the  exclusive  rights  of  a 
patentee  arc  specially  guartlcd  from  in- 
trusion, the  contracts  which  he  makes 
to  share  them  with  third  persons  are 
interpreted  and  enforced  in  the  same 
maimer  as  other  legal  engagements. 
Morse  V.  O'likUt/,  G  Penn.  Law  Jour., 
601  (2  AVhar.  Dig.,  414),  Pa.,  1848. 

10.  Where  the  purchaser  of  an  in- 
terest in  a  patent  had  an  election  un- 
der the  contract  of  sale,  Avithin  n  given 
time,  to  recede  from  the  purchase,  and  re- 
turn the  deed  taken,  or  complete  it  and 
pay  the  purchase  price,  and  ho  failed  or 
neglected  to  return  the   deed   within 
Buch   time,  although  at   the  time   the 
contract    of  f<alc  was  entered  into  the 
patent  was  actually  void  because  em- 
bracing more  than  the  patentee  had  in- 
vented, but  during  the  period  of  election 
an  act  was  passed  (gOofactof  1837,)  ren- 
dering such  patents  valid  to  the  extent 
of  the  actual  invention  of  the  patentee, 
Held,  that  the  pateiili  e  became  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  the  act,  provided  his 
invention  was  a  material  and  substan- 
tial pai't  of  the  thuig  jxitcnted  and  defi- 
nitely distinguishable  from  the   other 
parts    claimed   without  right;   that  it 
afforded  a  sufficient  consideration  for 
the  agreement,  which  was  to  be   con- 
strued the  same  as  if  made  at  the  end 
of  the  time  at  which  the  right  to  recede 
■was  limited,     Ilotchklss  v.   Oliver,  5 
Denio,   319, 320.— McKissock,   J.;  N. 
Y,1848. 


11.   W.,    the   patentee   of    a  patent 
about  to  expire,  sold  to  0!.  all  his  right 
in   the   extension   thereof,  if  granted, 
for  a  certain  territory,  except  as  to  two 
machines,  the   right  to  one    of  which 
was   held   by  K.    under   the    original 
patent,  and  the  right  to  the  other  was 
reserved  by  W.  liimself.      On  the  saiuo 
day  W.  agreed   with   K.,  if  the  pat- 
ent was  extended,  to  give  him  an  as- 
signment to  run  his   machine   durin"- 
such  extension,  and  W.  also  sold  to  K. 
the  right   to  the  machine  reserved  to 
himself.     K.  paid  a  sum  of  money  down 
on  such  agreement,  but  afterward  re- 
fused to  fulfil  such  agreement.     W.  as- 
signed to   I.  all   his  interest  in  such 
agreement  as  to  such  two   machines, 
and  afterward  G.  released  to  I.  all  inter- 
est, if  any,   he  might  have  in  those 
machines.     I.  then   gave  a  license  to 
use  the  two  machines  to  the  defendants, 
and  they  put  them  in  use  under  such 
license.     K.  also  continued  the  use  of 
his  two  machines.      G.  then   filed  his 
bill  to  restrain  the  use  of  the  machines 
by  the  defendants,  under  the  license 
from  L,  the  assignee  of   W.      Held, 
that  the  failure  of  K.  to  fulfil  his  agree- 
ment with  W.  did  not  annul  and  cancel 
such  .agreement ;  it  was  a  contract  part- 
ly executed.    ,  Gibson  v.   Harnard,  1 
JJlatchf.,  389-392.— Nelson,  J.;  No.N, 
Y.,  1848. 

12.  Held,  also,  that  although  a  court 
of  equity  might  decree  a  surrender  of 
such  agreement  on  terms,  until  that 
was  done,  K.  was  in  the  lawful  use  and 
enjoyment  of  the  two  machines  under 
the  extended  patent.     Ibid.,  392. 

13.  And  even  if  the  agreement  was 
annulled,  W.  could  grant  to  L  only  the 
right  to  use  one  machine,  as  the  other 
was  secured  to  K.  by  the  decision  of  the 
Supremo  Court  in  4  How.    Ibid.^  392. 


14.  . 

ants  Jia 

under  I 

was  ent 

such  us 

15.  1 

hooks  o; 

a  suit  ill 

fringing 

also  eacl 

shoes," 

right  to  1 

C  then, 

dency  of 

nient  to  ( 

ther,  "  th 

hercjiftor 

of  such  <i 

fit,    notw 

claims;"  i 

right  to  nii 


hwifnk 


AGREEMENTS,  B. 


123 


A8  TO  PATENTS. 


14.  //I'W,  thorofore,  thiit  the  dolbiul- 
ants  liiiil  no  right  tu  usu  thu  iiKichinus 
under  thu  liccnHo  from  I.,  and  that  G. 
was  untitled  to  an  injuimtiou  restraining 
Buch  use.     Ibid.,  39'J. 

15.  IJ  li.-xving  a  patent  for  "making 
hooks  or  brad-hoaded  spikes,"  brought 
a  suit  in  his  own  namu  against  C  for  in- 
fringing such  patent.  B  and  C  li.ad 
also  each  a  patent  for  "  making  liorsu- 
ghocs,"  but  JJ  claimed  tho  exclusive 
riglit  to  make  such  horse-shoes.  B  and 
C  then,  afterward  and  during  tho  pen- 
dency of  such  suit,  untorcd  into  an  agree- 
luent  to  discontinuo  such  suit,  and  far- 
ther, "that  tho  said  parties  may  eaclt 
hereafter  manufacture  and-  vend  spikes 
of  sucli  character  and  kind  as  they  see 
fit,  notwithstanding  their  conflicting 
claims;"  and  B  was  to  have  tho  sole 
right  to  maiuifacture  horse-shoes.  Held, 
that  such  agreement  was  a  license  to  C 
to  mauufixcturo  tho  hook -headed  spike 
under  the  patent  of  13.  Troy  Iron  cmd 
Nail  Factory  v.  Corning,  1  ]>latchf., 
470,  472.— Nklson,  J. ;  No.  N.  Y.,  1849. 
[Reversed,  ;)0S«  28,  1852.] 

IC.  B  having,  at  tho  time  of  the  ma- 
king such  agreement,  the  legal  title  to  the 
patent,  and  the  suit  for  the  infringement, 
which  was  ono  of  tho  subjects  of  the 
settlement,  being  also  in  his  name,  JIdd, 
that  such  settlement  or  agreement  bound 
third  parties,  who  claimed  to  hold  the 
equitable  title  at  the  time  of  such  set- 
tleniunt,  .and  who  afterward  took  the 
lejial  title,  and  that  such  agreement  of 
Bettlement  was  a  bar  to  an  action  brought 
by  BUch  third  parties  against  C ;  and 
particularly  as  B,  at  the  time  of  such 
bettlement,  was  the  agent  of  such  third 
Barties,and  largely  interested  with  them 
ji  their  business.    Ibid.,  474. 

17.  By  an  agreement  with  M.,  the 
patentee  of  the   electro-magnetic  tele- 


graph, antl  his  associates,  O'll,,  was  to 
construct  a  I'tio  of  telegraph  "to  con- 
nect the  seaboard  line  at  I'hiladelphia,  or 
at  some  other  point  nearest  to  Ilarris- 
burgh,  thenco  through  Ilarrisburgh  to 
Pittsburgh,  and  through  Wheeling  and 
Cincimiati  to  St.  Louis,  and  also  to  the 
principid  towns  on  the  Lakes!''  Jldd,  on 
a  l»ill  Jiled  to  restrain  thu  use  of  M.'s  in- 
struments on  a  Hno  of  tel('grai)h  from 
JJuffalo  tc»  Erie,  that  the  line  rumiing 
through  the  places  named  might  bo  con- 
sidered as  a  base  line,  and  that  the 
whole  of  the  territory  north  of  that  line, 
extending  to  tho  towns  on  tho  Lakes, 
was  intended  to  bo  included  in  tho 
gr.ant;  and  that  therefore  tho  defend- 
ants ought  not  to  bo  enjoined.  Smith 
V.  Sehien,  1  Blatchf.,  470-478.— NkI/. 
SOX,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

rs.  Held,  also,  from  looking  at  such 
telegraph  line  on  tho  map,  or  construing 
the  agreement  from  its  subject  matter, 
that  tho  lakes  contemplated  en\braced 
the  lakes  Erie,  Huron,  Michigan,  and 
Superior,  but  that  the  line  specifically 
named  and  the  lakes  in  connection  there- 
with, fairly  excluded  the  lake  Ontario. 
Ibid.,  478. 

1 9.  The  reservation  of  a  right,  in  such 
agreement,  to  M.  and  his  associates  "  to 
extend  a  lino  from  ButValo  to  connect 
with  the  lake  towns  at  Erie,"  was  not  an 
exclusive  right,  and  therefore  not  in- 
consistent with  the  grant  to  O'll.  Ibid., 
479. 

20.  In  the  case  of  a  well-founded 
doubt  as  to  the  true  construction  of  tho 
agreement,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  grant, 
the  conclusion  should  be  against  the  par- 
ties who  have  made  the  gr.ant,  as  th&y 
are  chargeable  with  any  obscurity  in 
that  respect  in  the  agreement.  Ibid.y 
479. 

21.  K.  purchased  an  interest  in  a  pat 


''^^^Wv^,,^ 


is, 


SI 


Him; 


UilUl 


k 


:ywww, 


,wy 


*'f^: 


'■^UK 


'WW  "  '^  "  - 


Ml 


'«J(w!(j 


1  \  1 


V^W.W'' 


nrr 


124 


A(;ilKKMKNTS,  Jl. 


! 


if  v....    "^a. 


AH  TO   I'ATKNTH. 


cut,  ftiiJ  ii^^rt'i'tl  with  tlui  |mtoiiteo,  upon 
certain  coiiditioiiH,  to  Kivt?  hin  pcrsoii.'i! 
ntloiitioi)  to  miiiiurru'tiiriiiLC  of  iiiacliiiit's 
under  tlio  p.'iti-iit;  al'lorwanl  !i((  inatjo 
n  Ht'coiwl  ai^rt't'iin'nt  with  the  patcntt'o, 
wht'r»!l»y  hf,  IC,  aj^rced  to  discontinue 
Buch  nmnidjictiirc,  and  tlie  patentee  was 
to  carry  it  on,  reiuh-rinj^  to  K.  a  certain 
]>roportion  ot'  tlie  profits.  y/(/7,  (hat 
by  virtue  of  sucli  a;^'rceuienls  K.  was 
estopped,  ill  an  action  broutjht  aj^ainst 
liini  by  the  patentee  for  continuiii!^  such 
iiiaiiuf'icture,  and  for  an  account,  from 
HetliiiiJC  up  the  (U-feiice  that  siicli  paten- 
tee was  not,  the  oriuiiial  and  lirst  iiiveii- 
tor  of  the  thinijc  ])ateiittMl.  Pdrkliiirxi 
v./CfUHman,  1  r>lat«"if,  400,  4!)6.— Nk!,- 
Kox,  J.;  N.  v.,  1849.  LAtririiied  1855, 
Jiosf  41.] 

'J'J.  ./fi/<l,  also,  th:  t  such  agreement 
■was  not  void  as  lieiiiix  in  restraint  of 
trade,  and  a<j:ainst  the  ))riiicipU's  of  pub- 
lic ])oiicy,  but  was  siinply  an  ordi- 
nary partnership  business  arrangement. 
I/>i(f.y   41)5,   4!)l).    [.Vflinned  185"), pos^ 

'J;J.  "NVIiere  it  is  evident  that  the  legal 
oflbct  of  a  contr.'ict,  according  to  (he 
terms  of  it,  is  differont  from  the  actual 
agreeiiuMit  made  at  the  time  betwei'ii 
tlii^  ])arties,  a  court  of  etpiity  Avonld 
prol)al)]y,  n])on  a  proper  appHcation,  di- 
rect the  contract  to  be  reformed  by  the 
insertion  of  a  clause  to  the  effect  claimed. 
Wood  worth  V.  Cook,  'J  I'.latehf.,  158.— 
N^i.sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

24.  l?ut  such  contract  cannot  be  re- 
formed, where  rights  of  a  bona  Jhh' 
purchaser  have  intervened,  which  would 
or  might  be  seriously  prejudiced  by 
allowing  such  contract  to  be  reformed, 
ov  defence  set  np.     Ibid.,  150. 

25.  "Where  a  contract  as  to  the  use  of 
a\iatent,  provided  for  a  certain  mode  of 
a«certaining  the  amount  of  fuel  saved 


by  it  In  Hteani  inaehinc'ry,  evidence  hav- 
ing  !)een  given  of  that  tent,  it  's  eoinpi<< 
lent  to  eonnnn  it  by  other  tests  tiiiide 
by  others  and  in  odicr  boa(s.  lI'rvA, 
iCv.    Piirkit    (!».  v.    Sirkl(\%    10   II(.\v-., 

4:i8.~(iuiKit,  .1.;  Sup.  ('(.,  1850. 

20.  A  contract  to  use  a  patent  nia- 
eliin«><luriiig  the  coiitiiiiiance  of  the  pat- 
ent, and  to  i)ay  therefor  :i  lixe(l  propor- 
lion  of  the  value  of  the  fuel  sav('(l  there- 
by, is  jin  entire  eon(rac(,  and  will  not 
sup; ort  nn  action  until  the  expiralimiof 
the  patent.  It  would  be  otherwise  if 
payments  had  been  agreed  (o  have  heeu 
made  by  inst.'illments.      Fbhf.,  Ill, 

27.  A  eon(ra(!t  for  the  nale  of  a  p.u- 
cnt  right  for  a  given  sum,  to  lie  paid 
out  of  moneys  which  the  ])nrcliaser 
should,  at  his  own  cost  and  risk,  collect 
from  persons  infringing  (he  righ(s  of  (ho 
pa(entee  Avithin  the  territory  sold,  Is 
void,  as  amounting  to  chainpeity,  and 
the  assignment  of  torts.  Wi/itcrhiiitc 
V.  JIuhi/i/iirj/,  10  West.  L;iw  Jour.,  52. 
— SriMVKi,!.,  J. ;  Ohio,  1851. 

28.  An  agreement  made  between  1> 
and  C  and  others,  providing  for  the  spl- 
t  lenient  of  various  mat  t  ers ;  I  he  discont  in- 
uaneo  of  certain  suits,  and  also  as  to  the 
manufacture  of  a  certain  article,  as  fol- 
lows:  "  that  the  said  parties  may  e.icli 
hereafter  manufacture  and  vend  spike  of 
such  kind  and  character  as  they  see  fit, 
notwhhstanding  their  eonilicting  claims 
to  this  time,"  must  be  construed  with  ref- 
erence to  the  sitn.ations  of  tho  parties 
to  it;  and  ]>  h.aving  claimed  that  lio 
had  the  exclusive  right,  under  his  patent, 
to  make  such  spikes,  wliich  right  the 
defendant  C  was  infringing,  but  the  do- 
fendant  claiming  that  he  did  not  iiifiinije 
such  patent,  but  made  such  spikes  by 
.•xn  entirely  different  method,  Jleld,  tliat 
such  agreement  did  not  give  C  a  lieonso 
to  make  such  sj>ikcs  after  B's  patent, 


but  only 

Name  pro 

hel'ore    u> 

/vV.    v. 

\\  avm;, 

20.  All 

owner   of 

/,'rantee    ( 

use,  .-iiiil  < 

in,'ieliiii(>  p; 

tiiry,  but  I 

right  to  sc 

chines  of  || 

operate  ;is 

tlie  grantc 

cured  by  tl 

t(»lT.    /'//(.I 

Johnson,  ,| 
.10.  It  is 

of  a  license 

more  th.'in  ; 

is  a  fixed  c( 

grantee,  juk 

315. 
31.  It  is 

not  in  posse 
his  assigns 
long  as  till' 
it.  Wliencvi 
tlio  rights  sei 
to  the  grants 
the  grantor 
som  to  make 
machine,  in 
ing  respousi 

reprcsentativ 
31G. 

32.  The  re 
also  a  mere 
transferable  t 

33.  U])on 
the  contract, 
to  his  adminii 
316. 

34.  The  gri 


ACKKKMKNIN,  15. 

AH  Til    I'MKMH. 


12S 


bill  only  :*  rii^'lil.  I<»  iniiko  tlirtn  liy  tlu' 
Hikiiir  piiKM'ss  or  luai'liiiu'iy  lu;  liatl  l)i'<>ii 
bolbro  tisiii}^.  Troi/  /n>n  anil  Null 
Juie.  V.  Voniiii;/,  It  How.,  'JlU. — 
Wavni;,  .1.;  Sup.  ("I.,  Ih.VJ. 

20.  All  aj^'rci'iiH'iit  iiiiulf  hctwcrri  (lie 
owner  <»('  u  paU-iit,  Hucuiiiig  (<>  tlif 
craiitoc  tlid  exclusive  rij^lil,  to  iiiaki', 
USO,  ami  Hi'll  to  otluTH  to  l)u  Jiscil,  the 
inncliiiu' |»att'iil(Ml,  williin  :i  certain  tcni- 
tiirv,  l>iit  ri'scrviiij^  to  tliu  j^rantor  tlic 
riLjIit  to  sell,  williin  such  territory,  ina- 
cliiiics  of  his  own  nianufacture,  docs  not 
n|ii'rat('  .'IS  an  .'issii^'iiincnt  or  translVtr  to 
llif  ^rant(fi)  of  the  riu;lit  and  tilh;  se- 
cured hy  the  p.aleni,  within  hiicIi  terri- 
t(M y.  /'ids  V.  Jitificvjn,  1 T)  1  Jarb., l)\^>. — 
JoMNSo.v,  .r.;  N.  v.,  1H5;». 

no.  ll  is  an  iiLjreonienl  in  the  nature 
of  a  rp'i'usc  to  nianiifaetun'  and  «ell,l)iit 
more  than  ii  nu-ro  technical  license,;  it 
is  a  fixed  contract  rij^lit,  vested  in  the 
grantee,  and  assignaldo  by  him.  //>/</., 
315. 

31.  It  is  however  .a  choso  inaction, 
not  in  possession,  and  the  giautee  and 
his  assigns  can  retain  the  riglu  only  so 
loni,'  as  the  business  is  prosecuted  under 
it.  Whenever  the  business  is  abandoned, 
the  rights  secured  by  the  contract  revert 
to  the  grantor.  Then,  but  not  till  then, 
the  grantor  can  sell  rights  to  third  per- 
BJiis  to  make,  sell  .and  use,  the  ])atented 
machine,  in  such  territory  without  be- 
ing responsible  to  the  grantee,  or  liis 
representatives,  for  damages.  Ibid., 
310. 

32.  The  reservation  by  the  grantor  is 
also  a  mere  person.al  privilege,  and  not 
transferable  to  otliers.     Ibid.,  310. 

33.  Upon  the  death  of  the  grantee, 
the  contract,  and  the  rights  imdcr  it,  go 
to  his  admininistrators  as  assets.  Ibid., 
316. 

34.  The  granting  a  new  license  by  the 


grantor,  to  .another  person,  is  im  bar  to 
an  action  on  such  cuiitracl  to  recover 
the  aniomit  agreed  ^•  he  paid  for  ma- 
chines iiiaMufaetiired  under  such  coii- 
Iracl,  but  may  be  available  by  w;iy  of 
recoupment  of  damages,      /bid.,  Ml 7. 

:(').  (t.  made  an  agreement  wiih  II., 
as  follows:    ''In  consideration  of  one 
dollar,  I  engage  to  grant  to  11.  lieeiiso 
to  manufactuiH!  under  my  patents  and 
improv«-meiits,    india-rubher    hose,    in 
general,  exce|it  that  made  of  pure  gun.." 
"  In  the  event  of  the  right  (tf  said  hoso 
being  disposed  of,  said  I'».  is  to  re<ieivo 
on\^-half  the  bonus  oblaine<l  therefor,  it 
b(>ing  optional  with  him  to  retain,  if  ho 
]>refers  it  instead,  a  half-right  to  manu- 
facture."     J/tld,  that  such  agreement 
embra<-e(l  a  reissued  ]i:Jeiit  ;  and  that 
li.  obtained  an  immediate  right  to  man* 
ufaeture,  and  not  merely  an  obligation 
for  a  future  viglit ;  and  that  15.  could 
recover  of    CJ.    one-half    of    any   salert 
ma<le  by  G.  of  the  right  to  make  such 
hose,  and   that  IJ.  became  entitled  to 
such  moiety  immediately  upon  any  such 
disposah     JlcJiitrfiey  v.  (ioodyvnr,  11 
Ciish.,  570,  572. — Mkuuick,  J. ;  Mass., 
185,3. 

30.  Where  by  an  agreement  between 
S.  and  L.,  there  was  sold  by  S.  to  L., 
the  half  of  a  cert.ain  machine  for 
making  lead,  and  the  one-half  of  the 
patent  to  be  obtained  therefor,  and  L. 
was  to  pay  $4,000— *1, 600  in  a  note  at 
fifteen  months,  and  $2,500  in  bonds  and 
mortgages;  and  the  agre'ement  was 
upon  the  conditions,  that  if  no  patent 
should  be  obtained  for  the  machine, 
and,  if  a  certain  suit  pending  against  S. 
and  others,  as  to  the  right  to  use  said 
machine,  should  be  determined  against 
S.,  then  the  bargain  and  sale  should  bo 
null  and  void.  L.  was  to  pay  the  ex- 
penses of  obtaining  the  patent,  and  il 


i^ 


'•*•»»»» 


"■'ilasi  I 


Mfttk: 


120 


AORKEMKNTS,  K 


AH  TO  PATmn. 


W'ttH  to  issiiu  ill  liirt  iiniiu',  Itiit  no  tiiiio 
wiiH  BpociHod  in  which  it  was  to  he 
ol)taiin'<l,  7/(77,  tlmt  noithor  of  the 
cniidilioiis  nii'iilioiifil  wen*  romHtioiis 
ItioctMU'iit  t<»  thi)  ri;^hf,  to  thi)  iindicy 
iDtoiidcd  to  bo  Hi'dircd  by  tbo  Hjiid 
note.  M<lenv.J*rin;//i',  17  Harb,,  KJH. 
— Wkm.km,  J.;  N.  v.,  18at. 

.'17.  AjkI  thoiip;h  an  applicatioti  for  a 
jiad'iit  was  ixMidiiifi;  at  tlu>  tiiiu^  of  tlic 
iiiiikint;  hiuiIi  ajj;n'ejiu>iit,  and  aftcr- 
Avard  a  nt'w  application  was  made,  upon 
wliicli  a  patent  was  issniMl  to  Ij.,  Ifilif, 
that  it  was  to  bo  prcsiunc*!  lii.it  tho 
])atont  issjiod  was  the  ono  conteinplatu'd 
by  th(!  Mf^ivcnu'iit.     Ihid.^  400. 

iiM.  A  stipulation  in  a  patent  snil 
pi'oviih'd  a  decree  should  be  entered  for 
tlie  plaint  ill's  nnh-ss  the  machine  used  by 
tlio  defeinhint  was  oonstructod  before 
the  date  of  the  application  of  jilaintill's 
for  his  ])atent,  JIil<l,  that  the  time 
when  sncli  machine  was  so  "  const  rnct- 
e<V'  nioant  Avhen  it  was  snhstantially 
rompleto  ui  its  ojierativo  parts,  and  that 
it  was  not  necessary  that  it  shonid  l)e 
doinrj  work.  Troij  Iron  «D  N(Cil  FiU\ 
V.  (klio)iUy  17  How.,  73. — Catuon,  J.; 
Snp.  Ct.,  1854. 

30.  All  aL!;rccincnt  made  by  a  patentee 
to  assijjjn  liis  patent  gives  no  authority 
to  the  <franteo  to  grant  licenses  to  use 
sucli  patent.  Tlic  patent  must  first  bo 
assigned  to  him.  Day  v.  ILtrtshorn, 
jMS.— Pitman,  J.;  K.  I.,  1854. 

40.  To  enable  a  party  to  justify  a 
right  or  act  done  under  an  agreement 
whicli  required  the  performance  of  cer- 
tain conditions  on  his  part,  he  must 
sliow  a  jierformance  on  his  part  of  such 
conditiims  precedent.     Ibid. 

41,  An  agreement  made  Avitli  a  pat- 
entee to  manufacture  liis  patented 
machines  upon  certain  conditions,  .and 
making  .and  selling  such  machines  uiuW 


the  patentee's  title,  estops  Hiieh  party, 
in  an  action  for  account  brought  by  tho 
patentee,  from  alteginj^  the  invalidity 
of  the  patent.  KiiiHinnn  v.  /'(ir/^/itimt, 
IH  How,,  i:03.— CuUTis,  J.;  ,Siii>.  Ct., 
IH55. 

42.  And  even  if  the  jtatent  was  in- 
valid, it  would  not  liave  rendered  tlio 
sales  of  the  machines  illegal,  so  as  to 
release  such  jiarty  from  the  obligaliou 
to  account.     //>/</.,  203. 

4:1.  Nor  is  such  agreement,  becanso 
stipulating  that  under  certain  circuiu- 
slanccs  one  jiarfy  shall  ceas(>  their  man- 
iifactnre  of  such  machiiii'S  void,  as 
being  in  restraint  of  tra<K(— as  such 
cla.ise  is  but  a  provision  for  the  prose- 
cution of  the  Iiiisiness  in  a  iiarticujar 
mode,  and  not  for  its  restraint.  IIjUI., 
203. 

44.  If,  however,  such  a  contract  was 
void  as  against  public  policy,  it  would 
furnish  no  answer  to  a  claim  for  an 
account  of  jjrofits  realized  by  prosecut- 
ing the  business.     Ibid.,  204. 

45.  An  agreement  made  between  a 
l)atentee,  who  is  about  to  apply  for  a 
renewal  of  his  patent  with  .another,  that 
hi  case  of  renewal  he  will  convey  to  him 
such  renewed  jmtent  in  consideration  df 
a  ccrt.'iin  sum,  is  valid, .and  if  the  jint- 
ent  is  renewed,  such  agreement  con- 
veys to  the  assignee  .an  equitable  inter, 
est  or  title  to  the  entire  interest  of 
the  assignor,  whidi  can  be  converted 
into  a  legal  title,  by  ]iaying  or  olVcring 
to  pay  the  .agreed  consideration.  Hurts- 
horn  V.  Bay,  10  How.,  220. — Xioi.sox, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

40.  An  agreement  made  between  a 
patentee  and  a  third  ])crson,  as  trustee, 
that  the  latter  should  hold  the  patent 
and  liave  the  control  thereof,  for  tlio 
benefit  of  those  who  had  a  right  to  use 
the  same,  wi*l>«^ut  the  writ^sui  consent 


\ 


a<;|{i;kmf,nts,  n 

AM  T<)   I'-XTKNTH. 


127 


of  Hiioh  tnistpp,  trnnvftTH  tho  cfitiro  In- 
UTcst  :iinl  owiitTHliip,  li'i^ul  mill  t'<|uil.- 
tililt',  of  tliu  pati'iitiH)  ill  tliii  patciil  to 
Hiicli  tnisti'o  for  till!  bciuilit  of  tlioHO  iii- 
UTo-iti'd.      Ihid.,  'JJO. 

47.  A  iit'j^fli'ct  <»r  omission  to  \y,\y  to 
Mu;li  ]>at(>iitc>u  mi  miniiity,  provitjtMl  for 
in  jiikI  Hti|Milatc'il  liy  hiicIi  !i<j;r('cnioiit  to 
1)0  paiil  l»y  till'  triislc*!  to  llic  p.itiMitcc, 
will  not,  ri'sciiul  tlii'  contract,  or  remit 
to  the  patentee  the  iiittsrest  conveyed. 
The  rijj;ht  to  Hiich  annuity  roHtH  in  cov- 
ciiiiit,  for  a  lireach  of  which  an  action 
at  law  will  lie.      Ihul.y  2'2'J. 

18.  vV  mutual  and  reci|»rocal  coven- 
ant of  an  ai^reomont  respcctinj^  a  patent 
havinfi  been  broken  by  one  party,  he 
cannot  obtain  the  aid  of  a  court  oi' 
equity  to  restrain  tiu!  other  eov(uianter 
from  its  violation.  CliDti  v.  lirciocr, 
11  Mo.  T/iw  Rep.,  301.— Cuinis,  J.; 
Mass.,  IS'jO. 

•ID.  Otherwiso,  where  the  covenants 
are  independent,  or  only  collaterally 
connected,  thougli  in  the  same  instru- 
nieiit,  or  where  tho  breach  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  may  be  fully  repaired, 
and  ono  of  the  conditions  ]>recedent  for 
ohtainini;  relief  may  be  such  reparation. 
Ihid.,  302. 

r)0.  Where  tho  covenant  was,  hy  the 
owners  of  a  patent,  that  no  ri;;ht  to  use 
tlu!  invention  sliould  bo  conveyed  with- 
out tho  assent  and  concurrence  of  all 
those  interested,  Ildd,  that  a  party,  who 
had  been  guilty  of  a  breach  thereof, 
though  through  a  misapprehension  of 
the  construction  of  Iho  agreement,  could 
not  maintaiu  a  bill  for  an  injunction  to 
restrain  tho  other  covenanter  from  a 
similar  violation.    Ibid.^  302. 

51.  A  contract  for  tho  purchase  of  a 
patent  may  be  rescinded  for  false  and 
fraudulent  reproseiit.ations  constituting 
an  inducement  to  it,  and  whether  tho 


party  making  them  knew  them  to  bo 
false  or  not.  (niflin;/  v.  XiWdll^  0 
Ind., .^70.— Tkukinm,  J.;   Iiid.,  1867. 

62.  Hut  Huch  repreHcntalion  must  bo 
as  to  a  fact  or  facts,  mid  go  to  u  material 
issiu',  and  must  be  one  on  which  tho 
parly  to  wliom  it  is  madti  has  u  right 
to,  and  does  rely.     /Aa/.,  670. 

5;!.  A  party,  however,  who  wouhl 
rescind  .a  contract  on  the  ground  of 
fraud,  must  oiler  to  do  so  wilhiii  a  rea» 
Honablo  timo  after  tho  fraud  is  »liscov« 
ered.      Ihhl.,  677. 

r^\.  Where  certain  liTins  arc  used  in 
a  grant,  which  have  .a  well-known  gen- 
eral meaning,  tlu'ii,  in  the  interpretation 
of  such  grant,  such  well-kmiwn  general 
meaning  must  be  given  to  the  terms 
used,  unless  it  appear  that  some  other 
or  different  meaning  was  intended  by 
them.  Jhiy  v.  Cnry^  3IS. — Inukksoix, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  18.-) 0. 

r)5.  Deeds  must  speak  for  theniMlvcs, 
when  able  to  speak  dearly  and  iiuder- 
Htandingly.  IJiit  in  giving  an  interpre- 
tation to  a  particular  clause  of  a  deed, 
we  must  look  to  every  part  of  it,  in 
order  to  ascertain  whether  such  inter 
pretalion  is  the  true  one.     Ibid. 

50.  Though  tho  construction  and  in- 
terpretation of  written  instruments  is 
for  \\w  court,  it  will  nevertlule.ss  bring 
to  its  !iid  the  testimony  of  witnesses  to 
explain  terms  of  art,  and  make  itself 
acquainted  with  the  material  with  which 
the  contracts  deal,  and  Avith  tho  cir- 
cumstances under  which  they  were 
made;  but  neither  tho  testimony  of 
witnesses  in  general,  nor  of  ])rofessors, 
experts,  or  mechanics,  can  be  received 
to  prove  to  the  court  what  is  the  prn])er 
or  legal  construction  (jf  any  instrument 
or  writing.  Den/  v.  Stcllman^  MS. — 
Giles,  J.,  Md.,  1850. 


1 

i! 


■wh.:: 


.Wiiwn. 


■W".>. 


ttr 


^-'W:'! 


O^^v^,^ 


'*^yi 


iiilT 


CWWWw»-v, 


W'^W'''^ 


128 


ALIKNS,  A.,  il. 


MlilllTa  or,  At  TO  PATKNTI  AMI>  THUtK-MAHKH. 


<l 


f-yi 


.     AfJFiN'S. 

A,    llmnTN   AND    T.I  vtiii.iTtKH  or,  IN  Rr- 

HI'Kcr  Ti>  I'atknth 12S 

D.    HiiiiiTH  or,   AH  TO  iNritiNUXMKNT  or 

'I'iiaukM.viikh 138 

A.      JlHilHH     ANr»     LlAIIII.ITIKB    OF,    IN 
l{KMl'EtT  TO  l*ATIiNT8. 

Soo  nlHo  Patknth,  K. 

1.  PffviniiH  to  I'.!  net  of  1  SOO,  tin- 
niitliorily  fi'wru  hy  law  to  j^raiit  palctils, 
wnH  roiifiiiutl  to  cili/.i'ii!!  of  tlic  riiitcd 
States.  Afion.,  I  ()|iiti.i  110. — L1NC01.N, 
Atty.  (Icii. ;  IHOU. 

'J.  ruder  the  aet  of  IHOO,  a  f(ireij,'iier, 
tlioiijj;lilia\iii^resi(K'(l  within  the  I'liitetl 
Statt's  tor  more  than  two  years,  coiiM 
not  have  a  patent  for  an  invention  put 
into  o|M>ration  liy  him  in  another  eonn- 
try,  heCorc  lie  came  here.  J)itj)litl''a  cit.ii'y 
1  Opin.,  ;);{'.>.— Wiiir,  Atty.  (k-n, ;  iHiiO. 

3.  As  to  the  rights  of  u  patenico  to 
finrreniler  a  defetlive  patent  ami  take 
ont  a  new  one,  tliero  is  no  diHerence  be- 
tween a  eiti/en  and  alien.  tS/iaw  v. 
CoojKT^  7  Pet.,  315. — McLkan,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.;  18:)n. 

4.  15y  the  provisions  of  tho  patent 
nets  (17D;{  and  JHOO),  citi/eim  and 
nlien'^,  as  to  p.itent-rights,  are  i)laeed 
stibstantially  (m  tho  saino  ground.  In 
either  ease,  if  tlie  invention  was  known 
or  used  liy  tlio  jmblie  before  it  was  pat- 
ented, tlio  patent  is  void.  In  botli  cases 
tho  right  must  bo  tested  by  tho  same 
rule.    I/tid,  aitJ. 

6.  An  alien  ])atonteo  must  put  and 
continue  on  sale  to  tho  i)ublie,  within 
eiglitcen  months  from  tlie  date  of  tlie 
patent,  tlio  invention  or  discovery  for 
■which  the  patent  issued.  HiUlreth  v. 
Heath,  MS.  (Ajip.  Cas.),  Ckancii,  Ch. 
J.;  D.  C,  1841. 


0.  If  n  for«'ign  patentee,  or  hin  aii< 
Nigneex,  do  not  put  tlieir  invention  on 
Nah>  wiliiin  tightet-n  months  aHer  tho 
Name  is  obtained,  as  reipiired  Ity  ^  !.'>  of 
the  aet  of  1h:I(),  the  patent  will  bu  void. 
Tiitlidin  V.  Lorinif,  fi  N.  Y.  Leg.  Olm., 
•-'OH.— Srouy,  J.;  MaHS.,  iHlft. 

7.  'I'll*'  aHsignee  takes  »»nly  the  right 
of  llitf  foreign  inventor,  and  110  more, 
and  is  Nubj«'ct  to  the  reipiirenu-nts  of  tho 
ali(Ui  clause  in  g  15  uf  tho  act  of  IHIIO. 
IhliL,  'J08. 

H.  The  alien  clauno  in  g  15  of  the  ad 
of  lH;t(J,  applies  only  to  alien  i)atenti'e-', 
and  not  to  American  patentees  who  Ik-. 
<'onie  such  as  jisHignces  of  alien  in\  en- 
tors  under  5$  (1  of  the  act  of  ln:t7.  To- 
t/iiitn  V.  Lof/ier,  2  IMatciif.,  51. — Nkl- 
SON,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1847. 

0.  Viidor  S  16  of  tho  act  of  18.10,  it 
is  not  essential  that  an  alien  paten- 
tee, or  his  assiguei',  shouM  lake  ac- 
tivo  means  for  tho  purpose  of  putting 
tho  patented  invention  in  tlio  market 
anil  forcing  a  sale,  Mithin  eighteen 
months  after  \]n>  date  of  the  patent,  hut 
only  that  he  should  bo  re.'idy  at  all  tinni' 
to  Hell  at  a  fair  pri(!e,  when  n  rcvsonahlo 
offer  is  made.  Tutliom  v.  Lc  Itoij,  ^LS. 
— Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

10.  It  is  a  <|Uestion  lor  tho  jury  to  de- 
termine, whether  tho  invention  was  so 
put  and  continued  on  s.ile.     Ibi  '. 

11.  A  )»atent  obtained  0/  ."ilio". 
uj)on  an  oath,  ignorantly  or  i/i,.ilver- 
tently  made,  that  he  is  n  citizen  ot 
the  United  States,  is  void,  and  not 
voidably  only.  J/T/ii'«  Assignee  v. 
Adtms,  3  Wall,  Jr. — Guikk,  J. ;  1\ 
1801. 

B.    Rights  of,  as  to  Infkingement 
OP  Tuade-Makks. 

1.  Tho  fact  tliat  tho  complainant,  in 


500,  50H 
1845. 

4.  AH 
of  a  cou 
in  the  usi 
'iiarks,  a 
will  neve 
right  :uii 
of  suitoi 
Sand.  Ch 
1840. 

5.  An 
courts  .'in 
trade-mar 
lorv.  Cdi 
Wootnui 
0.  And 
extent  of 
sales  and 
"sing  ther 


^l^tfVi, 


AMIlUil  ITV  IN  I'ATKXTS. 


190 


Rrracr  or,  a*  to  tiikiu  vaudiiy. 


A  unit  in  t'(|iiity  for  tin  injunction  to  ro- 
Ktrtiin  tliu  tVaiiiliilcMt  iiso  of  n  triiiUs 
murk,  iM  »  rtultji'ct  ot'  iui(>lli«*t'  govern- 
iiit'Ol,  <\i)on  Mot  alttT  till*  ri^'litM  nt'  tlit> 
|itii'ti('^,  (ir  ilcprtvt'  t)u>  (>t)iii|i|iiiii!uit  of 
the  i-i;;lit  to  tlut  iiilfr|Mmition  of  court. 
So  far  aa  tiic  Niihjuct  matter  of  tliu  Huit 
is  conccnicil,  ||ii>ii>  is  no  (lilU'it'iici'  Ix'- 
twi'cn  citi/rii*  aixl  aiiciiH.  '/'ni/lor  v. 
Ciiri>i')it<>\  II  raij;r, 'JDO.— \VAi,w«mrii, 
Chan.;  N.  V.,  1H44. 

2.  In  ikn  ;;vtion  for  n  violation  of  a 
traili'inarl<,  ii  inalics  no  (iill'crcin'c  tliat 
till'  ciiiiiiilaiiiaiits  aro  aliciiH;  in  tliti 
courts  ul'tlio  Unili'd  States  alien  friends 
nro  entitled  to  tliu  Haine  ])roteetion  in 
their  riixlit'*  !»^  citizens,  Tm/lorx.  Car- 
potti  r, ;.'  Story,  403. — Stuuy,  J.;  Mass., 
IHtt. 

;i.  Tlio  fnci  that  the  party  complain- 
ing of  a  wroii'^t'il  use  of  his  tradti-marks 
is  an  alien,  or  s'lltject  of  a  foreign  gov- 
eriinu'ut,  d^.es  not  alter  his  rights, 
Co(if'.i  . .  Hitlhrook,  '1  Sand.  Cli.,  595, 
500,  598.— SANi)Kom>,  V.  Chan.;  N.  Y., 
1845. 

4.  Aliens  c.nn  invoke  the  jurisdiction 
of  a  court  of  chancery  to  ))rotect  them 
in  the  use  and  possession  of  their  trade- 
marks, as  well  U9  citi/x'ns ;  the  courts 
will  never  recogtiizo  a  ditlerent  rule  of 
right  and  justice  between  any  class 
of  suitors.  Taylor  ".  Carpenter^  2 
Sand.  Ch.,  014.— Lott,  Sena.;  N.  Y., 
1840. 

5.  An  alien  friend  can  bring  in  our 
courts  any  action  for  the  violation  of  his 
trade-marks,  Avhich  a  citizen  can.  Tay- 
lor v.  Carpenter^  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  9. — 
WooL'uuuY,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

0.  And  is  entitled  to  recover  to  the 
extent  of  his  damages  by  the  loss  of 
Bales  and  the  profits  made  by  those 
using  them.     Ibid,  9,  16. 

'!.  Being  a  resident  abroad  makes  no 


ditferencu  in  hin  right,  or  the  Jiiriwdlo- 
tion  of  our  courtM,  if  the  Nubjeet  matter 
of  the  action  arises  li«'r(>.     /Am/.,  17. 

H.  And  he  is  enlilled  to  this  extont, 
though  tho  artieli's  Hold  .is  and  for  hist 
were  not  inferior  in  tpmllty  to  hi*. 
//>/»/.,  21. 

9.  Ah  to  the  right  to  bring  an  action 
for  the  wroiigl'ul  or  finuduli'nt  uhv  of 
a  trade-mark,  (here  is  no  ditVerenee  be- 
tween a  citizen  or  alien.  Cnffii^n  v. 
lirxhtnn,  4  McLean  Kep.,  5iM3. — Mo 
Lkan,  i.\  Ind.,  1849. 


AMniGX  ITY  IX  PATKNTS. 

As  to  how  invention  should  bo  set 
forth,  SCO  also  Compositiox  ov  Mat- 
TKu,  n.;  iMritovKMK.NT,  n. ;  Maciiinic, 
and  Si'Ki'lFirATluN,  li. 

1.  If  tho  description  mixes  up  the  old 
and  the  now,  and  does  not  distinctly  as- 
certain for  which  in  particular,  the  pat- 
ent is  claimed,  it  is  void.  J^mnll  v. 
Leicis^  1  Mas.,  188. — Stouv,  J.;  Mass., 
1817. 

2.  What  is  claimed  as  now,  must  ap- 
pear M'ith  reasonable  certainty :  it  is  not 
left  to  minute  inferences  and  conjec- 
tures, w  to  what  was  ])reviousIy  known 
or  unknown:  tho  question  is,  not  what 
was  before  known  but  what  the  paten- 
tec  claims  a»  ne\o.     Ihuh^  188. 

3.  If  tho  terms  of  a  patent  are  so  ob- 
scure or  doubtful  that  the  court  cannot 
say  what  is  tho  particular  itnprovcment 
which  the  patentee  claims,  and  to  what 
it  is  limited,  the  patent  is  void  for  ambi- 
guity. Barrett  v.  Hall,  1  Mas.,  470. — 
Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1818. 

4.  A  general  statement  that  the  pat- 
ented article  is  in  all  respects,  without 


1  i  iT 


'^'^Mi  i) 


'|y  W  M  ^'  -■    ' 


JTin 


l|iii 


iCVWWWw.... 


Vii<W^-^'""" 


ino 


AMIHtil'ITY  IN  PATKNT8. 


Rrrmrr  or,  as  to  Titn.i  YAumtT. 


fh»..% 


Ntniiii;;;  wliiit  tlicMo  nrc,  nn  i)«i|»mvrm«>nt 
on  (III  olil  iirticli',  if.  iiu  H)K't-il|("iti<iii  nt 
nil.     //»./.,  170. 

fi.  Tlu'  f|K'til!i'fttl<)M  imi'it  <li'«rri1i»'  in 
full,  ilfiir,  iiii<t  vxiu't  tfiiiiH,  wliiit  till' 
iiii|iii»v»'iiH'iiN  ari»,  iir  tlu«  |>iili'iitt'»>  cmi. 
not  r(><*ov(*r  for  an  liifiiiip'iiu'iit.  Nt<iinii 
V.  //vftifk,  :i  \Va«li.,  4*Jfl.— Wahiiino- 
Tov,  .F, ;  Vi\.,  IM|H. 

0.  WIhtc  til iiiNtruction  of  tlio  |inf- 

rnt  iukI  rt|H>clltc:itinii,  um  to  tlio  Muhjcci 
of  the  ;x*'''^'>N  <it'"  <l')Ui)tfiil,  tluMilltilavilM, 
if  iiioiT  pfccixc,  m;iy  1)0  n'«ort»'i|  fo,  to 
ixplaiii  the  aiiiliijjuily'.  'I'liin  i.s  puilini- 
larly  |trop|.r  to  rt-^traiii  >j;«'tn  ral  »'\|>n'«t- 

flotlH  ill  tlu)   H|irciH«'atioll.       I'lttlhnilC,  V. 

Drriiii/ii'.  i  Wavh.,  uiT. — WAHiiiNfi- 
lov, .'. ,  J 'a.,  IHIH. 

7.  TIiiiM,  wlii'ii  the  patt'Tit  rccitt'il  the 
nj>iilicniit  to  l»o  tlic  inventor  of  an  ini- 
jirovciufnt  in  Itorinj^  innskcts  hy  a  t  wi^t- 
t'll  wrcw-.iiiujcr,  niid  tin'  K|it«r|lic:ition 
ili'Mcrilx'il  tli(>  inainicr  of  making  till' an- 
ger, it«  form,  and  ln)\v  to  Ih<  n^iod,  and 
tho  ntlidavit  continod  tlio  invention  to 
til"  itiiiirovcinciit  in  ninhoKj  niiif,  rn  for 
lioriiifj  inuski't  liarri'l'^,  Ildd,  tliat  tlic 
jiafcnt,  I'xlciidcd  fnily  to  tlio  i"i;/ir,  ami 
not  to  tho  inc'tliod  of  n-iiip;  it.  I/)id., 
2ir,  218. 

8.  A  spccKication  wli'rliiniv  np  tlic 
new  and  tlii'  oI<l,  Imi,  docs  noi  ;  <wplaiii 
wliat  is  tlio  nntnro  or  limits  .  i  tho  in- 
volition  claimed,  cannot  bo  snstaino.l. 
Evdns  <.  J'A(to)i,  1  ^Vheat.,4;34. — Stoiiy, 
J.;  Snp.  Ct,,  1H22. 

0.  Tho  invention  cannot  be  made  out 
and  shown  nt  tho  trini,  or  be  establish- 
ed by  coni])arinpf  tho  invention  specified 
HI  tho  jiatent  Avith  former  ones  in  nse. 
Ibid.,  tnt,  405. 

10.  Where  tho  Hpecificatlon  does  not 
tlcscribc  the  invention  so  as  to  show  in 
what  respect  the  jilaintilf's  invention  or 
iraproA'cment  dillVrs  from  Avhat  hail  boon 


kn«>wii  or  ii«««1  b»ifori',  tlin  pntptit  U 
Void,  /.'iiif/ifiih  V.  /ff  (irnnt,  I  l'a!n<>, 
'i07.— l.iviNUHTov,  J.;  X.  Y.,  IHua. 

II.  TIki  Mpecilieation  described  ths 
invention  *'  that  it  eMscntially  coii>«iMtH  In 
atlachiii);  th<>  packet  to  the  Nieaniboat 
with  roped,  eliainn,  or  uparM,  ho  nn  to 
eoinniiini<-ate  the  power  of  the  wiivo 
from  the  towiiij;  vessel  to  vesseU  taken 
ill  tow,  and  k'  ;'  nlwayw  nt  eonvchicnt 
distnneo,  the  luannor  of  npplyin;;  the 
power  vnryiiiii  '■>  "<»•»•'  measure  with 
the  ••irciiinHtaiiceM,  /AA/,  thit  the  ilc- 
Hcriptioii  of  the  invention,  if  any  there 
was,  was  to«»  vaj,'ne  and  uncertain,  and 
bad.  SnUh'iin  v.  linlj!,!,!,  \  I'liim., 
4.50,     4ft  1.— Thompson,'  J.;     N.    V, 

1  H'J,-!. 

I 'J.  A  description,  though  in  some  re- 
speetH  obseiire,  imperfoet,  or  not  so  in. 
telli<,'ible  as  to  fully  aiiswi'r  the  objects 
<tf  the  law,  is  yood  if  it  enables  tlio 
court  lo  spei  I'y  the  improvement  or 
inveiiiion  patented,  from  tho  fact  of 
tho  jKitent  and  aceonipanyiiiLf  papr'ri. 
WhUnnj  V.  J-'i>kiii'tf,  JJald.,  .'418.— 
lb\i,i»wiv,  J.;  I'a.,  !h;ii. 

III.  The  pateiileo  must  specify  his  in- 
volition  clearly  and  explicitly  ;  any  nm. 
biguity  affectedly  iiitrodncecl  into  tlio 
specification,  or  any  tiling  done  to  mii. 
lead  the  public,  will  make  it  void.  Ibid., 

;un. 

14.  As  to  tho  Bpecificntion  imtliini,' 
is  K'ft  to  construction  as  toils  re(|iiisil('s 
or  ]iurposes,  both  beiii<;  so  clearly  tie- 
fined  by  tln^  statute,  and  in  such  a  man- 
ner as  to  leave  no  <liscretioii  in  tlio 
courts  to  presume  what  Avns  inteiideil, 
or  to  alter,  add,  or  diminish.  Jb'ul, 
n20. 

15.  If  the  speoification  is  wholly  am- 
biixnons  and  uncertain,  so  loosely  de- 
lined,  and  so  inaccurately  expressed,  that 
tho  court  cannot  upon  fair  interpieta« 


'lie  fico  .,;■ 
•h'clares    it, 
and   iMicert; 
2    IJI.Uchf, 
1845. 

^l'  If  the 


AMimU  ITY  IN  TATKNl^. 


lUl 


Mrrarr  «>r,  ar  to  wkih  vammtt. 


tlon  ot'  tlic  wiinlM,  mill  without  vn^ii«> 
roiijoi'tiiri'  of  tnli-iilioii,  ^iitlior  wliiit  it 
in,  tho  |>iiti'iit  is  viii<l  tor  Hiicli  ili'lt'ft, 
Jwi»«v.  //«i»/'<»r»/,  I  Siimn.,4H5.— MroKV, 
,1. ;  MiixH.,  Im:im. 

Id.  Milt  if  tlio  court  onn  di'iirly  Nt<c, 
l»y  n  rt'iwniialiltt  iin«'  of  tlio  tnt'iiiiM  ot'  in- 
tcrpri'ttitinii  ol'llic  l:tii^ua^i>  uracil,  titliiii^' 
tlic  wholo  ill  (■(itiiii'otinii,  wliiit  \A  tli«<  iia- 
turn  aini  <>xti>iit  ot*  tliu  rhiiin,  tliuii  the 
|)liiiiititV  iM  ciitilliMl  to  till)  Itciit'iitH  ot'  il, 
liiiwi'viT  iiii|irirc(ily  iiml  iiiurlilli  i:illy 
lu>  limy  lijivi'  i'Xj»ri'.MH4'd  iiiin^flt*.    7/>*«/., 

tH5.  • 

17.  n*  llu'rc  ho  nny  aiuliiffiilly  or  iiii- 
ct'itaiiify  ill  nny  |iiu'l  of  tlio  H|M'ciricat  imi ; 
V(  t,  if  talsiiiL;  till'  wliitic  toLjrilu'r,  tlic 
court  ran  |H'rrciv<'  tlif  tv.-nt  n.'iliiri*  iukI 
I'xtt'iit  of  tlio  (•liiiiii  nijuli'  l»y  tho  iiivoii- 
tor,  it  U  hoiiiitl  to  lulitjit  that  intcrpri'- 
tilloii,  ainl  to  ^\\i>  it  full  I'fU'ct.  /i>/<i)i 
\.  (iDoi/ii'hiy'.l  Siiinii.,  0:jO.  — Stouv,  J.; 
J\IasH.,  1H:I». 

!H.  Whom  II  patoiit  Ih  ohtniiUMl  for 
jiartM  of  II  iiiachiiu',  involved  with  (dlicr 
•lints  whicli  iiiav  hiiv(!  Im'cii  iisctl  hcfori', 
it  is  (>ss(>iiti.'il  that  thu  ncir  jiarts  shouhl 
In-  HO  ilistinclly  pointcil  out  that  tho 
claiiii  may  not  oovor  nny  parts  that  nro 
iM.  lilttkii  V.  Sp,rn/,  2  N.  Y.  Log. 
C)l»H.,2:)r).— .Uri.so\,  J.;  Ct.,  1H43. 

10.  Whothor  a  pati'tit  is  void  for  un- 
I'l'rfaiiity  or  aiiiliigulty  in  tho  doscrip- 
tioii,  is  II  inattor  of  taot  to  ho  dociih-d 
upon  tlio  ovidonco  of  exports.  \\'<in/i- 
liiirn  v.  (fouhf,  o  Story,  V.iH. — Stouv, 
J.;  :\ras^.,  18U. 

'JO.  If  tho  iiicairmjj  of  a  pntont  can- 
not 1)0  asccrtaiiii'd  satisfaclnrily  n]Hin 
tlio  faco  of  tho  spo('ifioatioii,  tho  law 
(U'cl.'iros  it  iiisuilioiont  for  anil»ii,'uity 
!ui(l  iincortiilnty.  JCmernon  v.  J/of/;/, 
2  IMalohf,  0.— Dkits,  J.;  N.  V., 
1845. 

21.  If  the  si)ocilication  is  so  lujccrtaiu 


U4  to  whothor  n  partinilar  thiiiu  U 
olaiiiicil  114  II  part  of  n  now  ooinhination, 
or  as  a  now  iiivonttoii,  as  to  ho  uninloh 
liv(il)lo,  it  is  \oid,  Itiit  may  ho  Nurroii* 
dorod  and  ano'iidod.  Ifinuy  v.  Sli  rmi^ 
I  VVo«id.  »t  .Mill.,  .iDj. — NVooniu  iiv,  J.; 
.Mass.,  1M40. 

-'•J.  Tho  patontoo  in  tho  dosoriplintl 
of  his  iuvoiitinii  in  not  to  h«^  ooiitiiiotl 
to  toohiiioal  lan;;iitt^o,  hut  luay  niaku 
iisu  of  that  wliioh  is  in  popular  iiso,  and 
holtor  iiiidorhtood  l»v  all.  Tho  |i  wor 
toohiiioal  tonus  umiI  tho  hottor,  it'  tho 
siiliji'ot  in  lntolli;iil»lo  without  tluiii. 
//ni'it/  v.  Sfi'i'inM,  :>  Wood.  Jb  .Mill.,  2H, 
—  Wooi.iuKV,  .1. ;  Mass.,  1H40. 

j:i.  If  iho  dosoription  is  ho  nncorlaiii 
and  ohsouru  as  to  what  was  inoaiit,  and 
what  is  in  fuot  tho  novelty,  that  it  can- 
not ho  ilotorminod  whothor  tho  improve- 
iiiont  oouxi4ts  in  the  oomhiiiiition  of  tho 
wlmlo,  or  of  all  the  parts,  or  only  «)f 
Homo  of  thoin,  and  of  which — or  of  nn 
invoiition  of  soino,  nnd  if  so,  of  what 
— tho  iiiioertaiiity  will  ho  filial,  and  tho 
pateiitoo  will  ho  niidi-r  the  nooo>i>ily  of 
iiiakiii;^  n  new  spooilication,  Ht-ttin;^ 
Ku'th  IiIh  claim  with  groator  certainly, 
acoiiracy,  nnd  olearnoss,  and  disclaiming 
all  not  now.     /A/</.,  ;to-;i2. 

'24.  Tho  doj^ri'e  of  oloarnoss  and  iVoo- 
dom  from  nmliimiity  rofpiirod  in  tho 
sjiocitic.'ition,  under  the  not  of  lTi':>,  is 
to  "disiiiii^uish  the  iiivoiirmn  iVom 
thiiit^s  hoforo  known,  and  to  oii:iltlo  any 
person  skilli-d  in  the  art  or  scii-nce  to 
mako  and  ust«  tho  same."  This  is 
nooossary  to  enable  tho  Commissioner 
of  I'.atonts  to  jiids^o  whether  the  matter 
olaimod  is  new  or  too  hro.id — :iiid  to 
onahlo  tho  courts,  when  the  jiatotit  is 
afterward  contested,  to  form  !i  like 
judLtinont — and  also  to  enable  tho  pub- 
lic to  undersfaiid  what  the  patent  is, 
and  refrain  from  its  use,  unless  licensed 


d*"**"' 
¥•^••^^1 


M,. 


,r 


^-*^. 


t^^^ 


4,    '    *  '- 


■** 


f(^ 


''^—  V      ,    ■" 


Tl 


<...- 


'**Vl 


■>>«-M^A 


■..i; 


^'Wfe 


in; 


AMOl  NT  IN  CONTKOVKIiSV. 


Jl  lIlSI'initlN    IN    I'ATKST   CASKH,    HOW    AKKJCTKD   IIY. 


i^^ 


Jt"'Jlf    V.   J'sitursoHy    0    ll«)\v.,    484. — 
AVooDiiiuY,  J.;  Sup.  rt.,  1H47. 

25.  Jliit  till!  patiMitt'i'  iii'otl  not  »lo- 
t»cril)i'  partli'iilarly,  and  ilisclaiin  all  tlio 
oltl  parts,  and  tliat  is  fspoi'iail}'  uiiiu'iu's- 
sary  wlicii  siu-li  disfiaiiiu'r  is  iiianilt'stly 
ill  substaiu'U  tliu  rosult  of  his  claiiniiitr 
as  now  only  tlio  portions  wliirh  ho  docs 
di's(Mii)i'  spi'i'ially.     Il>!d.,  4,M5. 

'_'(!.  It'  the  invontioii  is  not  doscrihod 
witli  nasonablc  certainty  and  preeision, 
the  jiatentee  f-aii  claim  iiothin<»  under 
his  patent.  Parker  v.  Stiles^  5  ^lelieun, 
54. — I.KAVirr,  J.;  Ohio,  18 IS). 

27.  Patents  .-ihoiild  be  eonstnied  lib- 
orally  to  support  the  claims  of  meri- 
torious inventors.  IJut  there  should  not 
be  such  a  liberality  of  eonstnictioii, 
which  is  injurious  to  the  public,  and 
jiennits  the  inventor  to  couch  his  s])eei- 
iication  in  such  ambitious  terms  that 
its  claims  may  be  exi>aiided  or  contrac- 
ted to  suit  the  exigency.  Parker  v. 
Scars,  ]\IS.— GuiKK,  J.;  Pa.,  1850. 

iiS.  Where  in  an  improvement  in  the 
construction  of  cars  for  railroads,  the 
most  essential  feature  of  which  consist- 
ed in  the  location  of  tiie  two  sets  of 
tinick"  relatively  to  each  other — as  re- 
motely from  each  other  as  can  be  con- 
veniently done  for  the  siij>port  of  the 
carriage — and  in  the  near  proxunity  of 
the  two  axles  of  each  truck  to  each 
other — as  near  as  possible  to  each  other, 
and  i)revent  their   contact  with   each 
other,  Ildd^  that  the  spccificativ .;  was 
Bullicieiitly  definite  without  specifying 
in  feet  and  inches  the  exact  distance 
from  the  ends  of  the  car  body  at  Avhich 
it  would  be  best  to  arrange  the  trucks, 
or  the  exact  dist.ance  between  the  two 
axles.     Winans  v.  Schenec.  tfe  Troy  11. 
B.  Co.,  2  Blatchi.,  295, 207.— Nelson, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

29.  If  any  thing  is  included  in  ft  pat- 


ent which  is  not  new,  the  patent  is 
void.  If  what  is  new  be  mixed  ui)  with 
what  is  old,  the  patent  is  no  protec* 
lion  for  either.  JJolUilay  v.  Ji/uctti,  18 
IVnn.,  4lM).— Hi.ACK,  C'li.  J. ;  Pa.,  IHr.'J. 
30.  The  specification  of  an  invention 
for  the  use  of  anthracite  coal,  with  a 
blast,  in  the  eommoii  glass  furnace, 
omitted  to  set  forth  the  peculiar  mode 
of  regidaling  the  blast,  so  as  to  produce 
a  (fij^'uscd  and  not  a  conce titrated  heat, 
in  which  consisted  the  great  advantau^e 
of  the  invention.  Jlehl,  that  under 
j5  0  of  the  act  of  18;U5,  it  was  too  vague 
to  warrant  a  patent.  Ycarslcy  v.  Jlrook- 
Jidd,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — 3Iousici.i,,  J.; 
D.  0.,  1853. 


AMOUNT  IN  CONTROVERSY. 

1.  In  cases  .arising  under  the  patent 
laws,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit 
Courts  does  not  depend  upon  the  citi- 
zenship of  the  parties  to  the  action,  or 
the  amount  in  dispute,  but  upon  tlio 
subject  matter.  Alleii  v.  Jilu/it,  1 
Blatchf.,  480.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1849. 

2.  Under  §  1 7  of  the  act  of  1 830,  a  writ 
of  error  or  an  appeal  may  lie  to  theSii- 
l)reme  Court,  under  an  order  of  the 
court,  alt h'  ugh  the  judgment  is  under 
the  sum  of  $2,000.  Ihote  v.  iSilsby, 
1  Blatchf.,  544.  Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y. 
1850. 

3.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit 
Court  embraces  all  cases,  both  at  law 
and  in  equity,  arising  under  the  patent 
laws  for  infringement  of  letters  i)at- 
ent,  without  regard  to  the  citizenship 
of  the  parties,  or  the  amount  in  contro- 
versy. Day  v.  Newark  I.  Ji.  Co.,  1 
Blatchf.,  030.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 


AXALVSIS.— AITKALS,  A. 


133 


ANALYSIS,  KVIDKNCK  UT. 


Ari'EAlJt   TO    SIIMIICMK    COfllT. 


4.  WluTo  a  bill  is  liloil  to  onforoo  ii 
spi'cifio  pi'rformaiu'o  of  a  contract  in  re- 
lation to  a  jiatcnt,  the  Sii|trcino  C\)urt 
has  no  appellate  jurisdiction,  unless  the 
matter  in  contro'crsy  exceeds  the  value 
of  two  thousand  dollars.  Jirown  v. 
Shttnnon,'20  How.,  50, 67. — Tankv,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

f).  Tho  court  may,  however,  lawfully 
exorcise  its  jurisdiction,  when  a  far  less 
aMU)unt  is  in  dispute,  if  a  ])arty  is  pro- 
coedinjjj  in  law  or  equity  for  the  infriiiLje- 
mont  of  a  patent-rij^lit  to  which  lie 
claims  to  ho.  entitled.     Ihitf.,  oil. 

U.  'I'he  anunmt  of  the  i)enalty  in  a 
bond  taken  on  an  injunction  in  the  court 
helow,  cannot  bo  referred  to,  to  give 
jurisdiction.     Ibid.,  58. 


ANALOGOUS  USE. 

Sec  DouulkUsk;  "Nkw  ArrucATiON 
on  UsK." 


ANALYSIS. 

1.  Analysis  is  tho  only  mode  by  which 
the  human  judq^mcnt  can  rest  upon  .ab- 
solute certainty.  There  aro  but  few 
questiouu  which  may  bo  decided  by 
the  i)ower  of  analysis,  chemically  or 
m.athematically.  liut  where  this  is  done 
satisfact(»rily,  truth  is  att:iined.  Allen 
V.  Jliwter,  0  MeLe.an,  312.  IMoLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

2.  The  testimony  of  a  chemist,  who 
has  .analyzed  tho  incjredients  of  a  com- 
position of  matter,  as  to  the  nature  of 
such  composition,  is  not  ni.atter  of  opin- 
ion, but  evidence  of  a  fact  demonstrat- 
ed.    Ihiil,  312. 


ANSWEU. 


Sco  Kquitv,  K.  5. 


APPEALS. 
In  Patent  Cases. 

A.  To  TUF  SlTI'RKMK  CmiiT 133 

II.    To   .TUSTII'KS   (U'    TUK     I'UICLIT    COUIIT, 
1)ISTUU?T  CDHMtUA. 

1.  Wliiil  is;  when  lies  ttnd  when  not; 

u'lim  lost i:?5 

2.  Duly  of  Ciwimmionfr  of  PaUnls 

iit  cttsf.i  of. 137 

3.  Jurisdiclion  of  Juitice.i  on  Appeiil,  138 

4.  "Ileiisons  of  Apjit'dl,'^  sujjicienry 

of,  lie Ill 

6.  Practice  in  cases  of  Appeal liil 

A,  To  TIIK  Sui'UKMK  COUHT. 

Soo  also  "\Vkit  of  Ekuor. 

1.  Under  §  17  of  tho  .act  of  1830,  if  a 
writ  of  error  is  allowed  by  the  court,  in 
cases  where  the  amomit  in  dispute  docs 
not  reach  ^2,000,  and  in  such  as  aro 
deemed  "  reasonable,"  it  must  brinuf  up 
the  whole  case  for  consideration,  and 
the  court  below  cannot  determine  that 
only  particular  points  sh  dl  bo  taken  up. 
Ifof/f/  V.  J'Jiiiertto)!,  0  llow.,  477,  478. 
— WoonnruY,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1847. 

2.  The  word  "  reasonable"  .applies  to 
the  cases,  rather  than  to  any  discriu'ina- 
tion  between  the  difleront  points  in  tho 
cases.     Ilnd.,  478. 

3.  An  appeal  lies  otdy  from  a  final  de- 
cree of  tlu>  co\irt  below.  A  decree  for 
a  perpetual  injunction,  in  a  patent  case, 
and  a  reference  to  a  master  to  report 
the  damage  sustained  by  the  plaintiff 
is  not  a  final  decree  within  tho  practice 


WlftttejTj 


jjiif] 


k^^^- 


T    ^1 


''««i»;'l 


■  m 

iliri 


III 


UrV^t...., 


yi'Mi-'W' 


tm 


134 


ArriOALS,  A. 


TO  TIIK  HirrUKME  COIIIT,    WIIKX. 


U,H*- 


iK 


ft 


of  tlio  court,  HO  that  nii  apix'.-il  will  lie. 
JltiriKinl  V.  Gil>«nn,  7  How.,  057,  OuH. 
— JMcl.KAX,  J. ;  Sii]).  Ct.,  1  S4S. 

4.  Uiulcr  J$  17  of  llio  net  of  1830,  an 
nppi'al  or  writ  of  error  lies  to  tlio  Sii- 
prt'tno  Court,  iiiKk-r  an  order  of  tlie 
eourt,  alllioiii^h  llio  jiitl^nient  Is  iiinler 
tlie  Mnionnt  of  ^'2,000.  J'\)(tte  v.  iSiMn/, 
1  I'.l.itelif.,  544.— Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

5.  TIr!  last  clause  of  g  17  of  the  act 
of  1h;U!,  providini;  for  appeals  an<l  writs 
of  error  in  all  other  cases  "  in  which  the 
coiu't  shall  de(an  reasonable,"  does  not 
apply  to  a  suit  in  ecpiity  to  set  aside  an 
assii^nnietit  of  a  jjatent.  Wilson  v. 
t'^aiiJfon/,  10  How.,  101,  10'2.-Tanky, 
Ch.  J.;  Suj).  Ct.,  1S50. 

0.  The  rij^ht  of  appeal  is  confined  to 
the  cases  nienlioned  in  the  first  i)art  of 
the  section,  "to  actions,  suits,  contro- 
versies and  cases  arisinji;  under  any  law 
of  the  United  States,  j^ranting  or  con- 
firming to  inventors  the  exclusive  right 
to  their  inventions  or  discoveries,"  and 
■\vas  ir-teiuled  to  secure  unilorniity  of 
decision  in  the  construction  of  the  acts 
of  Congress  m  relation  to  patents.  Ibid., 
101. 

7.  The  law  gives  a  party  aggrieved  an 
api»eal  Irom  a  final  decree  of  an  inferior 
court.  But  it  docs  not  give  a  party 
who  is  not  aggrieved,  an  .'ipj)eal  from  a 
decree  in  his  favor,  because  the  judge 
has  given  no  reasons,  or  insutlicient 
ones  for  the  judgment  admitted  to  be 
correct.  Corning  v.  7roy  Iron  and 
JVail  Ihc,  15  How.,  405. — Grikk,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

8.  Where  a  complainant  in  a  patent 
suit  had  a  decree  i'.i  liis  favor,  but  not 
to  the  extent  prayed  for  in  his  bill,  and 
the  respondent  appealed,  Held,  if  the 
complainant  desired  a  more  favoralle 
decree,  he  must  enter  a  cross  appeal, 


that  when  the  decree  conies  before  the 
appellate  court,  he  nuiy  be  heard.  Ibid., 
400. 

0.  A  Bccond  appeal  lies  only  when 
the  court  below,  in  carrying  out  the 
mandate  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  al- 
leged to  have  comyiitted  an  error.  IJut 
on  an  appeal  from  a  numdate,  nothing 
is  before  the  court  but  the  proceeilings 
subsequent  to  the  mandate.    Iliid.,  400. 

10.  The  defi'iidant,  in  a  suit  in  e(pii- 
ty,  took  two  groiujds  of  defence;  the 
Circuit  Court  decided  against  him  on 
one,  and  dismisse<l  the  bill  on  the  other; 
on  a|)peal  to  the  Supreme  Court,  the 
decree  was  reversed,  and  the  <  luso 
remanded.  Iliid,  that  the  «'!T'i'  • 
could  not  then  appeal  j'rom  the  decision 
of  the  Circuit  Court  on  the  ground 
originally  decided  against  him.  Ibid., 
400. 

11.  An  objection  to  the  joinder  of  an 
assignor  with  an  assignee,  as  complain- 
ant in  a  bill,  comes  too  late  on  apjjcal. 
Li\'in(jnto)i  V.  ~\Voodworth,  15  How., 
557.— D-VNiKi,,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

12.  The  discretionary  power  as  to 
granting  aj)peals  ami  writs  of  error  in 
patent  cases,  vested  in  the  Circuit 
Courts  by  §  17  of  the  act  of  1830,  is 
confined  to  cases  M'hich  involve  the  con- 
st nu'tion  of  the  patent  laws,  and  the 
rights  of  patentees  under  them ;  and 
does  not  justify  the  allowanco^of  a  writ 
of  error,  merely  to  review  a  (piestion  of 
costs.  Sizcrv.  Many,  10  How.,  103. — 
Tanky,  Ch.  J. ;   Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

13.  A  motion  to  allow  an  answer  to 
be  filed  in  a  patent  case  made  after  tlio 
bill  has  been  taken  ^>ro  confcsso,  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  discretion  of  the  court ; 
.and  for  a  refusal  to  grant  such  leave,  an 
appeal  does  not  lie  to  the  Supreme 
Court.  Dean  v.  3Iason,  20  How.,  204. 
—McLean,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857 


i 


APPEALS,  IJ.  1. 

135 

TO  JUHl'lCKH'   CIUCUIT   t'UL'lir.      WHAT   IH;    W1II:N    I.IKS,    KIO. 

B.  To  JUSTICKS'  ClUCUlT  CoUIlT,  Dis- 
TllICT  CoLUMUIA. 

1.  What  ia  f  when  lies  and  tohennotj 
when  lost. 

1.  Whether  a  socoiul  rejection  of  an 
ii])pliciitioii,  by  the  ConiiniHsioiior,  after 
nil  aiH)eal  to  the  justices  of  the  Circuit 
Court,  for  reasons  untouched  by  tlie  de- 
cision of  the  ju.lge,  wouhl  be  thti  sub- 
ject   of    ajiiteal ;    query.      Arnuld    v. 

liishop,  IMS.  (Apj).  Cus,) — Cuanch,  Cii. 
J.;  J).  C,  latl. 

2.  The  object  of  {j;iviii<f  an  appeal  is 
to  correct  the  error  of  the  Conunissioner 
in  rcj'iishiy  to  i^rant  tlie  patent  applied 
fur.  liis  error  in  (jntntiiuj  a  patent  is 
corrected  by  the  ordinary  tribunals  of 
the  country,  and  needs  no  special  tribu- 
nal for  siu'h  i)urj)osc.  Vonieroy  v.  6'o/i- 
iiison,  !MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckancii,  Ch. 
J.;  1).  C,  1842. 

3.  An  appeal  is  given  to  a  disappoint- 
ed applicant,  because  otherwise  the  de- 
cision of  the  Connuissioner  would  be 
conclusive  against  him.  It  is  not  given 
to  the  patentee,  because  the  decision  is 
not  only  not  conclusive  as  to  him,  but 
docs  not  in  any  manner  aft'ect  his  legal 
or  equitable  rights.     Ibid. 

4.  Under  the  patent  laws  no  appeal 
can  be  taken  from  the  decision  of  the 
Connuissioner  of  Patents,  unless  tbe  ap- 
plication for  a  patent  is  rejected  by  him. 
In  no  case  can  an  appeal  betaketi  to  the 
granting  of  a  patent.  A  2^ittentee  has 
no  right  of  appeal  from  the  decision  of 
the  Commissioner  of  Patents  granting  a 
patent  to  another  person.    Ibid. 

5.  This  decision  approved  and  fol- 
lowed in  Whip2)le  v.  Ilenton^  Morsell, 
J.,  1854 ;  Ilujikins  v.  lianmm,  Mor- 
sell, J.,  1854;  Kiwjsley  v.  Iferriet., 
MoRSKLL,  J.,  1854;    and  in  Drake  v. 


Cunninyh(im,}t\oiiHiiiA.,J.,  IK55.    [I>ut 
HiHi  post  IH.J 

0.  Where  the  decision  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  neither  allirms  nor  <k'- 
nies  the  right  of  an  ajjplicant  to  the 
patent  (which  he  claims),  upon  the  nu-r- 
its  of  the  supposed  invention,  it  is  not 
such  n  decision  as  is  the  Kubjoct  of  aj)- 
peal  under  §  11  of  the  act  of  iHyO. 
Jd/iney,  J'Jx  parte,  MS.  (Ajtp.  Cas.) — 
CuAxcn,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C,  1847. 

7.  Therefore  the  refusal  of  the  Com- 
missioner to  revise  and  revoke  a  decis- 
ion of  one  of  liis  predecessors  in  olHco 
rejecting  an  application  for  a  ])atent,  is 
not  a  ground  of  appeal.     Ihid. 

8.  A  party  desiring  an  appeal  in  such 
a  case  should  appeal  Irom  the  decision 
refusing  his  application  for  a  patent. 
Ibid. 

9.  There  is  no  limitation  of  tunc  as 
to  the  appeal  from  decisions  of  the  Com- 
missioner.    Ibid. 

10.  Nothing  i)reliininary  to  the  issu- 
ing of  a  patent  is  a  valid  ground  of  ap- 
peal, xmless  made  so  by  the  law  author- 
izing appeals.  Wade  v.  Matthews,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — CuAxcii,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C, 
1850. 

11.  Questions  as  to  tlie  practicability 
and  usefulness  of  an  invention,  and  the 
rediu'iiig  of  it  to  practice,  are  matters 
within  the  discretion  of  tht  commis- 
sioner, and  are  not  made  the  subjects  of 
appeal.     Ibid. 

12.  The  filing  of  the  "reasons  of 
appeal"  is  essentially  the  appeal  itself. 
Greenouyh  v.  Clarice,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— MORSKLL,  J.;  D.  C,  1853. 

13.  Where  the  reasons  of  appeal  are 
not  filed  within  the  time  prescribed  by 
the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  the  right 
of  appeal  is  lost.  The  Commissioner 
may,  however,  enlarge  the  time  to  file 
such  reasons.     Ibid. 


i 


^^Wlifli^-^^, 


:.*>siv 


.jaa 


!^m^ 


"""^Wi 


la-:^*.*!^" 


'^^i 


%4^ 


''•'^i: 


*i«  J 


'*f  Ilk.,' 


IJ 


A' Mm 


^ 

^P™ 


rM 


130 


APIMCALS,  B.  1. 


TO  justices'  ciucuir  colut,    what  is;  wiiex  ukh,  ktc. 


14.  Uiuler  ^g  7,  8,  of  the  act  of  1830, 
two  clussc'S  of  casi's  aro  ])rovi<lud  for. 
An  apjieiil  is  given  by  g  7  to  an  ajipli- 
ciint  where  there  is  no  opjiosing  party; 
and  by  §  8,  where  there  are  interic'ring 
appHoations.  And  there  is  nothing  in 
the  repealing  act  of  1839  which  takes 
away  or  ini})air8  such  riglit.  lAtltz,  Kx 
jxtrtc,  jMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moksei.l,  J. ; 
1).  C,  1853. 

15.  If  competent  and  material  i'\ 
tlence  is  nut  adniitted  by  the  Commis- 
BJoner,  or  inadmissible  or  incompetent 
evidence  is  received,  objection  being 
nnide  to  its  reception,  such  action  may 
be  assigned  as  a  reason  of  appeal,  and 
the  Commissioner  is  bound  to  answer 
it,  anil  1  he  judge  to  lecide  ui)on  it,  and 
atford  relief.     Ibid. 

10.  The  refusal  of  the  Commissioner 
of  I'atents  to  grant  a  reheai-ing,  or  sec- 
ond interference,  is  not  the  subject  of 
appeal.  Itoutic,  Kx  parte.,  318.  (Api>. 
Cas.)— DuxLor,  J. ;  D.  C,  1854. 

17.  An  appeal  hes  from  .i  decision  of 
the  Commissioner  of  I'atents  denying  a 
patent  to  both  ai)plicants,  as  well  as 
■when  he  denies  it  to  one,  and  grants  it 
to  the  other.  It  is  from  the  decision 
refusing  to  grant  a  patent  as  applied 
for  that  the  law  allows  an  appeal. 
Carter  v.  Garter.,    MS.   (Ajip.  Cas.) — 

MoKSKLL,  J.;  D.  C,  1855. 

18.  Under  §  8  of  the  act  of  183G,  a 
patentee  has  equal  right  of  appeal  from 
a  decision  of  the  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents in  favor  of  an  applicant,  that  an 
applicant  has  from  a  decision  in  favor 
of  a  prior  patentee.  Bahcoch  v.  Deg- 
ener,  jMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Meerick,  J. ; 
D.  C,  1859. 

19.  This  decision  followed  in  Spear 
V.  Abbott,  DuNLOP,  J.,  1859;  and 
Beech  y.  ^WeA-er.,  Moesell,  J.,  1860. 

20.  The  language  of  the  statute  is 


broad  enough  to  embrace,  and  does 
end)race,  "  a  patentee"  who  is  dissatis- 
fied with  the  decision  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  I'atents  on  the  question  of 
priority  of  right  or  invention.     Ibid. 

21.  It  cannot  be  limited  to  the  case 
of  contending  a])plicants.     Ibid. 

22.  The  phrase  "to  determine  which 
or  Aviiether  either  of  the  applicants," 
tfec,  was  introduced  for  the  j)urpose  of 
insuring  the  examination  of  the  ques- 
tion, in  the  case  of  contending  jippli- 
cants,  l)y  the  judge,  whether  cither  of 
the  ai)plicants  liad  brought  forward  a 
patejitable  claim.     Ibid. 

23.  Within  §  11  of  the  act  of  1839, 
as  to  the  Conmiissioner  regulating  the 
time  (.f  .ippeals,  lie  may  extend  the 
time  of  ap{)eal ;  it  is  a  matter  Avith- 
in  his  discretion.  Justice  v.  Jones., 
jMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Meruick,  J.;  D.  C, 
1859. 

24.  Xo  appeal  lies  from  matters 
which  are  within  the  discretion  of  the 
Conunissioner  of  Patents,  as  extending 
time  to  take  testimony,  &c.,  miless  ])er- 
haps  for  a  i>lain  abuse  of  discretion. 
Ho2>kins  V.  Bewis,  MS.  (Ajjp.  Cas.) — 
MoKSELL,  J.;  D.  C,  1859. 

25.  It  is  not  i)roper  matter  for  the 
appellate  tribunal  that  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  has  not  given  a  party  such 
reasons  for  his  decision  and  made  such 
suggestions  as  enabled  him  to  judge 
of  the  expediency  of  abandoning  or 
modifying  his  aj^plication.  Spencer,  Ex 
parte ;  Mimson,  Ex  parte,  JMS.  (App. 
Cas.) — Merrick,  J.;  D.  C,  1859. 

26.  Though  the  law  requires  the 
Commissioner  to  aid  the  inventor  by 
information  and  suitable  references  to 
I'emedy  a  defective  specitication  or 
claim,  and  to  assist  his  judgment  in 
determining  whether  he  should  with- 
draw  or  persist  in  a  rejected  ai)plication 


APPEAT.S,  B.  2. 


137 


Ht.TY   OK  COMMIHHIONKIl   IN   CAKKS  OR 


— tliu  iiKiiiiier  of  (ioin^  so,  liow  often, 
and  to  whiit  oxlont,  is  left  to  tlio  dis- 
ert'lion  of  tlic  Couimissionor,  and  it  is 
not  tlio  sul)jt'i't  of  review  whether  this 
duty  is  well  and  Huflieiently  jterfornied 
in  a  given  instance.  Chtnnhct'ft,,  J'}x 
parte,  MS.  (App.  Cus.) — Mhuuuk,  J.; 
J).  C,  1H5!). 

27.  An  appeal  cannot  bo  made  after 
the  time  limited  in  the  notice  of  appeal. 
JJittou,  W.,  J'Jxjxirte,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— :>[EKmcK,  J.;  ]).  C,  1860. 

28.  Upon  an  application  for  a  reissue 
under  §  5  of  the  act  of  1837,  asking  for 
several  reissued  patents,  each  division  or 
se|):u'ate  jiatent  asked  for  is  not  such  a 
ficparate  case,  as  to  require  the  j)aynient 
of  $25  on  an  appeal  to  the  judges; 
but  one  appeal  carries  up  the  whole 
case,  not  a  part ;  and,  notwithstanding 
that  separate  reissued  jtatents  may  be 
granted.  Sehhn,  asaif/nee,  J'Jx  parte, 
3IS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoKSELL,  J.' ;  D.  C, 
1801. 

2.  Duty  of  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
in  cases  of. 

1.  The  Commissioner  is  bound  under 
§  11  of  the  act  of  1839,  to  furnish  to 
the  judges  on  appeal  the  grounds 
of  liis  decision  touching  the  reasons 
of  appeal.  JCeniper,  Ex.  jutrte,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — CuANcii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C, 
18-41. 

2.  On  an  appeal  to  the  judge  under 
§11  of  the  act  of  1839,  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents  is  required  to  lay  be- 
fore such  judge  all  the  original  papers 
and  evidence  in  the  case,  together  with 
the  grounds  of  his  decision  fully  set 
forth  in  writing  touching  all  the  points 
involved  in  the  reasons  of  appeal,  to 
which  reasons  of  a])peal  the  revision  of 
the  judge  is  to  be  confined.     Gundell 


V.    Parkhxrst,     MS.     (App.    Case.)— 
CKAN(n,  Ch.  J. ;  1).  C,  1H17. 

3.  When  tlio  Commissioiu-r  has  laidi 
before  the  judge  the  papers,  evidence, 
Ac,  with  "the  grounds  of  his  decision," 
the  case  is  no  longer  before  the  Commis- 
sioner, and  the  litigation  is  closed  as 
between  the  appellant  and  the  oftice. 
Aiken,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (Apj).  Cas.)— 
CitANcii,  Ch.  J.;  I).  C,  18.50. 

4.  When  a  party  has  given  notice  of 
an  intention  to  appeal  from  the  <lecision 
of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  by 
presenting  his  petition,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Conunissioner,  aiul  exclusively  his 
duty,  to  fix  a  reasonable  time  for  filing 
the  reasons  of  appeal,  within  which  time 
all  further  action  is  suspended.  Green- 
ouijh  v.  Clark,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoE- 
SELL,  J.;  1).  C,  1853. 

6.  The  Conunissioner  may  ejil.arge  the 
time  to  file  such  reasons,  and  rehear  the 
case,  and  this  he  m.ay  do  at  any  time, 
not  only  until  the  ]>atent  issues,  but  un- 
t'l  it  is  actually  delivered.     Ibid. 

0.  Under  the  act  of  1839,  allowing 
appeals  to  the  chief  justice  of  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia, 
and  tlie  act  of  1852,  authorizing  like 
appeals  to  the  assistant  justices  of  the 
same  court,  the  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents had  no  power  to  make  an  order, 
that  on  account  of  the  infirmity  of 
the  cbief  justice,  appeals  should  bo 
taken  to  the  assistant  justices  alone, 
or  in  default  thereof  that  a  patent 
should  issue  to  the  other  party.  Anon., 
0  Opiu.  39. — CusiiiNG,  Atty.  Gen.; 
1853. 

7.  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  is 
to  send  to  the  appellate  tribunal  the 
reasons  of  his  decision,  in  answer  to  the 
reasons  of  appeal,  in  the  case  of  a  single 
application  as  Avell  as  where  tliere  are 
contesting    ai)25Ucations.      Henry,  Ex 


fe...^**^*; 


■■i*«\ 


'Www*^ 


138 


Al'PKALS,  15.  3. 


JL'llIHKICIUiN   or  JL'STK'KH  ON  Ali'KALH. 


\^      *'%#< 


jHirtr,  ISIS.  (App.  C:i8.) — Mkuuiok,  J.; 

1).  (J.,  iH5a. 

3.  Jurisdiction  of  Justices    on    Aj>- 
2>eal. 

1.  Tho  power  of  tlio  justices  of  the 
Circuit  Court  on  appeal  from  tlio  docis- 
ion  of  tlio  Conind.ssiouer  of  I'atonts, 
under  J5  1 1  of  tlio  iiet  of  1 S30,  is  eon- 
lined  to  the  points  involveil  in  the 
"reasons  of  appeal."  lunipnr,  Kx partt^ 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— CuAxcii,  Ch.  J.;  1). 
C,  J«41. 

2.  The  revision  of  the  judLCO  on  aj»- 
peal  is  eonfnied  to  the  points  involved 
in  the  reasons  of  appeal,  and  he  is  to 
revise  the  decision  of  the  Connnissioiier 
only  in  respect  to  the  points  involved 
in  the  reasons  of  appeal.  Arnold  v. 
Jiis/ioj),  MS.  (Api).  Cas.) — CuANcii,  Ch. 
J.;  1).  C,  1841. 

3.  If  the  Commissioner  did  not  err  in 
those  jjoints,  his  decision  nnist  be  alVirm- 
ed,  even  though  the  judge  should  be  of 
opinion  ni)on  the  evidence  and  merits 
of  the  whole  case  that  such  decision 
■was  wrong.     Ilnd. 

4.  The  provision  of  the  statute  that 
"the  decision  of  the  juilge  shall  gov- 
ern the  further  proceedings  of  the  Com- 
missioner in  the  case"  applies  only  to 
so  much  of  the  case  as  is  involved  in 
the  reasons  of  appeal ;  and  the  appeal 
itself  can  only  be  considered  as  an  ap- 
peal to  so  much  of  the  decision  as  is 
nifected  by  such  reasons.  Arnold  v. 
Bishop,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Craxcii,  Ch. 
J.;  D.  C,  1841. 

5.  If  therefore  after  tlie  judge  shall 
have  decided  in  favor  of  an  applicant 
upon  the  points  involved  in  his  reasons 
of  appeal,  other  sufficient  reason?",  renuun 
for  rejecting  the  claim  for  a  jiatent,  un- 
touched by  the  decision  of  the  judge, 


it  wouM  seem  that  the  Connnissioner 
might  still  reject  it.     I  hid. 

0.  The  j>roceedings  before  tlie  Com- 
missioner of  Patents,  and  before  the 
judges  on  appeal,  are  all  initiatory  ;  all 
relating  to  the  (piestion  whether  a  pat- 
ent shall  issue,  and  cannot  alfect  a  j»at- 
ent  already  issued.  I'otneroy  v.  Cim- 
irison,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckancii,  Ch. 
J.;  I).  C,  1842. 

7.  The  ])owers  and  jurisdiction  given 
by  the  patent  law  to  the  judges  on  ap. 
])eal  are  special  and  limited,  and  nuist 
be  construed  and  exercised  strictly.  He 
can  only  decide  such  questions  and  ren- 
der such  judgment  as  he  is  exjjres.sly 
authorized  by  the  statutes  to  decide 
and  render.     I/nd. 

8.  The  revision  of  the  judge  is  to  ho 
confined  to  the  reasons  of  ajtpeal,  and 
the  grounds  of  the  Commissioner's  de- 
cision, required  by  §  11  of  the  act  of 
1839,  are  to  be  confined  to  the  jjoiiits 
involved  in  the  reasons  of  appeal. 
Smith  v.  Flic/ii)i(/cr,  IMS,  (Ajip.  Cas.) 
— Ckanch,  Ch.  J. ;  1).  C,  1843. 

9.  The  revision  of  the  decision  ol' 
the  Commissioner  is  to  be  "confined  to 
the  groumls  of  his  decision,  touching 
the  j)oint8  involved  in  the  reasons  of 
appeal."  Cochrane  v.  Waterman,  IMS. 
(App.  Cas.)— CuANCii,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C, 
1844. 

10.  The  revision  of  the  judge  on  ap- 
peal is  limited  to  the  pohits  hivolved  in 
the  reasons  of  appeal,  and  the  questions 
must  bo  decided  according  to  the  evi- 
dence ])roduced  before  the  Commission- 
er. Warner  v.  Goodyear,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Ckanch,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1846. 
Perry  v.  Cornell.  Ibid. — Crancii,  Cli. 
J.;  1847. 

11.  The  jurisdiction  given  to  the 
judge  under  §  8  of  the  act  of  183G,  is 
broad  enough  to  include  the  question 


Al'l'EALS,  JJ.  3. 


idu 


JUIIISDICTION   or  JU8T1CKH,    ON   AIM'KAr.H. 


of  intir/ircnce,  nn  M'oII  as  that  of  prior- 
iti/.  Ami  tlio  question  of  jtrion'ti/  ol' 
rii^lit  of  invc'iitioii  noci'ssiuily  iiii|tli<'s 
inter/ rvMcc.  Jiain  v.  Morne,  iSIS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Ckanoii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  (J., 
1849. 

12.  IJut  tlio  intcrforouco  montioiuMl  in 
g  8  of  llio  act  of  1H30,  must  lu;  an  in- 
li'ifciTuco  in  rosp('(!t  to  patoiitablo  niat- 
ti'is,  and  the  t-laiins  of  the  applicants 
must  1)0  limited  to  tho  matters  specilic- 
fillv  set  forth  as  their  respective  inven- 
lions;  and  what  is  not  claimed  is  to  be 
considered,  for  tho  jturpose  of  sucli  in- 
terference, as  disclaimed.     ff)td. 

13.  Tiie  decision  of  tho  judges  on 
appeal  is  conlined  "to  th«  jjoinls  involv- 
(mI  in  the  reasons  of  appeal."  Wins- 
Imo,  Jvx  parte,  jNlS.  (Ajtp.  Cas.) — 
Ckanhh,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1850. 

14.  The  supervision  of  the  judge  is 
limited  to  the  jjoints  involved  in  the 
reasons  of  appeal.  Aiken,  Kx  ^vtrtc 
{Propellers),  IMS.  (A[>p.  Cas.) — Cuancii, 
Ch.  J.;  I).  C,  1850. 

15.  It  is  immaterial  what  reasons  the 
Commissioner  assigns  for  his  decision  ; 
his  reasons  may  be  insufficient,  and  yet 
his  decision  be  correct.     Ibid. 

16.  The  insufficiency  of  the  Comniis- 
sioncr's  reasons  for  rejecting  an  ap])li- 
ciilion  is  not  in  itself  evidence  tluat  his 
decision  is  wrong,  and  is  no  cause  for 
reversing  it.  Aiken,  JSx parte  {li.  Ji. 
Car  1 1 7/t'(r/.s).— MS.  (Ai)p.Ca8.)— Crancii, 
Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1850. 

IV.  The  filing  of  reasons  of  appeal 
in  the  office  of  tho  Commissioner  of 
.Patents  is  a  proceeding  over  which  the 
judge  on  apj;^il  has  no  control.  Wide 
y.Mdttheicis,  MS.  (App.Cas.) — Ckaxcii, 
Ch.  J.;D.  C,  1850. 

18.  If  the  Commissioner  h.as  received 
and  filed  the  reasons  of  appeal,  the 
judge  cannot  order  him  to  strike  them 


out.  They  must  bt'  UiXt'X  and  ilocided. 
Ihid. 

10.  11)0  jtirisdicVlf/D  of  tho  judge  on 
a])peal  is  confined  to  tho  reasons  of  aj)- 
peal,  ami  however  worthy  (»f  coii><idera- 
tion  a  proposition  or  argument  \\\i\y  be, 
if  not  within  such  reasons,  it  nmst  be 
disregarded,  liurlew  v.  O'Xeil,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,,  J.;  I),  (i,  1853. 

iJO,  The  (piestion  of  fraud  in  grant- 
ing a  patent,  will  not  be  passed  upon  hy 
the  judge  on  appeal,  but  is  to  be  tried 
by  ,1  jury.     Ihid. 

'21.  All  the  conditions  prescribed  in 
§  11  of  tho  act  of  1839  nmst  be  eom- 
plit'd  with,  as  prerecpiisites,  before  the 
judge  can  take  jurisiliction  by  Avay  of 
appeal  fron\  the  decision  of  the  C'ommis- 
sioner  of  Patents.  Greenouyh  v.  Clark, 
MS.  (Ai)p.  Cas.) — MoJtsKLL,  J.;  D.  C, 
1853. 

'J2.  ITis  jurisdiction  is  very  special 
and  limited,  .and  all  the  previous  cir- 
cumstances under  which  it  is  given  must 
exist,  before  it  can  attach,  and  no  other 
power  or  a>ithority  can  be  exercised, 
I'xcept  that  expressly  given,  or  fairly  to 
be  inferred.     Ibid. 

23.  The  judge  can  jtidicially  know 
nothing  of  the  case,  until  the  appealing 
party  i)resents  liis  petition  for  n  revis- 
ion, which  cannot  be  done  until  after 
a  decision  has  been  made  against  him, 
and  he  has  declared  his  intention  of  ap- 
])ealing,  and  filed  his  reasons  of  appeal. 
Ibid.  ^ 

24.  The  provision  of  §  1 1  of  the  act 
of  1839,  requiring  the  judge  to  hear 
and  determine  appeals  from  the  decis- 
ions of  the  Commissioner,  "  on  the  evi- 
dence produced  before  the  Commission- 
er," is  to  be  construed  in  connection 
wit1\  §  T  of  the  act  of  1836,  Avhich  pro- 
vides th.at  reasonable  notice  shall  be 
given  both  to  the  party  appealing  and 


^^0^W^, 


7 


Ww%s 


i  i  r 


^»^» 


linn* 

i. 

■i 


'  M'xaf 


Wk 


"O^^^ 


0*:>r**Ci. 


At 


■^n 


b;tg^M 


W 


■hErfu.  , 


'        it   , 


WWww>. 


V^^'W^^^V;-' 


140 


APrEALS,  JJ.  n. 


jiumnrcTioN  or  jumtickh,  ov  AiTRAUt. 


\^*Mt^. 


tlio  CominlMslonor,  bo  "  that  they  may 
have  an  oj»|iurtiinily  of  fiiirii.sirni<^  tlit'iii, 
i.  e.  the  board  of  oxainliitTH,  with  Huch 
facts  and  t'vidciico  an  I  hey  may  drum 
ncccsHary  to  a  just  dci-isiofi."  J'\iltZt 
.Ex p(irte,'^\^.  (Apj).  Cas.) — Mokhkli., 
T. ;  1).  ('.,  iy53. 

25.  Thcirt!  is  nothing  in  thu  repealing 
aetof  IH.SO — whicli  Hiihstituted  tliejudge 
for  the  l)oard  ofexaminerH — which  takes 
away  or  impairs  that  right,  but  every 
reason  to  infer  that  it  was  intendeil  to 
be  saved  to  the  fullest  extent.     Ibid. 

20.  Where  in  a  case,  a  party  has  been 
prevented  from  producing  before  the 
Commissioner  his  proofs  to  sujtport  his 
claim,  it  is  the  duty  (  t"  the  judge  to  pur- 
sue, by  reasonable  regulations,  similar 
to  those  directed  by  §  12  of  the  act  of 
1839,  such  a  course  as  will  afford  the 
l)arty  an  opportunity  to  produce  such 
proofs.     Ibid. 

27.  In  such  a  case,  tho  judge  will 
make  an  order  authorizing  the  party  to 
take  and  file  with  his  api)eal,  evidence 
as  to  the  originality  and  utility  of  his 
invention.     Ibid. 

28.  IW  8  11  of  the  act  of  1839,  sub- 
blituting  the  judge  in  place  of  the  board 
of  examiners  created  by  §  T  of  the  act 
of  1830,  the  judge  succeeded  to  the 
same  autiiority  that  such  board  possess- 
ed to  require  of  the  Connnissioner  of 
Patents  and  examiners,  "information 
relative  to  the  sid)ject  matter  under  con- 
sideration," and  to  the  full  extent.  See- 
ley's  Aop.,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moksell, 
J.;  D.  C,  1853. 

29.  An  examiner  may  therefore  be  in- 
quired of  as  to  the  nature  and  features 
of  tho  invention  under  consideration,  and 
esscptial  to  the  right  claimed,  and  which 
may  not  be  sufficiently  set  forth  in  the 
report  of  the  Commissioner.     Ibid. 

3A.  If  luw  references^  as  grounds  for 


the  rejection  of  an  application  for  a  pat- 
ent, are  made  at  the  trial  of  lui  appeal, 
before  the  judge,  and  are  such  as  are 
material,  they  will  be  considered  as 
having  deprived  the  applicant  of  \m 
right  of  amendment  secured  by  §  7  of 
the  act  of  1830,  and  in  such  ease  the  de- 
cision of  the  Commissioner  will  be  re- 
versed, and  he  will  be  directed  to  pro- 
ceed  with  tho  case  anew.  Jeirctt  <6 
llout^Ex jyarte^^\^.  (App.  Cas.) — Mou- 
siar,,  J.;  I).  C,  1853. 

31.  The  i)rovisions  of  §  11  oftheactof 
1839,  as  to  the  examination,  on  appeal, 
of  the  Connnissioner  or  examiners  of  the 
Patent  Office  on  appeals,  must  be  con- 
sidered  in  connection  With  tho  provision 
in  §  7  of  the  act  of  1830,  as  to  the  powers 
of  the  old  board  of  examiners.  Itich- 
ardsoii  v.  Ilirks,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
MoKSKr.L,  J.;  I).  C,  1854. 

32.  The  language  of  tho  statute  moans 
th.at  the  explanation  authorized  to  bo 
required  of  the  Commissioner  and  ex- 
aminers, may  be  so  full  and  clear  an  ex- 
planation of  the  princijjles  oi'  tho  thhv^, 
as  to  enable  the  judge  didy  to  ajijiiy 
and  weigh  the  evidence  offered  to  su))- 
port  the  issue  in  the  case,  and  is  not  to 
be  limited  to  a  mere  exjiosition  of  the 
terms  used,  and  such  explanations  so 
given,  the  judge  is  bound  to  respect  as 
a  part  of  the  case.    Ibid. 

33.  Tliejudge  on  appeals  is  only  re- 
quired to  examine  the  co>iclusio?i8  whicl. 
the  Connnissioner  of  Patents  may  have 
arrived  at  in  any  given  case,  and  not  the 
processes  or  reasons  by  which  such  con- 
clusions may  liave  been  attained.  Sjicti' 
cer,  Ux2M7'te,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Meu- 
rucK,  J,;  D.  C,  1859.  [I^ames  v,  liic/ir 
ards.—MERiiicK,  J.;  1859.] 

34.  On  appeal,  the  judge  is  not  at 
liberty  to  look  into  every  error  of  f;ict 
or  law  which  may  have  been  committed 


In  the  I 

liCCfl  n/>, 

Hons   of 
MS.  (Aj 

IHOO. 

3.1.  Tl 
or  to  sen 
Ortlce  to 
|ierts,  an 
invoiilioii 
j)roof  on  I 
3IS.  (Ap 
1801. 

30.  IIo 
pers  and 
tho  Com  11 
37.  Xei 
view  a  Ion 
or  eiitcrtai 
case;    (ho 
conolusive, 
judges.  lia 
Cas.)— I)u 
38.  ITnd 
judge  on  a 
question  of 
to  dotermii 
titled  to  a 
quire  into 
ces  given  in 
i<la(o    the 
loveridf/c  v 
— Dir.M.op, 
Gambril, 
J.;  D.  C,  1 

39.  The 

by  law  can 

from  the  dec 

Under  the 

decisions 

examiners  oi 

W'ore  in  lata 

missioner, 

Under  that 

examiner  re: 


APPEALS,  U.  3. 


141 


HKAHONH  or   APPRAI^   HL'rril'IR!(OY  OF. 


ill  tho  caso,  l)Ht  only  to  hiioIi  ns  li!iv«' 
been  ajxcijii'dlly  po'iiitnl  out  \*y  tlu-  r»'ii- 
HoiiM   of   appi'iil.     /jiiiillci/    V.    t/iimeiiy 

MS.  (App.  CUH.)— MKKKItK,  J.;  I).  C, 
1800. 

3.'i.  Tim  judj^i!  on  .'ippoal  Ims  no  pow- 
er to  H<'n<l  11  niMO  back  to  tlio  Patont 
Otlict!  to  take  proof  l»y  c^jinpetent  ex- 
ports, art  to  tlio  alU'j»i!(l  utility  of  tlu' 
invention,  or  to  rccuivo  or  licar  Hiirh 
proof  on  till!  appoal.  Sdtiders^  Ejc,  purte^ 
MS.  (App.  Can.)— DuNLOi',  J.;  D.  C, 
1801. 

;iO.  lie  is  liinitCfl  by  law  to  tlio  i>a- 
pors  Miul  cviiN'ni'o  which  wore  before 
tho  Commissioner. 

37.  Neither  Judjje  on  appeal  can  re- 
view a  former  decision  of  another  judjife, 
or  entertain  another  appeal,  in  the  same 
case;  tho  former  decision  is  final  and 
conclusive,  upon  either  of  the  other 
judges.  Raymond,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App. 
Cus.)— Dir-Ni-op,  J.;  D.  C,  1801. 

38.  Under  §  8  of  tho  act  of  1830,  the 
judge  on  appeal  is  not  confined  to  the 
question  ofpriority  of  invention,  but  ho  is 
to  deternuno  Avhothor  cither  p.arty  is  en- 
titled to  a  patent.  Ilis  duty  is  to  in- 
quire into  all  the  facts  and  circumstan- 
ces given  in  evidence,  which  go  to  inval- 
idiito  the  claim  of  either  applicant. 
Loverldf/ev.DutrherfMi^.  (A|tp.  Cas.) 
— DuM.op,  J.;  D.  C,  1801.  Dyaon  v. 
Gamhril,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Dunloi* 
J.;  D.  C,  1801. 

39.  The  judges  of  tho  Circuit  Court 
by  law  can  entertain  no  appeal  except 
from  the  decisions  of  the  Coniraissioner. 
Under  the  laws  prior  to  1801,  all  tho 
decisions  of  tho  office,  whether  by 
examiners  or  tho  oltl  board  of  appeals, 
were  in  lata  the  decisions  of  the  Com- 
missioner, -when  sanctioned  by  him. 
Under  that  system,  when  a  primary 
examiner  refused  a  patent,  or  decided 


nn  interference,  and  the  ('oitimlssioner 
:ippr(»vod  such  decision,  an  appeal  lay 
directly  to  one  of  tho  judges.  iSnoto- 
(fin  v.  J'iirce,  MS.  (App.  Ciis.) — Dtx- 
i.op,  .1.;  I).  C,  IHOI. 

•to.  Hut  uiuler  the  new  l:iw  of  1801, 
th(!  primary  I'xaminers  and  the  examin- 
ers in  chief,  are  nil  treated  as  jutlicial 
olllcors,  hiiviiig  power  without  control, 
within  the  sphere  of  their  duly,  to  tho 
exercise  of  their  independent  judgment. 
Their  acts  aro  not  tho  acts  of  tho  Com- 
missioner, but  their  own  acts.  They 
jire  no  longer  more  organs  of  the  Oom- 
missioner,  but  independent  officers.  Ho 
can  only  reach  and  overrule  them  when 
tlu'ir  judgments  como  regularly  before 
him  on  <t/>peal.    Ihid. 

41.  The  appe.'d  to  the  judges  still  ex- 
ists, but  it  can  now  only  bo  exercised 
after  the  applicant  has  gone  tho  rounds 
of  .all  tho  tribunals  erected  bj>  the  new 
law,  and  after  the  final  decision  by  tho 
Commissioner.     Ibid. 

42.  An  api)licant  must  go  from  tho 
primary  examiners  by  a{)poal  to  tho  ex- 
aminers in  chief,  and  from  them  by  ap- 
peal to  tho  Commissioner,  and  lastly, 
from  the  Commissioner  to  the  judges  of 
the  Circuit  Court.    Ibid. 

4.    "  lieasons  of  Appeal,''^  sufficiency ^ 
t&c. 

1.  A  reason  of  appeal  should  not  be 
vague  and  unsatisfactory,  but  should  in- 
volve some  point  affecting  tho  decision  of 
the  Commissioner.  The  reason  that  the 
decision  of  the  Commissioner  was  in  op- 
position to  a  clear  apprehension  of  the 
merits  of  the  case,  is  insufficient.  Wins- 
loio.  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
CuAjJcn,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1850. 

2.  An  alleged  reason  of  appeal,  "that 
the  decision  of  tho  Commissioner  was 


1: 


*»*•>»*•, 


b.«t.-«^>. 


i   1 


IfWKI 


.^C>?w. 


■W)\ 


^'m^jtih 


-y^^' 


^^f^iittWWw^- 


.©Wwwww^. 


143 


Al'I'KALS,  U.  4. 


IIKAHONH  or  AITKAI,,    MirriCIKM'V  Of. 


fi 


inconHUti'iit,  M  DftpoHod  to  pruct'dciiiN 
which  havi*  jjoviTiictl  bclor*',  im  iiIho  in- 
Biimcit'iit."     Ibid. 

;».  iSnothcr  rt'ani>ii  ofn|ip('al  \vii«,"that 
till'  (h-ci-Hioii  <ti'  iho  CorimiiHsiiMUM'  wan 
uilvL>rHi<totlii<u|>inioiiri()rHkilt'iilaii(lcotii- 
pctt'iit,  jiracllfal,  ami  wciciilit'u'  nii'H,  whn 
well'  pcciiliaily  <|ii!ililh'il  In  Jinl^c  as  to 
thi' iiiciits  »»f  the  particular  iiivcMliiiii." 
J/il'f,\hu\  iKiiiotd'thi'Hc  n-aHoiiM  iriv<»lv»'tl 
thu  (piostioii  of  ii()V«>lty,  and  that  the 
Dpinioii  of  Miich  I'xpi'rts  ooiild  not  alU'cf 
till'  <pi('ntioii  of  novfhy.     Ifu'd. 

4.  A  reason  ofajtpoal  "that  thero  was 
no  cvitU'ni'o  of  any  lU'vloo  or  nrranjjf- 
mcnt  liko  that  of  the  applicant,"  J/t/<f, 
t(»  1»(*  no  ijroiiml  for  rov»'rsini^  the  (K-cis- 
ion  of  till!  C'onnnissioiiiT,  as  the  C'oni- 
mlsslonor  nu;;ht  have  had  other  f;ronn»ls 
than  the  evidence  ottered  for  the  rejec- 
tion. (^I'onirr  Kx  purU'y  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— C'kan.h,  Ch.  J.;  I).  CJ.,  IH.iO. 

5.  An  ohjectioii  to  the  f*y>////o/t  of  the 
Connnissioner  ns  to  the  intention  of  an 
invention  cited  as  eauso  of  rejection,  is 
not  a  ixood  "reason  of  appeal."  What- 
ever may  have  been  his  opinion,  his  de- 
cision may  he  correct.     Ibid. 

0.  A  reason  of  ap|)eal,  "that  the  rea- 
sons assigned  liy  tlie  Commissioner  for 
rejecting  a'l  application,  are  irrelevant 
and  do  net  apply  to  the  snliject  mat- 
ter," involves  no  point  material  to  the 
case.  A  then,  J'Jjc  juirte  {J'ropi  Ihr),  ^IS. 
(App.  Cas.)— CuAMii,  Ch.  J.;  I).  C, 
1850. 

7.  It  is  immaterial  what  reasons  the 
Commissioner  assigns  for  his  decision ; 
his  reasoning  may  bo  insnfiicient,  and 
yet  his  decision  be  correct.     Ibid. 

8.  Insufficient  reasons  furnish  no 
grounds  for  reversing  his  decision.  Ibid. 

9.  The  insufficiency  of  the  Coinmis- 
filoner's  reasons  for  rejecting  an  applica- 
tion for. a  patent,  is  not  in  itself  evi- 


dence that  \m  decifiiun  U  wrong,  ntid 
is  no  caUNu  for  ruverHing  it.  Aikm 
Kx  parte  {li.  li.  Car  M'/url),  Ms. 
(App.  Cns.)— CuANi  11,  Cii.  J.;  I).  C, 

10.  The  filing  of  the  reasons  of  n|>. 
peal  in  tliii  office  of  the  Commissioner 
of  I'ateiits,  '^s  a  procee(ling  over  whidi 
the  judge  on  appeal  has  no  control,  ft' 
the  Comini.'-sioner  has  received  and  liliil 
thu  reasonn  of  appeal,  the  jn<lge  cannot 
order  him  to  strike  them  out.  Tliey 
niiiot  be  heard,  and  decided.  Wadr  v. 
M'iff/iiir.t,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckani  n, 
Ch.  J.;  1).  C,  lHr,o. 

1 1 .  No  reason  of  appeal  can  be  con- 
sidereil  as  valid,  which  would  not  justify 
the  Commissioner  in  refusing  :i  patent. 

/b;,i. 

!•_'.  If  competent  and  material  evi- 
dence is  not  ailmitted  by  the  Connnis- 
sioner,  or  inadmissible  or  iin'oiiitctcnt 
evidence  is  received,  objection  Ling 
made  to  its  reception,  stich  action  niriy 
be  assigned  as  a  reason  of  appeal,  and 
the  Commissioner  is  bound  to  answer  if, 
and  the  judge  to  decide  upon  it.  Dili; 
T'v  />'^r^',  ^IS.  (App.  Cas.) — .Mousem,, 
J.;  D.  C,  185-3. 

l.'b  A  reason  of  .appeal,  "  tliat  the  de- 
cision of  theCommissioner  is  against  evi- 
deiu^c  and  the  weight  of  evidence,"  is  iii- 
tiroly  too  v.igne  and  indelinite,  within 
the  provisions  of  ^  11  of  the  act  of  1H30, 
as  a  substantive  reason  of  a]»peiil,  "sjic- 
cilically  set  forth  in  writing."  Doxkj- 
him  V.  BlakiutoH.,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
Mkuukk,  J.;  1).  C,  1850. 

14.  No  assigmnent  is  sufficiently  spe- 
cific Avhich  does  not,  with  reasoiiablo 
certainty,  i)oint  out  the  precise  matter 
of  alleged  error.     Ibid. 

15.  The  reasons  of  appeal  should  ho 
so  expressed  that  the  judge  nuiy  gather 
from  their  language  what  is  meant  by 


AIM'I.ICATIOX  FOR  PATKNT,  A. 


148 


Y  UKN  TO  UR  UAItR.     KfrKOT  or ;  RmOT  or  DBtAT  IX  MAKING. 


tlii'in,  liiit  tlu'y  nt't'd  not  l»o  ftccDrilini; 
to  liny  tiM'hniciil  ruriiiiilu.  /.niillii/  v. 
Jdmiii,  MS.  (A|»p.  Ciw.) — MicuiticK, 
J.;  I).  C,  IHOO. 

ft.  JWdt'ti'c  in  cancn  of  Appml. 

I  An  ohjoction  not  taken  iit  tlu'  hear- 
iiijf  or  tr'ml  belorc  tho  CuniiuiMsioncr, 
iMiinot  1)1!  uiiidt'  on  iippral  from  tlu*  dc- 
cUion  of  (lie  ('ouiini«*si(iiicr  to  tin- jikIl;*'. 
Smith  V.  FlioAeni/er,  MS.  (Ap|».  Caw.) 
— CiiANdi,  Cli.  J.;  I).  C,  |H4;J. 

2.  Tlio  olli.'cr  of  tlu'  Tiilint  Olllcc, 
wlio  may  atli'nil  litforo  llu'  Jiiil;;t',  on 
an  appeal,  nndcr  tlie  provisions  of  ^  11 
of  the  act  of  18:10,  is  not  eonsidered  as 
couiisol  for  the  Patent  Ollice,  or  as  an 
advocate  of  either  of  tlio  parlies  liti- 
gant. He  otdy  attends  for  the  purpose 
of  exphiininj^  tlio  deeision  of  the  Com- 
missioner. J'trn/  V.  Cormll,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— CuAN.-ir,  Cli.  J.;  1).  t'., 
lt<17. 

3.  When  an  nppliealion  is  fuially  re- 
jected, no  new  oath  i»  nooessary  to  en- 
nhle  a  party  to  appeid.  (^rookcr,  //.»• 
ivirh',  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— Ckan(  II,  Cii. 
J.;  D.  C,  1H5(). 

t.  No  reply  can  ho  admitted  before 
till'  jiidjjo  on  appeal,  to  the  ''jxi'onnds 
oftlie  C'ommissioner's  decision,"  laid  lie- 
fore  the  jndge ;  .and  no  reply  can  he  tiled 
ia  the  ollice  of  tlio  Commissioner  to 
ho  recordcil  uith  tho  proccedinjijs." 
Aiken's  Appeal  {R.  Ji.  Car  WfuiU), 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — CuANcii,  Ch.  J.; 
D.  C,  1H50. 

5.  If  contesting  .applicants,  in  their 
proceedings  before  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents,  or  by  stipulation  in  such  pro- 
ceedings, have  admitted  any  statement 
of  facts,  as  identity  of  inventions,  they 
cannot  deny  such  identity  by  their  rea- 
Bons  of  appeal,  and  seek  a  decision  of 


the  Judge  of  appeal  thereon.  Waih  v, 
Maff/icwi*,  MS.  (App.  Cuh.) — t'uAMcu, 
Ch.  .?.;  I).  C.,  iHflO. 

(».  Will'. her  tho  «leelHion  of  tho  Cor>. 
missioiii'r  is  correct  or  orr«nieoiis  !nn«*t 
di-peiid  upon  the  evidence  and  proof-i 
before  him.  liiii/f/liH  v.  )'i)Uii;/,  MS. 
(App.Cas.)— M<)iisi.:i.i,,.F.;  D.C,  186S. 

7.  Till'  tiling  of  the  argunieiits  on  ap- 
peal, by  the  respi'ctive  parties,  within 
the  time  prescribed,  may  be  dispfiineil 
with  or  excused  on  reasoimblo  canao 
shown  Ibr  tho  omission.  iV.  A'.  S<rtw 
('<>.  V.  Sloati,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moit- 
Hici.i,,  J.;  1).  C,  1H5:1. 

H.  On  appeal,  attidavits  cannot  ))0 
considered  which  were  not  taken  by  tho 
authority  of  the  Cominissioiu'r,  nor  act- 
ed upon  by  him  in  forming  his  decision. 
./iir/,-s<)HyJ'Jjr  jiartr^M^.  (App.  Cas.)— 
MouKKi.i,,  J.;  I).  C,  1850. 

!).  If  objcH'tion  is  not  made  to  tho 
competency  of  a  witness  on  bis  exami- 
nation, and  both  parties  examine  him,  it 
will  be  too  late  to  raise  the  object  ion  as 
to  his  competency,  on  ap|)eal.  Allen  v. 
J/^r,  ^IS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moiiseli,,  J.; 
D.  C,  1800. 


AITLICATION  FOR  PATENT. 

A,      WnKV    AND    BY    WHOM    MADK;    KfFECT 

of;  Kffi:(;t   of   Dklay  in   making 

on  PHOSKCLTINO 1  43 

D.      POWKIIS    AND    DUTIKS   OF    COMMISSION- 
EH  OF  PaTKXTS,  on  APPLICATION  FOU 
AND    IN    OllAMlNO    I'ATKXTS 119 

C.    W'miuRAWAL  OF;  Effect  op 15.) 

A.  WiiEX  AND  nv  Avno:\t  mapk;  Ef- 
fect of;  Effect  of  1)i;iay  in 
MAKiKQ  on  ruosiaiTixii. 

1,  Even  •without  a  general  use  of  an 


IT 

r 

I 


^^9* 


iaJ 

i^j.  *-  -  - 

2: 

g 

sl 

Ir' 

5»» 

IMki 

-  VC 


«« 


iiiTm 


CVWw. 


V'ta"»'  "l  ^ 


144 


AI'PI.U'ATION  KOU  I'ATKNT,  A. 


wiiax  Ti)  M  ttAit*.    wrmrt  or\  wrmn  or  nii  at  im  makihu. 


illNciltioii,  willi  (lie  kliitwlnl^o  nil<I  <*oll> 
ii(>nt  of  ilii*  irivi'iitor,  an  iiiiri'iiMoiiiiltIc 
mill  «-:iiiNi>li'i«,  or  tttiilty  ilday  in  tiikiii^ 
out  II  |ial«>iit,  iiiity  JiMlly  iiihI  n|i)vn  Irj^iil 
])riri(>i|>l(*H  Im>  «'«)nHi(|«>ri>il  iim  luiioiuitiiiix 
to  niutl«!tiii|<Mitiicnt.  Trt'iiiliri'U  w.  Hiul 
««,  4  NViihIi.,  70»J. — VV'AHlllN(lT^>^f,  J.; 
Ta.,  IH'JT. 

!2.  Tlionj^li  till'  tliscovcry  ofa  pat(<iit(>«» 

in  new,  y«l  if  In-  is  K"'''y  <»f  iK'^liK'''"''' 
in  prociiriii^  Ms  [latKiiJ,  l»y  whii-li  tin' 
invent ioii  lias  lii>coiiu<  pulilicly  known 
nnd  nsuil  hy  any  ihtnoiis,  ho  «-aii  liavt> 
ii«)  ri^lit  of  action  for  its  iiifringciiiont. 
Whitnnj  v.  J'Jnitnrff,  Hal.l.,  Illl.— 
Uai.kwi.v,  J.;  Pa.,  1h:(1. 

3.  All  a|i|>lica(ioii  cannot  ho  matlo  by 
ojo  joint  invt'iitor  upon  tlio  nsNi^nnu'iit 
of  tlio  otiior,  Imt  nil  concfrnetl  in  the 
invention  iiiiiMt  Join  in  tho  applioation. 
Kewtoii''«  CiiMf,  2  Opin.,  671. — Tanky, 
Atty.  (}i«n.;  18:»:). 

4.  Vigilance  is  noocssary  to  cntitio  an 
iiidiviiliial  to  the  privile^^es  Heciirecl  uii- 
ilerthe  jiateiit  law.  Ho  must  h1u>w  his 
ri;^ht  to  invention,  and  necure  it  in  the 
moilo  rotpjired  hy  law.  And  if  tho  in- 
vention, by  frandnleiit  means,  shall  be 
made  known  to  tho  public,  hu  should 
assert  his  right  immediately,  and  take 
the  necessary  steps  to  legalize  it.  >S/i(iw 
V.  Cooper,  1  Pet.,  310. — McLkan,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  18.13. 

T).  The  Ht.itute  docs  not  limit  any  time 
in  which  the  inventor  n.ust  a)»ply  for  a 
patent,  nor  does  it  declare  a  forfeiture 
by  reason  of  any  delay.  Delay,  there- 
fore, is  unimportant,  unless  it  amount 
to  evidence  of  abandonment  of  the 
claim,  ami  that  is  proper  matter  for  the 
consideration  of  a  jury.  Jfildreth  v. 
Jlenth^  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckancii,  Ch. 
J.;  1).  C,  1841. 

0.  Tho  right  of  tho  first  inventor  is 
not  'ost  merely  by  lapse  of  time  between 


the  invention  and  appliealion  for  n  pat. 
eii>  unless  there  han  been  Noine  inter. 
mediate  public  use  by  tin*  applicant,  or 
by  hin  coiiMent ;  nnd  (•Npecially,  where 
he  hiiM  been  honit  jltln  taking  iiieaMurei 
to  improve  or  perfe<'t  his  invention,  and 
to  prepar«>  for  applying  for  taking  a  put« 
ent.     //'/(/. 

7.  There  iit  no  act  of  Congresn  that 
makes  delay  in  taking  out  n  patent  fitnl 
to  the  (list  inventor,  unless  he  abamloiii 
his  discovery  to  the  publii-,  or  by  hii 
"consent"  allows  it  to  be  put  in  "  piih. 
lit^  tiHO  or  on  sale,"  for  two  years  belbro 
taking  (»ut  a  patent.  Allin  v.  lUnut,  'i 
Wood.it  ISIin.,  141,  143. — WooKiu'UV, 
,1.;  Ma?-.,  IHKJ. 

8.  An  inventor  should  notify  the  pub- 
lic of  his  claim,  by  a  caveat  or  applica- 
tion llli'd  in  the  I'atent  <*  •.  I  bit  if 
such  claim,  though  iiifoi  s  follow- 
ed up  with  reasonable  uiugence,  anil 
eventually  the  patent  j'vanted,  it  will 
prevent  any  right  being  accpiircd  hy 
strangers  in  the  mean  time.  Spurk- 
mun  V.  //I'l/i/i/is,  1  IJIatehf.,  2Ub.— 
IlKiTS,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

0.  An  applicant  for  a  patent  will  not 
b.j  «lefo!ite<I  of  his  right  to  a  patent  hy 
reason  of  the  (Commissioner  or  otriceio 
of  the  Patent  Office,  neglecting  or  mis- 
taking to  give  correct  information  to 
any  one  respecting  the  condition  of  such 
application.     Ifnd.,  200. 

10.  It  is  wliolly  immaterial  to  the  va- 
lidity of  tho  patent,  whether  an  inven- 
tion w  as  long  antecedent  to  the  applica- 
tion for  a  ]»atcnt,  or  directly  preccclinir 
it.  Wihler  v.  Mr  Corniirk,  2  IMatclit'., 
33.— IIkith,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

1 1 .  The  right  of  tho  inventor  is  pro- 
tected from  the  time  of  his  application. 
The  delay  which  may  occur  in  the  Pat- 
ent Office,  in  making  out  a  patent,  can- 
not operate  to  the  injury  of  the  appli 


Ari'LICATION  FOU  PATKNT,  A. 


14ft 


WHIN  TO  M  MAKH,  •mirr  uri  KrrKct  ur  imuxx  i%  marimo. 


I'lUlt.       tinnt  V.   IlilU,  4  Mtlitfllil,   170. — 
M<  Liav,  J.;  Ohiit,  |N4tl. 

V2,  I'riority  of  applifiktioti  for  n  ^^i 
(•lit  ilui'M  not  it«<t'ii|«'  |ii'iiirliy  of  iiivtin- 
tioii.     Perry   v.    ('onult,    MS.     (\\>\t. 
Cum.)— Cham.  II,  I'li.  J. ;  I).  *.'.,  IM47. 

lU.  llttt'oru  a  puti'iit  \n  ^rn».t«<i|,  tht>r( 
in  no  liiw  that  r«*i|iiir«!H  tlin  iii'Ht  iiivontor 
to  t)i-«i'loN«i  liiM  invi'iitioit  williin  itii)'  liiii- 
ili'd  tiiiif,  nor  ih  tlicrcuny  liiiiitation  iiii- 
li-iiit  till*  Iu|m(i  of  titiH)  irt  Hutllficiit  to 
xliow  an  alMiiiilonnifiit,  wliicli  U  u  ()U«>h- 
tioii  for  a  jury,     ffiiif. 

14.  Tilt'  a|)|ili<-ation  may  l>u  ■-(•ncwt'il 
from  timo  to  timt',  on  tlu>  Kiinm  or  addi- 
tioiinl  itvidt'iicc,  thu  {iruvioiiit  luiarin^N 
niid  dfciNioiM  creating  no  bur  to  a  far- 
ther invostif^ation.  (Jui/  v.  ('onuU,  1 
lllatilif.,  500.— Nklhov,  J.;  N.  V.,  IH li>. 

lA.  If  an  inrontor  uinu!(*(>NMarily  dt'ffi 
Iiix  n))|ilifatiun  for  a  patent,  and  Hutlt'r 
liin  iiivi'iition  to  j^o  into  iiso,  except  for 
tlio  pnrposu  of  perfeetinj;  it,  and  tenting 
ifH  utility  l)y  proper  expuriinentH,  and 
beyond  what  lio  haH  roanon  to  buliuve 
necuHsary  for  thuso  piirpoHes,  hiH  patuut 
IN  void.  Wiiuins  V.  St'hen.  and  IVoy 
Ji.  Jloitil,  2  Hlutclif.,  291,  300.— Nki,- 
SO.V,  CoNKMNti,  JJ. ;   N.  Y.,  1851. 

10.  If  a  party,  who  daims  to  bo  thu 
first  inventor  of  a  machine,  nogloct  to 
apply  for  a  patent  therefor,  with  n 
knowledge  that  another  itt  making  ap- 
plication for  u  patent  for  the  same  in- 
vention, Hueh  conduct  will  tend  to  dis- 
credit liis  testimony,  as  to  priority  of  in- 
vention by  him.  McCormick  v.  Ketch- 
nm,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Morskix,  J.; 
D.  C,  1853. 

17.  Pecuniary  inability  is  a  sulcicnt 
excuse  to  an  uiventor  for  not  pr  jhocu- 
tiiig  his  invention,  or  carrying  out  an 
intention  to  secure  letters  patent  there- 
for. Yearsley  v.  Urookfiehl,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Mousui.r,,  J.;  D.  C,  1853. 
10 


IH.  Tim  proiiniiiryf»mbitrraN«mi>nt 4  uf 
an  inventor  will  exciiNe,  to  Home  exit-nt, 
hilt  huiht'M  In  not  applying  for  a  patent. 
*V.  A'.  .S.m/i  i'l:  V.  Sionn,  .MS.  (.\pp. 
('a».)  -.M.HiHKi.i,,  .l.i  I).  I'.,  \Hy,\. 

Il».  .Ml  le  lapMi  of  lime  l»elweun  the 
making  of  an  invention  and  tho  nppli- 
I'lilion  for  a  patent,  In  not  an  abandon- 
ment.     Sli/ihtilltntt  V.  Ilnyt,  .MS.   (App. 

C'aH.)-  .MoitMKi.i,,  .f.;   I).  ('.,  lM."»t. 

20.  Slight  eireuiiiNtaneeH  are  Nnlllrieiit 
to  rebut  any  preHiimption  ot  abandon- 
ment,     [hill. 

21.  Parol  evidence  in  not  adiniK'^iblu 
to  hIiow  when  a  patent  was  applied  t'or. 

Wiiyn6  V.   Winter,  (J    .MeLoaii,  345. — 
.M«  I.K.VN,  ,F. ;  Ohio,  1m53. 

22.  The  Patent  OlHee  (•ontains  written 
vidcnce  of  the  fact,  and   it   miiMt    bu 

proved  by  such  evidemie.     //>/</. 

23.  Mere  lapse  of  time  in  applying 
for  a  patent  doe;*  not  evince  that  posi- 
live  abandonment  t>f  which  the  Patent 
Ortice  can  take  notice.  Hunt  v.  Howe, 
MS.  (App  Cas.)— MouHKLL,  J. ;  D.  C, 

IH.55. 

24.  There  is  no  time  limited  within 
which  an  inventor  is  t(»  disclose  his  in- 
vention before  application  for  a  patent. 
His  right  can  be  affected  by  no  lapse  of 
time  short  of  that  which  will  be  siifll- 
cient  to  show  an  abandonment  of  his 
claim,  during  which  time  no  subseipient 
inventor,  however  original  or  homxjlhy 
can  deprive  hinx  of  his  priority.  tSte- 
phcns  v.  Salisbury,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
MousKLL,  J.;  I).  C,  1855. 

25.  If  an  inventor  after  his  invention 
is  perfected  unreasonably  delay  his  ap- 
plication for  a  patent,  and  others,  before 
such  application,  actually  perfect  and 
apply  to  practical  use  the  same  inven- 
tion, and  give  the  knowledge  thereof 
to  the  publio,  and  the  former,  after  a 
knowledge  of  such  subsequent  invon 


•^•riii,,; 


/!^^<^ 

"•^s... ' 


I 


^■■. 


•*i^ 


■  W.- 


NINC^ 


*^ 


ii' 


y^i 


% 


140 


ArPLICATIOX  FOR  PATENT,  A. 


iH 


M 


fi 


m 


^viiK.v  TO  itr,  Mvni;.    kffkct  of;  kkfkct  of  hfi.ay  in  makincj. 


tion  ami  use  fall  to  iiiuku  objection  and 
aiij)ly  witliout  unreasunal)h(  delay  for  a 
p'.ti'nt,  he  canni/t' sustain  tlio  patent  lie 
may  afterward  obtain,  l)ecauso  lie  has 
failed  to  give  to  the  public  that  con- 
sideration for   tlie   f^rant   of  exclusive 
j»rivilefj;es,  upon  which  all  valid  patents 
must  be  based,    llnnsom  v.  2[aijor,  tCc, 
N.  York,  MS.— IlAi.r.,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 
20.  The   object  of  the   patent   laws 
being  not  only  to  benelit  the  inventor, 
but  also  the  public   or   community  at 
large  by  the  use  of  the  invention,  after 
the  monopoly  has  terminated,  it  follows 
that   an  inventor  who  designedly  and 
■with  the  view  of  apjilying  it  indetinilely 
and   exclusively   for  his    own    profits, 
withholds  his  invention  from  the  public, 
comes  not  within  the  policy  or  objects 
of  the  constitution  or  acts  of  Congress, 
and  is  not  entitled  to  favor  if  < luring 
such  concealment  another  person  should 
lind  out  and  bring  into  use  the  same  in- 
vention.    Kendall  V.  Winsor,2\\lo\f., 
328.— Daniel,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 

27.  ]>ut  this  does  not  forbid  a  delay 
requii^iite  for  completing  an  invention  or 
testing  its  value  or  success  ;  nor  forbid 
a  discreet  and  reasonable  forbearance  to 
proclaim  the  theory  or  operation  of  an 
invention  duiing  its  progress  to  com- 
pletion, and  preceding  an  application 
for  protection  in  such  discovery.  Ibid., 
828,329. 

28.  An  inventor  may  also  forfeit  his 
rights  by  a  wilful  or  negligent  i)Ost- 
ponement  of  his  claims,  or  by  an  at- 
tempt to  withhold  the  benefit  of  his 
improvement  from  the  public  until  a 
similar  or  the  same  improvement  should 
have  been  made  and  introduced  by 
others.     Ibid.,  329. 

29.  Mo  particular  time  is  limited  by 
the   statute  Avithin  which  an  inventor 


it  ought  to  bo  done  within  a  reasotudile 
time,'  what  is  or  what  is  not  a  reasonable 
time  <lepends  on  the  circumstances  if 
each  <';vse.  Ullit/iorpe  v.  Jiobcrtaon,  AIS. 
(App.  Cas.)— MousKi.i.,  J. ;  1).  C,  1858. 

30.  Where  a  pefson  made  an  inven- 
tion in  1847  and  did  not  apply  for  w 
patent  until  eleven  years  after,  and  a 
patent  had  been  granted  more  than  four 
years  before  to  another  I'esiding  in  the 
same  place,  Udd,  that  the  first  inventor 
must  suffer  from  his  laches.     Ibid. 

31.  A  party  has  a  right  to  keej)  his 
inchoate  right  to  an  invention  concealed 
as  long  as  he  pleases,  but  when  he  de- 
sires to  perfect  his  right  to  a  patent,  he 
must  proceed  with  vigilance.     Ibid. 

32.  Under  §  7  of  the  act  of  1839,  if 
an  inventor,  though  1m  may  be  the  first 
and  original  oi  e,  neglect  to  apjjly  for  a 
patent  within  two  years  .ifter  he  knows 
that  another  has  puMiclv-  used  ami 
claimed  Ins  inventioji,  and  interposes 
no  objection  or  warning,  he  thereby 
loses  his  right  to  a  jiatent.  Justice  v. 
Jones,  J\IS.  (App.  Cas.) — ^JNIkkiuck,  J. ; 
D.  C,  1859. 

33.  A  niade  application  for  a  patent 
in  1855,  and  obtained  a  patent  early  in 
1850.  B,  who  claimed  to  be  the  first 
inventor,  and  who  had  knowlcdsje  ot' 
A's  proceedings,  remained  quiet  until 
1858  or  1859,  when  he  assigned  his  in- 
vention, and  application  was  made  for 
a  patent  therefor.  Held,  that  it  was  a 
clear  case  of  disability  to  prosecute, 
under  §  7  of  the  act  of  1839,  even 
though  B  was  the  ^rst  inventor.    Iliiil, 

34.  Merely  withholding  an  invention 
from  the  public  can  never  amount  to  an 
abandonment,  however  it  may,  in  con- 
nection with  other  circumstances,  pile 
ui>  difficulties,  if  too  long  continued,  iu 
the  way  of  asserting  and  proving  prior- 


must  make  application  for  a  patent,  yet  I  ity  over  another  inventor  who  aiiplies  for 


•^Wi 


APPLICATION  FOR  PATENT,  A. 


147 


WHEN  TO  DK  MADK.      KFFKCT  OF;    EFFECT  OF  I)KI,AY  IN  IIAKIXU. 


n  patent.  Bnheoi'k  v.  DegaxcVy  IMS. 
(App.  Ciia.)— Mkuui'"{,  J. ;  D.  C,  1859. 

35.  Wlieii  one  inventor  h:ia  knowl- 
edge that  anotlier  has  made  applieiition 
lor,  and  has  received  a  patent  for  the 
same  invention  which  1ms  also  been  re- 
issued, and  makes  no  further  claim  until 
after  such  reissues  have  been  obtained, 
his  want  of  diligence  in  prosecuting  his 
application  will  work  a  forfeiture  of  his 
rif^ht  to  a  patent.  Wickersham  v.  Sin- 
ger, MS.  (App.  Cas.') — Mkkrick,  J.; 
'  .  C,  1859. 

30.  W.  made  application  for  a  patent 
ill  1851,  and  in  the  same  year  withdrew 
his  application  and  received  the  return 
fee,  and  took  no  further  stens  till  1858. 
S.  had  made  ajjplication  foi  a  patent  for 
the  same  inventicr;  in  1850,  and  obtained 
a  patent  therefor  in  1 85 1,  which  had  been 
re-issued  in  1854  and  185(5.  Of  ail  this 
W.  had  knowedge.  Held,  that  W.  had 
not  pursued  due  diligence  in  applying 
for  and  prosecuting  his  application  for 
a  patent,  and  had  forfeited  his  right  to 
II  patent.     Ibid. 

"u.  By  an  application  filed  in  the  Pat- 
ent Office,  the  inventor  makes  a  full 
disclosure  of  his  invention,  and  gives 
public  notice  of  his  claim  for  a  patent. 
It  is  conclusive  evidence  that  he  does 
not  intend  to  abandon  it  to  the  public. 
Adams  v.  Jones,  MS. — Guieu,  J. ;  Pa., 
1859. 

38.  Where  a  person  has  made  an  ap- 
plication for  a  patent  for  his  invention, 
tlio  delay  interposed  either  by  the  mis- 
takes of  the  public  officers,  or  the  de- 
lays of  courts,  and  not  by  any  laches  of 
the  applicant,  cannot  aftect  his  riglits. 
Rid. 

39.  Where  A  made  an  application  for 
a  patent  in  1850,  Avhich  was  refused,  and 
an  appeal  taken  to  the  Circuit  Court, 
whiclnvas  not  decided  until  185G,  when 


the  decision  was  affirmed,  but  the  origi- 
n.al  ajiplication  w.ns  not  withdniwn,  and 
the  applicant  continued  to  hisist  upuu 
his  right  fo  a  jiatent,  and  a  new  Com- 
missioner of  I'atents  jterceived  his  nov- 
elty and  granted  him  a  patent,  7/c7</, 
lliat  by  such  delay  he  had  not  lost  his 
right  to  a  i)atent.     Ibid. 

40.  Though  an  applicant  may  be 
treated  as  having  abandoned  his  appli- 
cation, if  it  be  not  prosecuted  with  rea- 
sonable diligence,  involuntary  delays, 
not  caused  by  his  laches,  will  not  work 
a  forfeiture  of  liis  patent.     Ibid. 

41.  IJ.  made  an  invention  in  1853,  but 
took  no  steps  to  obtain  a  p.itent  until 
1859.  In  1858,  S.  patented  the  same 
improvement.  Held,  that  B.  by  his 
delay,  had  forfeited  his  right  to  a  jiatent. 
Spear  v.  Stuart,  j\IS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
DuxLor,  J. ;  D.  C,  1859. 

42.  The  statutory  bar  (§  7  of  the  act 
of  1839)  to  the  inventor  Avho  sells, 
would  seem  by  .analogy  properly  ap- 
plicable to  the  inventor  who  secretes. 
Ibid. 

43.  If  an  inventor  keep  his  invention 
a  secret,  until  another  has  discovered 
the  same  thing,  and  lie  by  M'hile  such 
other  inventor  makes  application  for  a 
patent,  and  manufactures  and  sells  the 
article  invented,  and  neglects  to  give 
notice  of  his  claim,  or  make  aiiplication 
for  a  patent,  such  iirst  inventor  Avill  lose 
his  right  to  a  patent.  Savory  v.  Louth, 
MS.  (Ajjp.  Cas.) — MoRSELL,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1859. 

44.  S.  made  an  invention  in  1854,  hut 
did  not  make  application  for  a  paten  t  until 
September,  1858.  L.  invented  the  same 
thingin  January,  1858,  and  madeapplica- 
tion  for  a  })atent  therefor  in  August,  1 85  S, 
and  had  manufactured  the  articles,  and 
put  them  in  market.  An  intcrfei'ciico 
was  declared  between  such  a])plic;tnis. 


*i*mH 


^^^ 


ii!Wfe^ 


\i^. 


i    i 


^imfyyk 


"S^te^ 


^^^bi 


'Ib 


.  i  L  L 


U  .  H't"^ 


W'jL^ 


i^S 


%i 


148 


APPLICATION  FOR  PATENTS,  A. 


WIIKN   TO    UK    MADK.      EKiKCT   Of;      KFrECT  Of   DKI.AY    IN    MAKIKU. 


J/cld,  tliiit  S.  had  forfoitud  his  right  to 
u  i»!itent.     Ibid. 

45.  If  an  inventor  SK.lors  his  inven- 
tion to  go  into  public  xjhc,  througli  any 
'means  whatever,  without  an  immediate 
assertion  of  his  riglit,  he  forfeits  his 
riglit  to  a  patent.     Ibid. 

40.  The  conccahnent  by  an  inventor 
of  liis  invention  for  more  than  two 
years,  works  a  forfeiture  of  his  riglit 
to  a  patent,  the  same  as  if  he  had  sold 
it  for  more  than  two  years  before  ap- 
plying for  a  patent.    Ibid. 

47.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  where 
a  party  has  made  an  invention,  and 
buried  the  secret  in  his  own  bosom,  he 
may,  after  the  lapse  of  years,  come  for- 
Avard,  and  upon  making  a  secret  known 
by  an  application  for  a  patent,  obtain 
a  monopoly.  Herff  v.  Hustle,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Mekrick,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1800. 

43.  But  if  in  the  mean  time  another 
has  made  the  same  invention,  and  has 
obtained  a  patent,  and  the  public  has 
thereby  become  possessed  of  the  dis- 
covery, when  the  first  inventor  applies, 
he  will  be  met  with  the  inquiry  Avhether 
he  has  used  due  diligence  in  communi- 
cating his  discovery.  In  such  case  the 
first  inventor  forfeits  his  claims.    Ibid. 

49.  The  doctrine  of  abandonment  by 
suffering  an  invention  to  go  into  public 
use  for  more  than  two  years,  is  wholly 
distinct  from  the  doctrine  of  forfeiture 
in  favor  of  a  junior  discoverer,  who  is 
a  prior  patentee.    Ibid. 

50.  The  policy  of  the  patent  laws 
favors  diligence  and  condemns  neglect. 
It  is  the  duty  of  an  inventor,  without 
delay,  to  patent  his  perfected  invention. 
He  has  no  right  to  use  it  himself,  or 
permit  others  to  use  it,  for  any  length 
of  time,  and  then  expect  a  monopoly 
from  the  public.     Marcr/  v.    2/orV';, 


MS.  (App.  Casi.) — DuNLor,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1860. 

51.  Where  a  party  made  an  inven- 
tion, and  made  no  a]>plication  for  a  pat< 
ent,  and  the  same  thing  was  patented 
to  another,  and  used  under  such  patent 
for  eight  years,  and  then  such  inventor 
asked  for  a  patent,  Held,  that  by  rea- 
son of  his  laches  he  was  not  entitled  to 
a  patent.    Ibid. 

52.  Where  a  patent  was  granted  to 
A,  and  the  same  had  been  publicly  and 
openly  used  under  circumstances  that 
showed  that  B  must  have  known  it,  and 
without  objection  from  B,  and  li  after- 
ward,  and  just  before  the  expiration  of 
two  years  from  the  time  of  the  granting 
of  the  patent  to  A,  applied  for  a  patent 
for  the  same  thing,  Held,  that  B  must 
be  presumed  to  have  acquiesced  in  the 
use  by  A,  and  that  such  acquiescence 
was  a  statutory  bar  to  the  claim  of  B, 
and  notwithstanding  B  had  filed  a  ca- 
veat in  1848,  and  had  renewed  it  with- 
in a  year  before  he  made  application  for 
a  patent.  JSeech  v.  Tucker,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.) — MoRSELL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1860. 

53.  Decisions  in  EUithorpe  v.  Hobert- 
son,  MoRSELi.,  J.,  1868,  and  Wicker- 
sham  v.  Singer,  Merrick,  J.,  1859,  and 
Spear  v.  Stuart,  Dunlop,  J.,  1859,  as 
to  forfeiture  of  i-ight  to  a  patent  ap- 
proved. Sturtevant  v.  Greenoiigh,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Merrick,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1860. 

54.  Long  delay  and  gross  neglect  on 
the  part  of  an  inventor  to  give  the 
public  the  benefit  of  his  invention,  by 
promptly  presenting  it,  after  it  is  per- 
fected, to  the  Patent  Oflice,  will  work 
a  forfeiture  of  his  right  to  a  patent. 
Loveridge  v.  I>utcher,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— DuNLOP,  J.;  D.  C,  1861. 

65.  Where  an  inventor  suffered  his 
claim  to  remain  before  the  oflice  for 


APPLICATION  von  PATENT,  B. 


14!) 


DUTIES  or   COMMlSaiONER  OX;    AKD  IN  OIIANTIXO   PATENTS. 


more  than  fivo  years,  as  a  rejected  ap- 
plication, without  any  attempt  in  the 
interval  to  protect  his  rights,  Jlcld, 
that  he  had  forfeited  his  right  to  a 
patent.  Raymond,  L.  JSx  parte,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Mkkuick,  J. ;  D.  C,  1861. 
50.  A  negligence  in  secreting  and 
failing  to  patent  an  invention  for  more 
than  two  years  after  its  discovery,  for- 
feits all  right  to  claim  a  patent.  Even 
the  filing  a  caveat,  if  filed  more  than 
two  years  after  such  discovery,  will 
not  save  the  rights  of  the  inventor. 
Snotoden  v.  Pierce,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
DuxLOi',  J.;  D.  C,  1801. 

57.  And  it  seems  that  a  neglect  to 
contimio  experiments,  or  to  use  any 
means  to  perfect  an  invention  during 
that  period,  would  bo  equally  fatal,  or 
would  not  stand  in  the  way  of  a  subse- 
quent original  inventor,  who  had  con- 
ceived and  diligently  pursued  the  same 
invention  and  obtained  a  patent  there- 
for.   Jbid. 

58.  Where  an  inventor,  who  first  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  an  invention,  did  not 
apply  for  a  patent  until  about  a  ycur 
and  a  half  after  another  had  conceived 
the  same  idea,  and  made  application  for 
and  obtained  a  patent  for  the  same  in- 
vention, Held,  that  the  former  one  by 
his  delay  had  forfeited  all  right  to  a 
patent.  Walker  v.  Forbes,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— DuNLOP,  J. ;  D.  C,  1801. 


B.    Duties  of  Commissioner  ox  Ap- 
plications FOB,  AND  IN  Granting 
■    Patents. 

1.  Under  the  patent  laws  patents  can- 
not be  withheld  on  moral  considera- 
tions, under  the  act  of  1793,  if  the  re- 
q-'Jred  allegation  and  oath  have  been 
made,  a  suitable  specification  filed,  and  a 


model  deposited.  McDonaUVa  Case, 
1  Opin.,  170. — PiNOKNKY,  Atty.  Gen. ; 
1812. 

2.  There  is  no  limitation  of  time  with- 
in whic>.  a  putcnt  must  be  taken  out, 
after  specification  filed.  Anon.,  5  Opin., 
701.— Rush,  Atty.  Gen.;  1814. 

3.  The  duty  of  the  Patent  Oflico,  and 
of  the  secretary  of  state,  is  confined  to 
issuing  patents  in  the  cases  and  with 
the  forms  prescribed  by  law,  and  having 
tlono  this,  their  duty  is  at  an  end.  It 
is  not  their  duty,  nor  that  of  the  At- 
torney-General, as  their  law  adviser,  to 
determine  what  rights  are  conferred  by 
the  patents  granted,  or  what  will  amount 
to  a  violation  of  those  rights.  These 
are  questions  to  bo  settled  by  the  courts 
and  juries.  N'oursc's  Case,  1  Opin., 
575.— WiuT,  Atty.  Gen. ;  1822. 

4.  The  authority  to  issue  patents  is  a 
limited  one,  and  the  party  must  bring 
himself  within  the  terms  before  ho  can 
derive  any  title  to  demand  or  hold  a 
patent.  Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet., 
18.— Story,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1829. 

5.  The  department  acts  rather  minis- 
terially than  judicially  in  granting  pat- 
ents. A  patent  issues  upon  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  party,  Avithout  entering 
into  an  examination  of  the  question  of 
rights  conferred  by  the  patent.  All 
the  jH'oceedings  are  ex  parte,  except 
in  the  case  of  interfering  applications. 
Anon,.,  2  Opin.,  455. — ^Taney,  Atty. 
Gen.;  1831. 

0.  A  patent  may  lawfully  issue,  when 
all  the  forms  prescribed  by  law  have 
been  complied  with,  without  inquiring 
whether  it  will  confer  any  right  on  the 
patentee ;  that  is  for  the  decision  of  the 
courts.     Ibid.,  455. 

7.  The  act  of  Congress  directs  patents 
to  be  issued  on  certain  conditions ;  these 
must  be  complied  with  in  order  to  give 


feXWv 


U>Mf^ 


u  ■■■ 


sM 


i 


,^^W**'W*''*'' 


',WW>^>- 


l.iO 


AITMCATION   KOll  TATKNl',  15. 


UlTTtKH  -)r  OOUMIHNIONHR  ON;    AND  IN  UlUN'I'iNU   {'ATKNTH. 


it»  ^^W 


k-       ^%;^.| 


.C'W 


nctiou  to  till'  H)i('i'i;il  |ir<ic('i'(liiij;M.  ]\7iif- 
tiit/y.  Kunmtl,  IJalil.,  ;tl(l. — 11ai-i»\vin, 
T.;  I'm.,  Ih;ii. 

H.  A  patent  is  it  matter  of  rij^lit,  on 
(•oni|plyliiL;  with  flio  coinlilioiiK  i»i'o- 
HcriFicil  l»y  law.      I  hid,,,  MIH. 

I).  'V\w  party  applyiiii,'  lor  a  jialcnt 
niiisl  prov('  eiiluT  tliat  lie  is  a  citizen 
of  tiie  Ignited  States,  or  that  lie  lias  re- 
hidetl  in  the  United  States  for  two  years. 
I'alciils  eaniiol  ho  "granted  to  ev(>ry  ap- 
plicant, but  only  to  certain  applicants, 
and  tlie  party  applyiiiLj  niiisl  prove  tiiat 
he  is  williin  the  th'scription  specilied. 
Aixni.,,  'J  Opiii.,  fill. — Tanicy,  Atty. 
(o'li.;  ISH'-'. 

10.  Tatents  camiot  he  ,Ljrant,ed  to 
every  applicant,  hut  only  to  such  as 
show  tiionisolves  to  he  within  the  de- 
scription of  the  statute,  as  entitled  to 
receive  a  ])atent.     Fhiif. 

11.  Under  the  act  of  170;J,  tho  Becre- 
tary  of  state,  in  issuint;  patents,  may  he 
t'onsidercd  as  a  ministerial  ollicer.  If 
the  ]>reri>(piisilesof  the  law  an'  i-omplied 
•Nvilli,  ho  can  exercise  no  judij;ment  on 
the  question,  whether  the  patent  shall 
be  issue*!.  lie  can  exercise  no  powers 
but  such  as  are  u;iven  him.  Grdiit  v. 
Jidi/inoiuf,  G  Pot.,  'J  J  I,  L'lL'.— Mak- 
siiAi.i,,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  IS.S'J. 

IJ.  The  Commissioner  is  bound  to 
issue  a  patent  in  the  case,  and  in  the 
circumstances  stated  in  §  7  of  the  act  of 
lt^;Ul,  He  has  in  such  a  case  no  discre- 
tion. lliUrt'th  V.  Heath,  3[S.  (App. 
Cas.)— CuAMii,  Ch.  J.;  1).  C,  1811. 

i;^.  The  dictum  of  SrouY,  J.,  in  Bod- 
ford  \.  Ifiad,  1  :\ras.,  'MH  (1^1^)'  <'>!>» 
"the  lirst  inventor  who  h;is  j>ut  the 
invention  in  practice,  and  he  only,  is 
entitled  to  a  patent,"  is  wholly  inappli- 
cable to  the  question  whether  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  shonld  issue  a  pat- 


oriiijT  the  question  whether  a  patent 
HhoultHn:  iH.iiKi/,  hut  whether  it  shoiiitt 
bo  iiivalidatj'd  by  prior  use.      //jid. 

14.  Any  mailer  of  defence,  which  it 
\h  the  peculiar  province  of  u  jury  ti. 
decide,  and  whi(;h  is  not  in  |)  7  uf  the 
act  of  Ih;JO  made  a  ground  for  the  refu- 
sal of  a  patent  by  the.  CommisHioner, 
Hliould  be  lell  by  him  to  bo  decided  bv 
u  jury  in  an  action  at  law.     J  hid. 

If).  15  7  of  the  act  of  ]8:Ul  refers  to 
5^  0,  and  a  patent  is  to  bo  i.ssuoil  only 
to  (IiC  diHcovorer  of  some  new  and 
useful  art  or  improvement;  therefore, 
upon  an  application  for  a  patent,  the 
Commissioner  is  to  decide  in  the  fust 
place,  whether  the  invention  is  new  and 
the  proper  subject  of  a  patent;  if  not, 
he  is  hound  to  refuse  it,  althou;j;h  it  mav 
not  be  liable  to  the  i)articular  objections 
specilied  in  >?  7  of  the  act  of  I8;t(). 
JuiiHjH'i;  Ax  jKirrc,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
CuANcii,  Ch.  .1.;  I).  C,  1841. 

lli.  The  Commissi(merof  Patents  may 
reject  a  claim  for  ii  pat«'nt,  even  :iftcr  a 
tlecision  by  the  jiidj^e,  on  appeal  in  favor 
of  the  applicant,  upon  tho  points  in- 
volved in  his  reasons  of  appeal,  if  other 
sulHcient  reasons  for  such  rejection  re- 
main, and  which  arc  imtouched  by  tho 
decision  «)f  the  judge.  Arnold  v.  JUsJi- 
<);),  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckanlii,  Ch.  J.; 
I).  C,  1841. 

1 7.  Tho  proceedings  before  the  Coin- 
missituier  of  Patents,  and  before  the 
judges  on  appeal,  are  all  initiatori/ — all 
relaliug  to  the  question  ■whether  a  pat- 
ent shall  issue  :  they  cannot  atiect  a  ]tat- 
ent  ".Iready  issued.  Ponicroy  v.  Con' 
ni.foii,  ^IS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckancii,  Ch. 
J.;  1).  C,  1842. 

18.  When  a  ]>atent  lias  issued,  the 
jurisdiction  of  tho  Commissioner  is  ex- 
hausted.  He  has  no  furth-M-  control  over 


eiit}  Mr.  Justice  Story  Avas  not  consid-l  it,  except  xuider  §  13  of  the  act  of  183G, 


APPLICATION  Foil  PATENT,  IJ. 


151 


liUrilM  or   OOUUIHHIONKK  ON;  AND   IN   UHANTINO    PATKNTH. 


wlu'ii  it  iH  ino)>eriiliv(»  by  roaH(»ii  ofadc- 
IVclivo  or  iiisiinicii'tit,  spccitiratioii.   //>/(/. 

11).  Tlio  uutliority  of  tlio  CommisMioii- 
cr  of  i'litt'iits  (o  issuo  patents  is  not  of 
tho  nalurn  i>l'  jiirisdi^'tion,  in  itH  coin- 
iiioii  law  and  tccliiiiital  acceptation.  Tint 
doctriiio  appurtaining  to  acts  or  ju<l;^- 
iiu'iits  <;t'  inferior  tribunals,  tliat  lu^  who 
Hcts  ii|>  Kucli  judgment  must  av(!r  and 
prove  that  the  tribunal  had  jurisdiction 
ill  the  nuitter,  does  not  apply  to  his  acts. 
Wilikrw.  McCWmii'k,  2  IJIatdd".,  ;n. 
-jJinTH,  J.;  N.  Y.,  \H\iS. 

i;0.  Proceedings  before  the  Conirnis- 
HiontM-  of  Patents  are  initiatory.  The 
question  is,  "  whether  the  patent  shall  be 
granted,"  not  "  Avhet her  it  shall  bo  va- 
cated ;"  and  a  patent  may  be  granteil  or 
refused  upon  loss  evidence  than  would 
he  re((uired  to  sustain  or  amend  it. 
Vt'iry  V.  Cornell,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
CuANcii,  Ch.,  J.;  1).  C,  1847. 

21.  Some  of  the  provisions  of  the  act 
of  IBiiCi,  give  a  yv^^/.v*  judicial  character 
to  the  action  of  tho  Connnissioner  of 
Patents  in  granting  a  patent;  ami  it 
has  accordingly  been  generally  lield, 
that  a  patent  is  to  be  taken  as  prima 
facie  evidence  of  the  novelty  and  use- 
fulness of  the  invention  spocilied  in  it. 
Wilson  v.  Jiarimm,  1  Wall,  Jr.,  349. — 
Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1849. 

22.  The  hearing  before  the  Commis- 
sioner of  I'atents,  on  an  application  for 
a  patent,  is  infornud  and  summary,  and 
not  final.  Gmj  v.  Cornell,  1  Blatchf., 
609.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

23.  The  power  vested  in  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents,  to  issue  patents 
for  inventions,  exists  in  full  force  for  ex- 
amination and  final  decision,  imtil  the 
patent  shall  have  actually  issued ;  and 
is  not  controlled  or  concluded  by  inter- 
vening or  interlocutory  opinions  given 
b  proceedings,  as  in  cases  of  interfe- 


rence, &v.,  had  or  taken  during  the  ex- 
amination and  prior  to  the  final  deter- 
iiMiiatiou  and  issuance  of  the  ])atent. 
\V<nle  V.  Motlhews,  5  Opin.,  222. — 
Johnson,  Atty.  (len.,  Ik  tit. 

24.  In  deciding  upon  an  application 
for  ft  patent,  tho  cpiestion  is  not,  wheth- 
er the  invention  is  more  useful  than 
others,  but  whether  it  is  new  and  sufli- 
ciontly  usefid  to  justify  a  patent.  Aik- 
en, Ex  parte  (I'rojtetlern),Mi^.  (App, 
Cas.)— CuANCii,  Ch.  J.;  J).  C.,  1K50. 

2r>.  Undi^r  ^  1  of  the  act  of  1836, 
upon  an  ox.anunation  of  an  ap])lication 
for  a  patent,  if  it  appears  that  the  mat- 
ter for  which  tho  })at(uit  is  claimetl,  had 
not  been  invented  or  dis(!overed  by  any 
person  in  this  country  jirior  to  the  in- 
vention or  discovery  by  the  applicant,  or 
had  not  been  patented  or  described  in 
any  printed  publication,  or  had  not  Iteeu 
in  pid)lic  use,  or  on  sale,  with  tho  con- 
sent, and  allowance  of  the  applicant,  it 
is^Ac  (/«<»/ of  the  Connnissioner  to  grant 
a  patent,  if,  in  his  opinion,  the  thing  is 
anjficienth/  useful  or  important,  Aik- 
en, J'Jxpartc  {Car  Wheels),  MS.  (A[»p. 
Cas.)— CiUNcii,  Ch.  J. ;    I).  C,  1850. 

20.  Since  the  act  of  1830,  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  .acts  fwawi  judicially 
on  the  subjects  of  originality  and  novelty 
and  utility  of  invention.  lie  is  bound  to 
inquire  and  decide  these  (piestions  be- 
fore granting  a  patent.  Such  action, 
however,  being  ex  parte,  is  not  conclu- 
sive on  those  who  are  not  parties  to  tho 
proceeding.  Goodyear  t.  l>ay,  MS. 
— Gkieu,  J.;  N.  J.,  1852. 

27.  Upon  an  application  for  a  patent, 
tho  question  for  the  Commissioner  to 
determine  is,  whether  the  applicant  is 
the  first  inventor  of  the  thing  for  Avhich 
a  patent  is  sought ;  and  testimony  show- 
ing that  another  is  the  first  inventor,  is 
properly  received,  though  such  teeti- 


Fli 


Tj 


Mp:, 


^.:^^^, 


M^w^>,;; 


1A'2 


AIM'I.U  A'lloN   l'0|{   IVNTKNT,  II. 


ItUTIM  or  UMMMIMIIINMONi   AMU  IN  UUANTIMU  PATHHm 


%. 


lUiiiiy  iiii^lil  im'tiii<ltit«*  llit>  ri^liH  nf  mik'Ii 
olIuT  |i:iny  (o  II   |fiti'iil,  if  nil    ii|>|(li<'!i 
tiiMi  1»y  liiiit  for  ii  |iMt<>n)  wih  niiitcr  iimi 
Hi<Ii'i!ili<iii.    Hiiiii  >r\.  (>' \,il,  MS.  (A|>|). 
I'UH.)      MoHHMi.,  .1.;   H.  ('.,  iHr.M. 

tfH.  'riicii'  Ih  itoMiiiij;  in  ||ii>  twin  oC 
Conoii'sM  wliirli  ii'miin'M  lliiit  ii  |t;i(t'ii1 
hliiiiilil  li«>  JMstii'il  \\illiiii  liny  ^rivt'iitiinc, 
tit\i<r  tlio  ii|iplii'!ilii>ti  is  lil«<tl,  nr  wliirli 
lorltith  tlit>  |iiisl|)itn<>nii<ii(  nl'  it  I'lir  h 
lime,  ;il  tlu>  niiixj;i'>-)iiin  «'itlnM'  nl'  llit> 
n|>|>lit!int  or  llii>  oMicc.  O'lullhf  v. 
Jf<>)\>>i,  |."i  How.,  |'2(t.  -  (Jhiku,  .).;  Siiji. 

'Jt>.  Il  liii><  alwiiyH  lii'fn  (lio  |inn'lii't', 
wIhmi  ;'.  iorrl  ,M  piitnil  is  ilcHJit'il,  (o  dc 
l;iy  lli(>   is^niiio    nl"  u   icilcnl  here,  nl'tcr 
!\]>|iIi(!iiiou   liltil.  lor   ti'.'ir    of   iiijiiiiiif^ 
NUi'li  I'on'ion  i(|t|>li«'iilioii.      //)/</,,  I'Jd. 

:iO.  rpou  Mil  :i|i)tli(':ilioii  tor  :i  pulnit, 
the  .•i|)|)lic;inl  is  iMitidcil  (o  iiolico  of 
HUi'li  iiilonniilioii  sunl  >v7i  »■(»(•«,<,. 'is  ni;iy 
go  (o  show,  lli.il  I'of  jiiiy  ol"  (Ii(>  ciniscs 
8l:i(('(l  ill  J;  "  ol'  llic  !i.'(  of  is;i(».  he  is 
not  cnlilh'il  1o  ;i  pMlcnt.  so  |li;i(  lie  iii.iy 
be  nlilc  to  ;inu>ii(l  liis  s|n'iMlic;itioii  so  as 
t<>  iiicliiili'  only  wIimI  Im  iiimv.  Jcii'rft 
if"  /»*.».»/,  /•>  fuirfr.  MS.  (A|i|>.  Cm*.)— 
>Ioi:si.:m,.  .1.;   I).  l\,  I.S5M. 

:U.  ir  new  r('r«'n>iuM's,  wliicli  .•iro  ni;i- 
lorijil,  ;ir«<  iiwido  on  tlic  trial  of  an  ap 
ponl,  tlu'V  will  l)t<  coiisiiloivtl  as  liavinu: 
»l<'|>ri\<'(l  till'  a]t|>!ii','int  of  his  riirlil  of 
anuMiilmoiil  sccnriMl  liy  i^  7  of  ilu'  act  o\' 
1  SMd.aiid  in  siicli  cast'  tli(>  tltvision  ot'llio 
(.'oininissioiuir  will  In*  rrviTscd.  aiiil  li(< 
will  1)0  (liroctotl  toproi'i'i'd  willi  tl'.' i*asi> 
aiiow.      //»/(/. 

'.V2.  Tlio  |iroi'('('(Iiiigs  lu'forc  flio  (\>ni- 
niissioncr  aro  initiatory,  M.nd  fVoni  llic 
uaturo  of  tlio  oaso,  not  nnliko  tlu>|>rao- 
tio«>  in  tlu'  inoipiont  stair«'«  of  many 
otluT  allowoil  oas(>s.  >'<>/<//,  /•.'.i'  partv. 
MS.     (Ai>i».    Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,,   .1.;    1). 


itit.  Till'  ('oiiiiniHHiiiiiiM-  of  I'litfiitM,  ii|, 
to  1|m>  inoini'iil  of  isNiiiti^  ii  |iiiti'til,  lnm 
a  ilisi'ii'tion  to  iflii'itr  ii  imini>,  Im'Imii'  i|i>- 
ciili'il  liy  liiin,  ami  oii^lil  to  do  no,  iiniil 
li«>  Ih  <<oiivitii'i'd  UN  lo  llii>  Into  inventor, 
to  wlioni  aloii)'  tlii>  piifiMil  oiitrlil  to  Ih> 
isHin'd.  Iiiitifi\  /•>  futtif,  MS.  (  \p|i. 
('as. )     DiNi.or,  .1.;   h.  ('.,  IM.'-.I. 

;U.  {}  H   of  ill*'   (Id  of  IH.'IU   is,  Imvv 
t'M'r,  satislit'd    liy   giving  one  trial  ln>. 
IwiM'ii   till'  Haino   paitii'M,  on  llii>  huiidi 

HIllljlM't.         tfifi/. 

:i'i.  'I'll*'  jiivisdii'tion  of  tlii<  Connnis- 
sioiior  of  I'atiMilN  in  diMi'miiniiig  as  In 
tlio  issuing  of  a  patciil  is  ii  liniilrd  oiii<, 
litit  is  to  Ik'  iindi'istood,  iiiit  only  iVmn 
«  lial  is  I'xprcssly  Hinted  in  tlic  statiilr, 
Itiit  aNo  from  wliat  onglil  iii>n>HH,'nilv 
to  l)t'  infiM'riMl,  as  alisoliilo  witliiii  its 
proper  limits  as  tliat  of  ii  liilmnal  ol' 
general  jiirisdielioii.  ffmif  v.  //mir, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)      MoiiHKii,  ,1.;   h.  C, 

IH.''):). 

;t(t.  'I'lie  Coniinissioiier  of  I*nlenls,  in 
ishning  letters  patent  does  not  warrant 
the  same,  nor  does  the  patent  hind  the 
government  more  than  it  does  private 
persons;  bill  the  valitlily  of  siieh  pat- 
ents is  o|)en  to  impiiry,  eitln-r  in  whole 
or  in  i-iil,  whether  at  the  instiinee  of 
pri\ale  persons  orof  fln<  I'liited  State^j. 
A  patent  does  not  eoneliide  any  hodv. 
}f,>rf<»>\t  CiSf',  H  Opin./JVT. — CUiNiiiNd, 
Atty.  (Jen.;  IH,-.(t. 

.'<7.  On  an  npplie.'itioii  for  the  issue  of 
a  i)atenl,  it  Ih  the  duty  of  tln>  Coinniis. 
sioiier  to  deeide  all  tpiestions,  holli  of 
law  and  fael,  which  go  to  eslahlish  the 
right,  or  the  ahseiiee  of  right,  in  tlic 
applieant  to  a  patent.  Murry  v.  Trot- 
ter, MS.  (App.  ('as.)— Dun  1,01',  J.;  1). 
(\,  IStW). 

;!S.  A  ("'ommissioner  must  abide  by 
the  deeision  of  his  ])redeeessor  as  ti) 
any  matter  adjiidie.ated  njioii,  wliilo  that 


AIMMJCATION   van  I'ATCNTM.  C 


lAfl 


uiiriiiinwKi,  or,  AND  rrrKirr  ttirMvur. 


i\o('\>i\nt\  \n  iitiri'VfTwi'fl  liytitiy  ('n?ii|ii'i( nl 
(•ninl.  /.'irntri\  /•,>  fmiif,  MS.  (A|>|>. 
(!iiH,)      iM'Nii.r,  .1.  ;   \K  ('.,  |M(IM. 

;Mt.   WIumk  Ik   riiriMiT   tlfciMinii    ol'    it 
('iiiiiniiMHioiiri'  itM  ti)  II  |iiii  tii'iiliir  iiiii'(l)'i 


IH  llll)lp|l< 


iI.mI    f 


I'liiii  iiii'l    iriimiiiM  HUH' 


V(>i'N(>il,  iiikI  tlio  ii|i|ilir!itiiili  In  luti.  willi 


tiniwn,  HiK'li  iIiii'Imhiii  ih 


liiixl 


lll|^   l(|l<iM   II 


Hiili>iM|iiriil   (*i>iiiiiii'4MiiMM>r,  iiikI  III!  iiiii 
iiiil    nilliilfiiilly    i'4<vii>\v    iiml    ri'VM'Hn  it. 
Siin/iititH,  l!x  pnrtv,  MS.  (A(i|i.  Chh.) 
IhiNi.or,  .?.;  I>.  (!.,  |hi||. 


I'.    WiriiKriAWAt,    or     An-i.triATioN ; 

KirpiCrl'   Mir, 

I.   A  t'iiv«'iit«ir   liiiviiiir    |irii('m<(|o<l  In 
lilc  liiw  (IcHi'i  iiilinii,  H|H'cil)('iilinn'J,  <liii\v- 


ii^'M,  iiml  iMiiili'l,  liiiviii^  |iiii<l  IIm<  Ii'Ii  i 


Inl 


Iaim  nM|iiii<>i|   liy  Ntiiliito,  ill  niMilioii  to 
llic  (Wfiily   r('i(Mir(M|   on   (lie  rnvnil,  is 


I'll 


lillcil, 


ii|Miii  H  ri'ji'i'duii  < 


if  hi 


M    lllltlll 


4.  Tlirrolunn  liiw  nllowliii;  finivi'fitnr 
III  willi'liiiw  liny  |t'ii(i<iii  ii|'  the  fro  rrv 
•  (niii'fl  in  (Hiiiy  Imm  ciivciU.     yl;i<*/*.,  MS. ♦ 

Hi.Ai  K,  Ally.  (Jkii.;  lur.V. 

rt.  'I'lii'  w  illnlmwiiiuj  fiti  n|i|irMfiflon 
iiikI  D'l't'iviii^  liiii'k  till'  iilluwi'd  piiil  of 
llio  pitli'iil.  t)>M  will  Im'  ('oiiNidiTcd  UN  n 
liiiiit  iiliiiiiiloiiiiiciit  of  tlii<  f'iii'ili)'r  pi'imp* 
nilioii  nf  (li(<  ciiiiiii,  mikI  fllirts  iiii  mi- 
lir)>  cxliiirrKiti  lit'  nil  iiDilirlion  (miviri^ 
niiy  |irivili'>^«'H  iiikIit  |^  7  of  tln'  iirl  oC 
iH.'ilt),  mill  wliirli  «<4iritiMl  li<>  ri'vivi'fl  iiy 
miy  iii'w  ii|i|irn'iilioii.  It  in  not  n  morn 
n'liiif|iiiMliiiM'Mt  oCmiy  <liiiiii  lo  llii<  iiiod- 
I'l.      flfmnri/v.  /Inrfiir,  MS.  (A|i|i.  (Jiih,) 

MniiHKM,,  J.;    I).  (5.,  JHnH. 

I).  Tli(>  wiiliilrtiwiil  of  nil  ii|i|irK'iiliMri 
iiI'liT  ri'liirii  oC  |iiiil  of  till'  |inl»'nt  Ifio 
\n  not  ilKi'Jt'  nn  iilinndontin'iit  or  'li'<l- 
iciilioii  (  f  oiic'h  invention  to  tli«>  iiiililic, 

liy   fnirroimfliiij^  ('irciiiiHtiiiK'CR,  nii'l   to 


I'liliiiii  lor  II  |int)'iil,  to  ili'iiiiitiil  II  n  liiiti 


of  Iwi'iil  V  uolliirN. 


Hitn. 


0  i)i 


III.,  'A'l 


— OliHiiiNd,  Ally.  Ui'ii.;   IH5.'I. 

'2.  Tim  |iroviHiiiiiH  of  ^  7  of  tlie  net 
(if  |h:i(1,  iih  to  willi(lriiwii!M,  npply  l<i 
nil  |i('rHoiiH,  wIicIImt  ii|i|iliriinlH  liy  npr 
rifii'iilioii,  A'^r.,  coiiiiiirlM  at.  tint  oiiIhi'I, 
or  iipplirniilH  hy  iipplii'iition  incoinplcto 
aJid  willi  C'lvi'iit,  nml  wln'llicr  ('iti/.ciiH 
of  |Im«  I'liili'd  Sliili'H,  iiliiMiH  liiiviiij^  rc- 
sidcij  line  year,  iiml  iiiiiil(>  tlie  oiilli  of 
iiiteiitioii  to  hecoine  ii  citizen,  or  oMierH 
the  NiilijectH  of  any  foreijrn  ^ovoriinient. 
/I)i,f.,  :iH. 

It.  Kvery  applieiint,  for  a  patent  Ikim  ii 
rlL^ht  to  withdraw  liin  application,  mid 
(leiiiand  the  rcHliiration  of  two  tliinlH 
of  the  p;it(<iil  fee,  after  liiw  applii-alioii 
is  complete,  and  as  well  liefore  an  ex- 
nniinatioii  ]\:i>*  lieeii  had  on  his  app!i(;a- 
tioii,  as  after  it  lias  taken  place.  J^ur- 
risk  lis  Kci'lcr'H  ('im<\  7  Opiii.,  .'I!l4. — 
CusuiNiJ,  Ally.  (Jen.;  Im">5. 


I'lll  Ih  I'll  cipiivocal  act,  to  lie  interpn 


lie  iiffi'ited  upon  a  second  aiiplicalioii 
liy  the  Hiilisecpient  (oiidiict  of  the  |iarly, 
his  diligence  or  his  nej^lcct,  and   delay, 


in  the  Riime  manner  as  his  coni]iici  \h  to 
he  weiijhed  in  regard  !/»  nn  orij^innl  ap- 
plicaiion.       WirhirHhtnn  v.  Shnjrr,  ,MH 
(App.  (.aH.)  — Mkiiuick,  J.;  !).(!.,  in,';rt. 

7.  The  wilhdriiwnl  of  an  applicatirm 
and  receivini^  the  fee  retiirnalile  there- 
on, and  allowini^  the  case  then  to  stand 
(I  niiiiiher  of  years  hefore  further  aetion, 
will  he  coiiHid(!red  an  aliandonment  of 
the  invention:  ft  Hiihsefpient  apfilicatiori 
for  a  patent  for  tlie  same  invention  will 
lie  refused  on  the  ground  of  such  ahnn- 
dfiiimeiit.  Itdhr'n'k^  Ex  jtnrfi,,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— Mki{UI*;k,J.;  D.CJ.,  ]H«0. 

H,  If  a  party,  iijion  a  mistaken  rejeo 
tion  of  his  claim  hy  the  I'atent  Office, 
withdraw  his  application,  and  reccivo 
the  return  fee  of  tiJO,  an'l  actinj^  under 
such  mistake  of  his  rij^hts,  occasioned 
liy  the  error  fif  thf;  I'nteiit  Office,  suflFer 


m 


•ill 


»♦ 


*i  „ 


5?;.-.., 


:&,-. 


'CfiS* 

1^  w" 


■I 


«1 

r 


I 


'*-C. 


,s^rN 


^ 


"Ni^. 


#1 


jU.i 


'  ^fr^^ 


r  » 


.M 


Airr. 


WHAT  M|    WHIN  1'ATaMTABI.R. 


'la 


LJ' 


\m  iiivfiilioii  lo  i^n  inli)  imlilic  iimc,  i'vcii 

fol'  S«'\('IIll«    \<'!irH,  Mini     liniTWIinl,     ll|Mt|l 

•  liMi-ovciiii^  Ills  iiiiHiiikt',  ii|>|ily  lor  iiml 
olttaiii  :k  |i:tli'iit,  tli«<  u  illiiii'awiil  iiihIit 
hii«-li  ciiriiiiiNtiinccs  will  not  lio  an  nliiiti- 
(Iniiincnl  of  liiN  ri^lil  ;  init  llic  hocoihI 
np|)lit':ili<>ii,  h\  opcriitioii  of  law,  rclalcN 
liark  Id  (Ik' ilali<  oI' llit<  lii'sl  M|)|>lii*al  inii, 
HO  MM  to  ('III  <ilV  lli<>  liirrcitiiro  »liirli 
«)tlit>rwist>  would  liiivt<  lia|t|)fiii'il  Ity  tlic 
loii^  ind'cmiiliali'  piililic  use.  Il<nfiltn, 
A'jrf><ir(i\  MS.  (App.  Cum.)  AlKuitu  k, 
J.;  I>.  0.,  IHUO. 

It.  WluTc  11)1  invtMtlor  inado  lui  iippli- 
«'M'iou  I'lir  ;i  palciit  lor  lii:^  invfiilioii, 
lliroiiuli  ail  alloiiicy,  to  whom  lit'  pivc 
]>ow(>r  to  willulraw  hiu-Ii  application, 
ami  till'  altornoy,  nl'icr  a  roji't-lioii  of 
tlu>  appiii-atioii.  witlidrcw  niicIi  applica- 
tion; ami  aHcrw  ,\r(l,  !il)oiit  two  years 
tlicrcal"l(<r,  tlic  applicant  niiitic  a  Hcconil 
ap|ilication  tor  a  patent  lor  the  same  in- 
vention, which  was  rejected  on  th' 
ground  ol"  al>amloiimenf,  prudiiced  l»y 
the  withdrawal  ot'siich  lirst  ;ipplic!ition, 
//</</,  that  the  applicant  could  not  over- 
coino  such  presnmplion  of  ;iliandon- 
luent,  ivnd  reinstate  his  «'asc,  on  his  alVi- 
ilavil  that  he  did  not  know  what  author- 
ity he  i:a\e  his  attorney,  and  did  not  in- 
tend to  withdraw  siich  application,  as 
such  i»rococdinLj  arose  tVoin  careless- 
ness. ()' Ii</n(,  A>  parte,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)-   :MiM{sr.i,i,,  J.;   1).  C\,  i.SOO. 

10.  A  rcjectc<l  apjilicant,  Avho  has 
Mithdrawn  his  application,  may  renew 
it,  ]n*ovided  the 'renewed  application  is 
made  in  a  rriiftonaNe  time  after  with- 
drawal and  ret\n-n  ot"  the  tec.  iSlmpiton, 
J\x  parte,  ]\IS.  (Apj).  Cas.) — DuxLor, 
.T.;  1).  C,  1861. 

11.  If  the  ofllco  has  boon  in  orror, 
tho  reaxonahlc  time  is  to  bo  computed, 
not  Irom  tho  date  of  tlio  perfected  in- 
vention, but  from  the  date  of  tho  w  iih- 


drawal,  so  that  the  rejected  application 
may  he  put,  an  la  finii\  upon  as  ijoihI  a 
r<)utiui^r  MM  if  the  error  had  n<i  liceii 
counuitted.  Hut  hiicIi  an  error  docN  mil, 
uive  an  unlimiled  licotiNe  as  to  lime. 
/f>i,f. 

I'J.  8  1  of  tho  act  of  isnn  lives  what 
is  a  rcasonaltio  lime.  There  is  no  rea- 
son why  a  reiumed  application  Hhould 
have  more  than  two  years  allowed  it, 
computinij;  the  time  from  the  dale  of 
the  wilhdriiwal.  I^oth  classes  of  appli- 
cations, original  and  renewed,  are  ap- 
plioatioiiH  forpateiilH,  and  come  within 
the    letter   and    spirit   of    the   Htalute. 

l;i.  Hut  such  renewed  applii'alionimmt 
lu>m:id<'  to  the  Patent  ()l1ic«'  within  sucli 
time.  Assertions  «)f  claim  lothiid  per- 
sons, or  in  other  Mays,  will  not  liesulli- 
cient.  No  one  can  prevent  the  liar  el' 
limitation  attaching  by  outside  continu- 
ous claims;  he  nuisl  assert  his  ri;.fhls  in 
court,  within  the  prescribed  time.    J/nd 


Aim 


See  also  Effkct  ;  PinNoirLi:;  ruocKss. 

1.  A  patent  may  be  for  a  now  and 
tiseful  art  ;  Imt  it  must  be  practical, — 
it  must  bo  applicable  and  roterablo  to 
siMuelhinuc  which  may  ])rove  it  to  bo 
iisetul.  .I'Jmtis  V.  J'Jaton,  Pel.  C  (\, 
:M1. — Wasminotov,  J. ;  Pa.,  l^Ki. 

'J.  Whore  a  pal»>i\t  was  for  an  ini- 
jirovomcnt  in  tho  art  of  makini^  nails, 
by  moans  of  a  machine,  wlooh  cut  ami 
headed  tho  nails  by  one  oi>oration,  IIiLlj 
that  it  was  \w{  moroly  a  patent  for  tho 
machine,  and  therefore  that  it  was  of 
no  importance  that  tlie  machine  ".as 
composi'd  of  parts  which  liad  before 


% 


AUT.-  Aiirs,  hosr. 


15A 


AHT;    WHAT  IN;    WIIRN  PATMNTAni.M.— MMT  ANIItl   WIIKN   I'ATtSNTAIII.H. 


Imm'Ii  iimi'iI,  lull  tliikl  lliM  ptih'iit  wns  tor 
itri  iiii|>rMVciiii'iil  iipitliiMl  to  n  |iriirlir!il 
u>*<<,  t'lVn'lt'il  liy  II  I'mnliiiitilioii  nC  vtii'i- 
iiim  iiDM'lituiiriil  powrrH  to  |inM|iini  a 
ui'W  result.  iJnii/  v.  ./<itniit,  I'd,  (!.  (',, 
4i)i»,  lot.   -Wahiiinuton,  .f.;  I»n.,  IHI7. 

.'I.  riiiitiiii:,  l»y  ciiiiiM-r  plufc  or  It'llcr- 
iiir-'^*,  oil  liolli  Hides  of  luillk-linles,  |m 
|ii'oveiil  llieir  ('(Miiilerri'tliii;^,  is  iiii  iirl 
t'lir  wliieli  II  piileiit  will  Im>  fj^nuiteil. 
KindHn  V.  St'liin/lhill  /littd;  I  Wash., 
1'.'.— WAsiiiNuroN,  .(.;  I'll.,  JMjo. 

»,  Ifiider  55  7  of  llin  iK'l,  i.r  JM.IO  are 
ciiiliraecil  iiol  only  |ialeiitstor  iiiaehines, 
inaniiDietiireN,  ami  (>orn|M)Milioii  nt'  mat- 
tor,  but  iiIho  at)  invent  ion  of  a  new 
iiii|inivemeiit  in  an  art,  as  of  e.'isiini,' 
ii'iiii,  Ity  /^iviii;^  nil  an<;ular  direetinn  to 
tlio  tnlie  wliieli  (M)ndnet.s  thn  metal  to 
the  iiionid,  HO  that  tlio  flo;^  or  drop  will 
he  thrown  into  the  centre,  instead  of 
the  siirfiice.  Mrd/iiri/h  v.  /xiiii/Hftind, 
I  Mow.,  JOl),  i!IO.--UAi,i)WiN,  .).;  Slip. 
Ct.,  IHi:i. 

fi.  When  art  Ih  Hpoken  of  as  the  hiiI»- 
jccl  (if  a  patent,  it  is  not  an  art  in  the 
ahslracl,  Init  it  is  an  art  as  explained  in 
tlio  Hpeciliealion,  and  illiiKtratocl  by  n 
iimchine,  or  model,  or  drawinj^s,  when 
(if  a  cliaraiier  so  to  be.  It  nieaiiH  a 
useful  art  or  mannfaetiire,  whi(rh  must 
ho  described  with  exactness  in  its  mode 
of  operation,  :iiid  which  can  bo  jirottu^t- 
oil  only  in  tho  mode  and  to  tlu)  extent 
described.  Smith  v.  Doinnhif/,  MS. 
— WooiniuuY,  .1.;  Mass.,  iH.'iO. 

0.  There  is  no  reason  of  policy  which 
hlioiild  ileny  protection  to  an  art,  while 
exleiidinn  it  to  the  machinery  or  pro- 
cesses which  tlu!  art  teaches,  ein|>l<)ys, 
and  makes  nsidnl.  French  v.  Knyers^ 
3IS.— GuiKU,    Kane,    J.T.  ;    Ka.    Ta., 

1851. 

1.  A  process,  co  nomine,  is  not  the 
suVect  of  a  patent,  under  our  laws.     It 


IN  included  iiiidor  the  general  term  "  iino- 
I'lil  art,"  and  an  nrt  may  re(|nire  otii«  or 
Mioi'o  proceNses  or  nwichineH  in  order  |o 
proijiico  a  certain  result  or  inannfactiirin 
(fiirnin;/  v.  Hiinln  |.»  How.,  207.— 
(]i(iKi(,  .1.;  Hup.  ('I.,  iHri.'i. 

H,  The  ap|)licatioii  of  a  ciMtain  <-om- 
binalion  iind  contpoHitinn  of  riiletl  rol- 
luniiN  in  sections  to  accounts,  to  hIiow 
a  constant  balan(!e  thereof,  with  Ntato- 
ments  of  asMctM  and  liabilities  on  every 
pa;^(f  of  the  journal  without  refereiico 
to  tint  ledger,  is  not  an  invention  of  an 
art,  machine,  manufacliire,  or  compoHi- 
tioii  of  mailer,  williin  >J  0  of  tho  net 
of  Ih:«)  ;  it  is  nothiiifr  mori!  than  a  nnxlo 
of  presenting  the  journal  entries  of  a 
regular  business  in  a  tabular  form,  ainl 
therefore  not  patentalile.  lUxmi,  Ex 
pnrh\,  IMS.  (App.  (Jas.) — Mousici.r,,  J. ; 
I).  0.,  1800. 


AUTS,  LOST. 

1.  It  can  hardly  be  doubtod,  if  any 
one  discovered  an  art  which  liad  be<!n 
loiifj  lost,  and  it  was  a  useful  improvct- 
meiit,  that  upon  a  f;iir  construction  of 
lint  patent  laws  In;  would  be  entitlerl 
to  a  patent.  Guyhr  v.  Wilder,  10 
How.,  497.— Tan/.y,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  ('t., 
1850. 

2.  Tlionijh  not  litenilly  the  first  and 
orif^inal  inventor,  he  would  b(!  the  first 
to  confer  <;n  tlu!  public  the  licnefit  of  the 
invention.  lit!  would  discover  wh.at  is 
unknown,  and  communicate  knowhidj^c; 
which  tin!  piibrn!  had  not  the  means  of 
obtaining  without  his  invention.  Ibid,^ 
45)7. 

3.  Upon  til's  principle,  where  an  in- 
vention— an  iron  and  fireproof  safe — 
li.'id  been  invented  and  lused  by  tho  in- 


I 

s 

M 


i 


ft 


:^u 


''M\ 


l|.« 


4u^Ji 


ZI' 


nA 


%C^ 


WCwl^ 


150 


ASSIGNEE,  A. 


or  COI'TRIOHT  AVD  MANL'K'IIIKr. 


Ha 

% 
lii 


veiitor  fc»r  yi-arn,  but  no  tent  li»<l  l»««n 
tippliiMl  to  it,  tuul  itM  cnpucity  for  roNiitt- 
iiig  ht'Ul  w.<M  not  known,  luul  tlu'io  wan 
iiotliirij,'  lo  hliow  timt  any  |»iirtiiMiIiir 
vuluit  liiitl  Ik'i>  I  placed  upon  it,  itnd  tliu 
invi'iilor  ni'viM"  niiulu  ji  Hfoornl  ono,  but 
UMctl  II  (litrt'i'uiit  onu,  ami  the  mfa  UmM' 
liati  diMiippi'artMl,  it  was  lu'Ia  that  i!  Iiail 
jiasHt'il  away  fioni  tlu'  nicniory  ot'  tin- 
inventor  liiniscif,  and  of  those  wiio  ha<l 
Ht'on  it,  und  that  tho  knowlotlj^e  of  tin' 
improvement  was  ait  completely  lost  as 
if  it  hail  never  been  discovered,  and 
that  a  Hiibs«'(picnt  inventor  of  the  same 
thinjf,  without  any  knowledj^ji  of  the 
former  one,  was  entitled  to  a  patent. 
Jf)i(f.,  40H. — (!M<;Lkan,  Danikl,  Gkiku, 
J  J. ;  (lisseiitinj?.) 

4.  The  term  lost  art  is  applicable 
peculiarly  to  certain  moinnnents  of  an- 
tiipiity  still  remainini,',  the  process  of 
whose  accomplishnn'iit  has  been  lost 
for  centuries,  with  all  vestij^e  of  the 
archives  or  records  of  tho  nations  with 
whom  those  arts  existed,  and  the 
orij»in  or  oven  tho  identity  of  which 
jirocess  none  can  certainly  establisli. 
Jhkl,  608. — Daniel,  J. 

5.  If  a  means  of  producing  the  effect 
we  see  and  have  among  us  be  discover- 
ed, and  none  can,  either  by  liistory  or 
trailition,  refer  to  ii  similar  or  to  the 
identical  process,  the  inventor  of  that 
means  may  claim  the  merit  of  original- 
itVi  though  the  work  itself  may  have 
been  produced  possibly  by  the  same 
iiieans.    lOid.,  508. 


ARTICLE  OF  MANUFACTURE. 


See  Manufactubb. 


ASSIGNEE. 

A .  Or  CofrRianT  anp  MANiiciurT IM 

B.  Ur  I'ATKNT 

1.  Who  i» )6t 

2.  (itn^al  riijhU  of. 157 

3.  When  paknt  tnny  ittut  k> 1(>| 

4.  Wlitn  imty  maiutaiit  aHion ir>9 

6.   liighl  (>/,  (U  to  liineliiimer Jfio 

0.  Iti'jht  of,  in  nut*  </  rtmu* 160 

1.  liiijht  of,  in  ejt«n*iofit |00 

<',      Or   'i'RAOK-MAHKIi leO 

A.    Ok    CorviiioiiT    and    IStAjtc- 

HCUUT. 

1.  There  can  bo  no  doubt  but  that 
the  rights  of  ati  assigru-e  of  a  niaiiii- 
Hcript  would  be  protected  by  a  court  of 
eijuity.  Wheaton  v.  J\ter$,  8  IVt., 
(JOI.— M<Lkan,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1834. 

2.  An  assignee  of  the  exclusive  right 
of  acting  and  representing  a  drama  iti 
certain  places,  may  maintain  an  actien 
in  his  own  name  under  the  statute,  even 
after  a  represent  at  i<m  by  him,  fur  uu 
injunction  to  prevent  its  being  repre- 
sented by  another  within  such  places, 
liiihiHs  V.  Mi/erSy  13  Mo.  Law  Kep., 

400,  401.— Si'itAdUK,  J.  ;  Mass.,  1800. 

3.  And  such  ac^tion  may  be  main- 
tained although  the  author  or  assigiioc 
has  only  filed  his  title-p.ige,  and  has  not 
published   the   work   or   play,     Ibid., 

401.  [Contra,  Y  pottt.] 

4.  §  9  of  the  act  of  1831,  giving  re- 
dress for  the  unauthorized  jn-intUig  or 
publishing  of  tnanKacn'pts,  operates  in 
favor  of  a  resident  of  tlie  United  States, 
Avho  has  acfjuired  the  i)roprietorsliip  of 
an  v/iprinted  literary  composition  from 
a  non-resident  alien  author.     Keem  v. 

Whcatlei/t  9  Amer.  Law  Reg.,  45.— 
Cadwaixadek,  J.;  Pa.,  1800. 

5.  But  this  section — and  which  is  the 
only  one  enabling  a  proprietor  who  de- 


If 


ASMk'GNEE,  D.  1,  3. 


Ift7 


i 


pf^9**ti,, 


or  I'ATKM  11.    WHO  tH.  Hiuurit  or. 


livim  hit  titli*  tVciin  iiiu*h  nn  ntithnr,  to 
ii>«<cit  liny  iij^li(.  iiinU'r  llu*  not — j<iv«>H 
iii>  roilri'HM  for  iiii  uitiiiitltorizuil  tlit'iitriful 
ri|ii( x'litiitioii.      Ihid.y  4fl. 

0.  'I'lu'  only  Hfutiili!  tliiit  iiH'onlri  ro- 
ilri'ss  for  uiiiiiithori/.*>'l  tlu-utricitl  roprt'- 
m'lttiitlonx  in  tlu-  act  uf  An^iiMt  IH,  IH5(I ; 
but  I'li^  Hpplit'H  only  to  ciimox  in  wliii'li 
(•opyriirlit  is  «'l!\>«'liiiilly  Hi'curod  un<l»'r 
the  aot  of  IHUl,     Ihil.,  4/5. 

7.  Tho  iissii^iu'o  of  u  (Iriiiiiiitio  coin- 
iMi^ition  ciiiinot  inaiiiliiiii  lui  action  tor  its 
uiiauti\orl/.tnl  ropn'«cntation  by  otliurH, 
unless  he  has  performed  H  tlio  acts  re- 
(|iiirctl  by  law  to  Hi-i-nrc  a  copyri^jht, 
itu'liiiliii;;  tint  (b'poNit  of  a  printed  copy. 
TliD  obscrvanco  ami  pcrforMianco  of  all 
the  st;it\itory  rcqiiircniciifH  except  tbe 
doposit  of  ixprintcil  c<»p\ ,  will  y(\\c  no 
riiflit  of  aclluu  under  thu  Htatuto.  Jbid.y 
45,  4U. 

D.    Of  1*atvKnt. 
1.   TI7to  U,  under  the  Statute. 

1.  Tbero  are  three  ciasHCS  of  jjcrsonH 
in  whom  a  patentee  can  invcHt  m  inter- 
est in  the  patent.  Tliey  are  an  asaiijnee, 
affntnti'i'  of  an  exohisive  sectional  riijht, 
and  a  licence.  Potter  v.  J/ollnnd,  MS. 
— I.NiiKUstd.i-,  J. ;  Nelson,  J,  concur- 
ring'.    Ct.,  1H58. 

2.  An  ttsxiijiue  is  one  who  haa  trans- 
ferred to  him  in  writing  the  "hole  in- 
terest of  the  original  pateiu,  or  any 
uudivided  part  of  such  whole  intere  I  in 
every  portion  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
no  one  unless  ho  has  such  an  interest 
tninsferrrd  to  hifn  is  nn  assignee.     Ibid. 

3.  A  jrantee  is  one  who  has  transfer- 
rod  to  him  in  writing  tho  exclusive  right 
under  the  patent,  to  make  and  use,  and 
to  grant  to  others  to  make  and  use,  the 
tiling  patented  within  and  throughout 
sorao  specified   portion  or  p.irt  of  the 


rnltod  State*;  and  such  right  mu«*t  he 
an  vX'iiitirv  nv<-tionul  right,  iXflmUng 
the  piiientee  tluTcfrom.     Ihid, 

\.  i^  lireuMfe  in  onu  who  has  truns- 
ferred  to  him  in  writing,  or  orally,  u 
less  or  dill'ient  iiiteresl  than  either  the 
interest  in  the  wlxde  patent,  or  an  nn- 
<livide<l  part  of  hucIi  whole  interest,  or 
an  exclusive  nectional  interest,     l/ud, 

fl.  The  terms  tumhjnee  and  yrttiitee, 
UH  us(ul  lit  the  patent  law,  are  not  ny- 
nonymouM,  but  have  thu  separate  and 
distinut  n\«Mtnings  above  given.     [Iiid. 

2.  Qtneral  Itiyhtt  of. 

1.  \\y%  nofthoactoflH:»tj,ftpii(enteo 
may  assign  any  part  <»f  his  patent,  aiwl 
tho  assignment  will  vest  in  the  assignee 
tho  h'gal  right  to  such  part.  Jimjd  v. 
MiAljnnc,  a  McLean,  428. — McLk.vv, 
J,;  Ohio,  1H44. 

2.  An  assignee  of  an  invention,  takes 
by  his  assignment,  only  the  right  of  the 
inventor  and  no  more.  T(tth<tm\.  Li/r- 
ing, 6  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  208.— Stoky, 
J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

3.  Wln're,  therefore,  tho  inventors  of 
a  certain  invention  were  aliens,  Init  had 
assigned  their  invention  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  in  whose  n.imes  the 
patent  was  issued,  and  the  invention 
had  not  been  put  on  sale  as  required  by 
§  15  of  tho  act  of  1830,  Held,  that  the 
assignees  h.id  no  title  to  'he  invention, 
because  the  invention  had  not  been  put 
on  sale  within  eighteen  months,  and 
that  the  patent  was  also,  for  that  rea- 
son, void.  Ibid.y  200,  210.  [Contra, 
post  4.] 

4.  Assignee**  of  alien  inventors,  take 
and  hold  the  patent,  which  may  be 
issued  to  them,  with  .ill  the  privi- 
leges Ijolonging  to  American  patentees. 
The  aliMi   elause  in   §   15  of  tho  act 


mi 


I 


^M>i>. 


>ij 


it 


IM 


ASHKiNKK,  n.  .',  M. 


or  PAtrnt.     MMMTIt  l>rt   WHRM  IUIUKT  mat  iMItH  tii^ 


of  IH.KI,  nil  to  puttlnK  tli«  hivrritlori  in  dtfrirtd  from,  nml  «>\«'r(UiM|  itrtiirr 
oil  mile   in  ii  certain  tiiui%  diu't  not  up-    tint  protcctUm  off  he  I'liiixil  .St;it«>«,  urii| 


ply  to  MUrli  ii^»i|{nfi>>«  anil  piiti'rttccH. 
Tht/mmv.  I.nvifHr,  'i  IHiitiliJ',,  50,  51. — 
Nkimov,  J.;  N.  Y.,  I«47. 

A.  Kilt  I'Vi'ii  it*  Niii'ii  (<on<lii!iii)  nt« 
tnclu'tl,  i\\i'y  lu't'd  not  piovo  llnit  tln-y 
liuvf  liiiwkt'il  tlu'piit(>nt«-tl  ini|irov«<nu*nt 
to  olitaiii  u  market  tor  it,  or  that  tli>>y 
havo  t'lnlt'iivoriHl  to  null  it  to  utiy  pi-r 
Non.     [hid.,  r>l. 

0.  It  iVHtN  upon  tlioHO  K(H'kin|{  to  tU>- 
ft'iit  tli(>  patt'Tit  to  provo  that  Hiich  pat- 
outt'OM  nc^It'i'ti'd  or  ri'TiiMi'il  to  nuII  for 
roanonaMi'  pricoM,  wfifii  applii'ali<tn  waw 
inaiji'  to  pnn-liaNO.     //»/'/.,  '»1. 

7.  Am  hotweeti  thu  riglit  uf  ti  [mthoii 
holiiiiiix  'A  I'ontrnct  for  an  intort'Mt  in  a 
future  tiTin  (»f  a  pat«'nt  not  yi  t  in  earn; 
an<l  tliat  of  a  8nl»si'(|iu'nt  lnoKt  Jl<h  pnr- 
{•lia«or,  for  a  vain  iliio  eonHideiation,  and 
witliout  notice,  of  llic  same  interest, 
the  latter  must  prevail.  Gifmvn  v. 
Cooh;  2  Mlatclil'.,  1 '»0.— Nei.hon,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  iHr.o. 

8.  Where  an  nHsi^nment  of  a  patent 
1h  made  before  application,  and  a  ]  ont 
Jm  aHerwaid  ol)laiiied,  hucIi  a  coiii.act 
Avill  secure  to  tho  assi;^nee  the  rij^ht 
tluMH'hy  conveyed  to  him.  Ihtthhone 
V.  Orr,  5  I\reLean,  132.— McLean,  J. ; 
Ohio,  IHflO. 

0.  If,  .after  tho  assirrnment  of  a  patent, 
the  patent  issue  to  the  inventor,  a  new 
assi<rinneiit  is  not  necessary ;  tlio  lesjal 
right  to  tlu!  monopoly  and  the  property 
it  created  is  vested  hy  operation  of  the 
nssignmejit  in  the  asHigiiee.  G<n/ler  \. 
Wtl(hr,  10  How.,  494.— Taney,  Ch.J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1 850. 

10.  Tho  p.irehaser  of  an  exdusive 
privilege  of  trntkuig  .and  vokUh'J  a  tlnng 
patented  buys  .a  portion  of  the  fran- 
chise conferred  hy  the  [>atent.     lie  oh 


the  iiitercKt  he  uc<piiii"»  nei«-«>(iu  ily  ter- 
tiihintVM  at  the  time  limited  for  it* 
eoiitiniiamu)  hy  tlui  law  which  furcated 
if,  liloonur\.  Mrijihtnnt,  II  How., 
rtJO.—TANKV,  Ch.  J.  ;  Sup.  Cf.,  |H52. 

Ii.  Hilt  the  pnrcliaMer  of  ihv  thing 
for  the  pnrpoHe  of  unimj  it  in  tho  onli- 
nary  piirsiiili*  of  life  NfamU  on  difTcreiit 
ground,  lie  cxerciMeN  no  right  crcati'd 
hy  the  actK  oi  Congress,  nor  docn  Im 
ilerivo  title  hy  virtue  of  the  fiancliise, 
or  e.veluHive  privilege  granted  to  tho 
patentee.     Ihid.,  540. 

12.  An  assignee  of  acontrtict,  taking 
furdriihi  lite,  or  with  a  knowledge  of 
the  state  of  thirigH  existing  between  tho 
original  parties  to  the  contract,  is  boiinil 
by  the  same  opiities  that  existed  lie- 
twecn  such  partiex.  'ximtmau  v.  J'urk- 
/iiti'nt,  18  How.,  '-'94.— V  Lurirt,  J.;  Hup, 
Ct.,  I8r,5. 

IM.  An  assignor  cannot,  after  nssirf|,. 
incnt,  impi'ach  the  title  of  his  assigiico. 
Wilmii,  As/ii(^nee^  v.  Simjir,  MS.  ( App. 
Cas.)— Di'M.oi',  .1. ;  I).  (".,  IHOO. 

3.    When  Patent  man  inane  to. 

1.  TreviouH  to  tho  act  of  1837,  8  0, 
patents  could  only  issue  to  the  inventor, 
antlaf\er  they  were  issued,  they  were  as- 
signable so  as  to  give  the  as*<it;Mci',  in 
whole  or  in  part,  his  legal  rights.  That 
act  gave  the  right  to  tho  .assignee  or 
assignees,  to  liavo  the  patent  issued  to 
him  or  them,  and  not  to  the  inventor. 
Anon.^  4  Opin.,  400. — Mason,  Atty. 
Gen.;  1845. 

2.  An  assignment  of  an  invention  he- 
fore  i>atent  issued,  is  valiil  under  ij  C 
of  the  act  of  1837,  although  it  is  niado 
after  the  rejection  of  tho  assignor's  np- 


Ii 


tains  a  share  in  the  monopoly  which   plication    by   the    Commissioner,    aucl 


ASS!ONKK»  n.  4. 


150 


or  l>«Ta!«T.      MHMM  MAV   MAiHTAIN  AtrTUW. 


nl\i'r  liH  u|i|M<iil  to  till*  ('liifi'  JiiHtli'v 
of  I  lilt  Ciriiiil  CiMirt  ot  tho  hUtriil  o( 

('iilitliilii.'t  tVulit    rtili-li  ilociHioll,       fiilt/  V. 

Criull,  I  HIiilfhl'.,  fiOO.— Nbi^on,  J. ; 
N.  v.,  I  HID. 

3.  ir  till  iiivitiitor  iiMni^ii  all  liU  ri^lll 
ill  lui  iiivtMitioii,  tilt)  iiMxi^iii-c  niity  liuv«' 
lilt'  |»iiti'iil  iH.tiii'il  to  lilmstir.  .!//«•/« 
CiiAt,  Ms.,  ()|»iii. — iW.At'K,  Ally.  luMi. ; 
IHAO. 

4.  Hut  if  till)  iiHMi^iitiiorit  Im>  «>iily  |i:ir- 
tiiil,  tlmiiyli  lln«  i»:irl  »'X«'«'j>ttMl  U  hiiihII, 
till'  a^xi^'iu'tt  liiiM  no  It'^xitt  claini  to  tin' 
|i||i'lit.      It   lillINt  lie  iHsiicti  ill  (lie    iiiuiK' 

ot'  tho  iiivi'iitor,  ami  Ito  liclil  Ity  him  in 
triiHt  lor  tho  iiHo  of  t\w  iWHij^iu't*,  to  tlio 
I'Xtcnt  nl*  tho  ciiiiilics  lie  huH  by  virtti*' 
ot'  hid  rontraot.     Jbiit. 

4.    When  may  mnintain  Avtiuii, 

1.  ITiitlcr  5$  5  ot  thf  lU't  of  I70;»,  an 
ftSMij^iK't'  of  a  part  of  a  i»atoiil-ri;,'lit 
cannot  niaintain  an  notitin  for  a  viola- 
tion of  it.  l)fltr  V.  Tnel,  0  Cra.,  327. 
— CiitiAM;  Sup.  t't.,  IMIO. 

2.  Hut  if  a  patfiitcc  has  >^i)l(l  a  moie- 
ty of  his  invent  iuti  to  another,  a  joint 
ju'tion  lic'H  under  Hiioh  ^  5  l»y  himself 
ami  Hueli  assignee,  for  a  violation  of 
tlic  i>atent.  Tho  aetion  is  brouj^ht  by 
tlioso  who  have  liie  wholi-  patt'iit  in 
themselves  wliieh  distinj^uif^hes  it  from 
tiio  ease  of  Ti/I<i'  v.  Tuil.  WhtUrtnore 
V.  Cuthr,  I  (Jallis.,  430.— Srouv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1H1;». 

8.  A  patentee  cannot  maintain  an  ac- 
tion for  an  infrinf:fenu'nt  after  ho  has 
nia(l(.'  aiA  assi«^nment  of  Ills  invention  ; 
hut  thci  suit  must  be  brought  by  the 
assignee.  Jferbirt  v.  AdamSj  4  Mas., 
15. — Stokv,  J.;  Mass.,  1825. 

4.  Audit  will  make  no  dittercnce  that 
the  assignment  w.is  made  before  patent 
issued,  and  the  patent  afterward  taken 


out  ill  till*  iiaiito  of  the  iiivoiitor.     //>/(/| 

ft.  Whether  an  AMi^iieo  of  part  of  ik 
patent,  eireuiiiHcrlbeil  tui  to  the  inleriNt 
by  luciil  JitiiitM,  can,  in  IiIn  own  name,  or 
with  the  patentee,  maintain  a  Niiit  nl 
law  or  not,  there  eaii  v\\ni  no  doubt 
but  that  he  may  support  aniiit  in  eipiity 
to  «iijoiii  thirtl  per«ons  from  infringiiu; 
the  patent,  and  for  an  account.  ()<jU 
V.  /,//«•,  4  Waidi.,  flH4.— WAHiUNiiTo.M, 
J.;  Pa.,  1H2II. 

tl.  All  assignee  «»f  n  part  int<'reHt, 
which  is  e\elu«ivo,  in  a  patent,  may,  at 
law  or  in  e<piity,  maintain  a  suit  for  in* 
t'ringemeiit,  without  joining  tho  put* 
entee.  llt'Dnkn  v.  Il'n-kinll,  .\  .McLean, 
250.— .Ml  Lk.vn,  .1.;  Ohio,  lH|;|. 

7.  The  assigiieeM  of  an  oxelusivo  right 
in  a  patent  nro  tho  proper  persoiiM  to 
maintain  an  action  for  a  violation  of  hiicU 
light.  \\'iin/i/)ni'n.  V.  (iiiutt/,  :t  Story, 
l;tl,  1(17.— SroKv,  J.;  Mar.s.,  iH4t. 

H.  TIh!  grantee  of  an  exclusive  riglit 
under  a  patent,  though  such  right  may 
l»e  limiltd  to  the  use  of  a  certain  mim- 
licr  of  machines  within  a  certain  terri- 
torv  or  district,  ha"*  such  an  exclnslvo 
right  as  will  enable  him  to  maintain  an 
action  for  an  infringement  of  the  patent 
within  that  district,  tinder  }<  it  of  tho 
act  of  ls:)(j.  Wifnon  v.  Jiosaemiy  \ 
How.,  OHO,  088.— Nelsov,  J.;  Sup.Ct., 
184.-). 

0.  An  exclusive  right  of  .'iclioii  exists 
in  favor  of  a  sole  assignee  only  in  two 
cases,  namely,  where  he  aciiuires  by  as- 
signment tho  whole  interest  in  the  pat- 
ent, or  a  grant  or  conveyance  of  the 
whole  interest  v.ithin  some  particular 
district  or  territory.  Siiydatn  v.  V'''y, 
2  IMatchf.,  23.  Xklsox,  Ulit.s,  JJ.  ; 
N.  Y.,  1840. 

10.  An  assignee  of  an  invention,  Ly 
virtue  of  an    assimiment  made  before 


4 

i 

al-'l 


'••». 


^.. 


:i„' 


n 


W 


*>w^' 


>WW 


'niJ\ 


i  iT. 


'^,, 


4> 


•    kS 


ywy**rrr. 


M 
P'^, 


«i?teir.-: 


100 


ASSKINEE,  C. 


or  TIIADK-UARKB.      RIUUTS  OF. 


k 


*»«, 

m 


It 
■«■„ 


patent  issiu-d,  niuy  file  a  bill  in  liis  own 
nanu',  undcT  $<  10  of  tlio  act  of  18:19, 
ainendi-.ig  §  10  of  the  aci  of  1830,  against 
n  patentco  to  w  lioni  a  patent  if  sued,  upon 
tho  interfering  ai)plication  of  his  as- 
signor and  Hueli  patentee,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  annulling  tho  pat<  nt  issued,  and 
having  one  granted  to  iiiniself  as  as- 
signee. Gfi)/  V.  Cornell,  1  Blatchf., 
607,  509.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

11.  And  such  assignment  need  not  be 
recorded  before  suit  brought ;  it  will  be 
sufficient  if  it  is  recorded  at  any  time  be- 
fore tl'.e  issuing  of  the  patent.  I/iuL,  5\0. 

12.  In  an  action  of  infringement, 
founded  upon  tho  non-performance  of 
the  conditions  of  a  license,  the  original 
patentee  and  licensee  arc  properly  join- 
ed as  parties  plaintitf  with  the  assignee, 
notwithhianding  tlie  whole  beneficial 
interest  is  in  tho  assignee,  inasmuch 
as  he  was  a  party  to  tho  agreement  or 
license,  and  may  be  interested  in  the 
p,  vCnt  and  interested  in  upholding  it. 

Woodworth  V.  Cook,  2  Blatchf.,  101.— 
Kelsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

13.  An  assignee  under  §  0  of  tho  act 
of  1837,  by  an  assignment  executed 
before  patent  issued,  even  though  the 
patent  is  issued  to  the  inventor,  has  the 
legal  title  so  as  to  enable  him  to  main- 
tain an  action  for  an  infringement. 
Gayler  r  Wilder,  10  How.,  494. — 
Taxky,  C'h.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

14.  But  to  enable  an  assignee  of  a 
sectional  interest  in  a  patent  to  sue  in 
his  own  name,  under  §  14  of  the  act  of 
1836,  he  must  have  the  exclusive  right, 
Oi'  entire  und  unqualified  monopoly, 
vrhich  the  patentee  held  in  the  terri- 
tory specified,  excluding  the  patentee 
himself,  as  veil  as  others.     Ibid.,  494. 

15.  A  patentee  or  his  assignee,  in  as- 
signing t!ie  use  of  a  patent  within  a 
particular    district,    may    reserve    the 


right  to  sue  for  infringements.  But  it 
ho  afterward  assigns  ail  his  right  in 
such  district,  tho  owner  of  tho  patent 
may  sue.  Jiicknell  v.  Todd,  5  Mc- 
Lean, 240. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1851. 

10.  The  assignees  of  a  patent,  though 
their  title  accrues  to  them  by  several 
deeds,  may  all  join  with  the  holders  of 
the  title  in  an  action  for  tho  recovery 
of  damages  for  an  infringement  of  i 
patent.  Stein  v.  Goddard,  1  3IcAllis 
84. — McAllisteu,  J. ;  Cal.,  1850. 

5.  night  of,  as  to  Disclaimer. 
See  DiscLAiMEU.  C. 

0.  Right  of,  in  cases  of  Iteii>sue, 
Seo  Reissue  op  Patent,  E. 

7.  night  of,  in  Extcnsiona. 
See  Extension,  C. 

C.  Tkade-Marks.  Rioiits  of. 

1.  Where  a  person  has  purchased  of 
another  the  secret  of  preparing  an  arti- 
cle, and  also  the  right  to  use  his  name, 
and  continued  to  manufacture  and  soli 
such  article,  under  the  name  of  the 
original  manufacturer,  whether,  under 
such  circumstances,  a  court  of  equity 
would  be  bound  to  protect  him.  Par- 
fridge  v.  Menck,  IIow.  App.  Cas.,  559, 
500.— Wkigiit,  J.;  K  Y.,  1848. 

2.  Is  not  such  a  proceeding  a  decep- 
tion upon  the  public,  inducing  others  to 
believe  they  are  purchasing  an  article 
manufactured  by  the  original  manufac- 
turer, when  in  truth  he  has  no  concern 
in  it?    7AiV?.,  559,  560. 

3.  It  is  no  answer  that  the  complain- 
ant obtained  the  secret  from  the  origi- 
nal manufacturer,  or  that  the  articlo 


1% 


WW 


**«*9»4« 


••'W'kik. 


ASSIGNMENT,  A. 


1C1 


14:111 


or  coPYRiauT  and  manuhckii't.    HEgumiTEB  ur;  what  pabhkh  hy. 


BoUl  is  ill  all  rcspcotH  o(iual  to  that  oflor- 
ed  l)y  the  foriiuT  proprietor.  Ibiil.^  659. 

4.  Till'  privilogo  of  tU'iH'iving  the  pub- 
lic, even  for  its  own  benefit,  is  not  a  sub- 
ject of  commerce.     Ifiiil.,  559. 

5.  The  aeqaiescenee  of  a  manufac- 
turer in  the  use  or  imitation  of  his  trade- 
mark by  another,  may  be  withdrawn  ; 
it  is  no  more  than  a  revocable  license. 
Amoskedf/ Mamif.  (Jo.wSpear,  2 Sand., 
S.  C,  015,— DuEij,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  N.  Y., 
1849, 

0.  The  owner  of  goods,  which  he 
exposes  to  sale  in  market  in  his  own 
right,  is  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use  of 
any  trade-mark  devised  and  applied  by 
him  to  the  goods,  to  distinguish  them 
as  being  of  a  particular  manufacture  or 
quality,  although  he  is  not  himself  the 
manufacturer,  and  although  the  name 
of  the  real  manufacturer  is  used  as  a 
jiart  of  the  trado-mark.  Waiton  v. 
Cntwlei/,  ;}  JJiatchf.,  448.— Bkits,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

7.  The  assignee  of  the  whole  right  in 
such  trade-m.'irk,  and  of  the  property 
in  the  goods  to  which  it  is  attached, 
is  entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  ex- 
clusive right  thereto,  and  may  maintain 
an  action  in  his  own  name  for  any 
wrongful  use  by  others  of  such  trade- 
mark, to  the  like  extent  as  the  origina- 
tor thereof.     Ibid.  448. 


ASSIGNMENT. 


A. 


161 


C. 


Op  CoPTRiailT  ANT)  irANUSCRIPT. 

Of  Invextion  ou  Patent. 

1.  Wiat  may  he  assiijned,  and  when; 
v:Jio  may  make ;  kinds  of ... .   1G2 

2.  jRccordinij  of 104 

3.  What  amounts  to ;   construction 
and  effect    of 1G6 

Op  Patent  ou  Copyright  by  Opera- 
tion OP  Law 1C9 

11 


A.  Of  Coi'YRioiiT  AM)  Manusoiupt. 

1.  An  assignment  of  an  interest  in  n 
copyright  must  be  in  writing  to  be  valid 
and  operative ;  but  an  urirecment  to  as- 
sign may  be  by  parol.  Gould  V.  lidnks., 
8  Wend.,  505. — Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1832. 

2.  Where  the  assignment  of  a  copy- 
right is  a  precedent  performance,  the 
.assignment,  which  is  to  be  made  and 
tendered,  must  be  in  writing.     //>/(/.,  500. 

3.  Where  A  employed  IJ  to  ct)mpile 
a  school  book,  and  iigreed  to  pay  him 
$500,  and  IJ  conveyed  to  A  the  "copy- 
right," Held,  that  only  the  usual  copy- 
right of  fourteen  years,  then  existing 
or  taken  out,  passed  under  the  contract. 
Pkrpontw,  Foicle,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  42, 
43.--WoomJUUY,  J.;  ]Ma*is.,  1840. 

4.  Such  an  assigmnent  is  to  be  refer- 
red to  what  was  then  in  existence,  and 
not  to  any  future  contingency.  lOid., 
43,  45. 

5.  A  usage  among  booksellers  to  re- 
gard the  renewed  term  as  passing  with 
the  first  one  does  not  control  the  rights 
of  those  unacquainted  with  the  usage, 
or  not  belonging  to  the  fraternity  of 
booksellers.     Ibid.,  43. 

0.  An  assignment  of  a  "  copyright" 
should  not  by  construction  be  extended 
beyond  lo  first  term,  imless  it  seems 
to  be  actually  so  meant  by  the  author, 
and  to  include;  any  future  contingency. 
Ibid.,  44. 

7.  Otherwise,  If  the  contract  of  sale 
or  assignment  uses  language  looking 
beyond  the  existing  copyright,  such  as 
referring  to  all  the  interest  in  the  mat- 
ter, or  to  the  manuscript  or  book  itself, 
or  xising  some  other  exj)ression  more 
comprehensive  than  the  Avord  "  copy- 
right."    Ibid.,  45. 


^wa 


W^wtr 


i  .  1  I  L 


^^i 


;ii 


1C2 


ASSIGXMEXT,  B.  1. 


OP   IXVKXI'ION   Oil   I'ATBNT.      WHEN    MAY  BE   MADE;   KIXDB  Of. 


rw 


7k 


['**».„ 


8.  An  assiifiiinout  of  a  copyri^lit,  :il- 
tliough  not  rc'cordt'd,  is  still  valid  as  bu- 
tweeii  till'  parties,  and  as  to  all  jJCTSons 
not  claiming  undcM*  the  assignors,  Webb 
V.  Powerit,  2  Wood.  &  ]\Iin.,  510.— 
WooDiiriiY,  J.;  IVr.'iss.,  1847. 

9.  'i'lu!  right  of  propt^rty  in  a  manu- 
script may  be  transferred  or  abandoned, 
the  same  as  any  other  right  of  proper- 
ty.    Jiarthtt  V.  Crittenden,  5  McLean,. 
41.— McLeav,  J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

10.  An  ac(piiescenco  in  the  publica- 
tion of  a  manuscript  or  in  the  republi- 
cation of  a  printed  book,  authorizes  a 
presmnption  of  assignment  or  abandon- 
ment.    Ibid.,  41. 

1'.  But  a  gift  of  a  copy  of  a  manu- 
sci'ipt  is  not  a  transfer  of  the  right  "or 
an  abandomiicnt  of  it,  any  more  than 
the  gift  of  a  copy  of  a  printed  book  is  a 
tr.ansfer  or  abandonment  of  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  republish  it.     Ibid.,  41. 

12.  The  statute  of  1834,  sanctioning 
assignments  of  copyrights,  prescribes 
only  the  instrument  by  which  they  may 
be  assigned,  and  the  mode  of  record- 
ing, but  does  not  define  Avhat  interest 
may  be  assigned,  lloberts  v.  Myers, 
1.3  Mo.  Law  Ilep.,  401. — Spuague,  J.  ; 
Mass.,  1860. 

13.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
preventing  an  author  conveying  a  dis- 
tinct portion  of  his  rigiit.  Divisibility 
as  Avoll  as  assignability  enhances  tlie 
value  of  his  projierty.  Ibid.,  401.  [But 
see  post  15.] 

14.  In  this  case  the  .•\ssignment  undor 
which  suit  Mas  brought  Avas  of  the  ex- 
clusive right  of  acting  and  representing 
a  certain  drama,  within  the  United 
States,  except  as  to  five  cities,  for  tlie 
term  of  one  year,  Held,  by  the  court, 
that  such  an  assignment  was  Aalid  under 
tlie  statute.     Ibid.,  400,  401. 

15.  The  statutes  of  the  United  States 


for  tin;  protection  of  authors  do  not 
like  those  for  the  benetit  of  inventors, 
sanction  transfers  of  limited  local  pro- 
prietorships   of    exclusive     privileges. 
Iveene  v.  W/icatlei/,  9  Amcr.  Law  Itc". 
40. — CAinvArxAOKi},  J.;  Pa.,  IHOO. 

IC.  A  writing  which  is  in  form  a 
transfer  by  an  author  of  his  excliisivo 
right  for  a  designated  portion  of  the 
United  Staf("<  operates  at  law  only  as  a 
nil  re  licence,  and  is  ineftectual  as  an  as- 
signment.    Ibid.,  46. 

17.  But  in  eqiiiti/,  a  limited  local  or 
other  partial  assigmnent,  if  made  for  a 
valuable  consideration,  is  carried  into 
effect  whether  it  would  be  effectual  in 
law  or  not.    Ibid.,  47. 

11 .     Op  Ixvention  or  Patent. 

1.   M^hat  may  he  made;    by  whom; 
kinds  of. 

1.  A  patent-right  itself  is  insusccp- 
tible  of  local  subdivision.  Whittcmore 
V.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  431.— Sxoiiv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1813. 

2.  An  assignment  of  an  invention  is 
not  void  by  being  executed  before  the 
invention  is  jtatented.  It  is  a  good 
transfer  of  the  right  of  the  i)!itenteo 
immediately  upon  his  obtaining  tlio 
patent,  and  he  would  beestopj)ed  losut 
up  any  adverse  title.  Herbert  v.  Ad- 
ams, 4  Mas.,  15. — SxOKY,  J.;  Mass., 
1825. 

3.  As  a  privilege  or  monopoly,  a  pat- 
ent is  an  entire  thing,  indivisible,  and 
incapable  of  ai)portionment.  liroo/cs  v. 
Bi/am,  2  Story,  525,  652. — Stoky,  J.; 
Mass.,  1843. 

4.  By  §11  ofthe  act  of  1836,  a  patentee 
may  assign  any  part  of  his  invention, 
and  the  assignment  vests  in  the  assignee 
the  legal  right  to  such  part.     Boyd  v. 


m 


put- 
and 

ICS  V. 

J-i 


ASSIGNMENT,  B.  1. 


103 


or   INVENTION   OK  PATKNT.      WHEN    MAY    UK   MADE;     KIXI)8  OF". 


Ml' Alpine.,  3  IMiLoan,  428.— McLkan, 
J.;  Oliio,  1844. 

5.  An  administrator,  in  Avboso  name 
a  patent  has  l»ccn  renewed,  may  grant 
an  assignment  of  an  interest  in  such 
patent.  Brooks  v.  Jiicknell,  3  McLean, 
4H. — MtLKA.v,  J. ;  Ohio,  1844. 

(].  An  inventor  may  soil  fnturo  im- 
provements as  well  aa  those  already 
made,  and  a  second  as  well  as  a  first 
patent  for  them.     Nesmith  v.  Calvert, 

1  Wood.  &  Min.,  41. — WoonuuuY,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1 845. 

7.  Tlie  subject  matter  of  a  patent  i' 
not  partible,  except  in  respect  to  terri- 
torial assigmnents.     Suydam  v.  I><(y, 

2  r.latchf.,  23.— Nelson,  Bktts,  JJ.  ; 
X.  v.,  1840. 

8.  An  assignment  of  an  invention  be- 
fore patent  issued,  is  valid  under  §  0  of 
the  act  of  1 83  7,  though  made  after  a  rejec- 
tion by  the  Commissioner,  .and  .ifter  an 
appeal  to  the  justices  of  the  Circuit 
Court  of  the  District  of  Columbia.  Gay 
V.  Cornell,  1  lilatchf.,  509. — Nelsox, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

9.  And  an  assignment  of  the  whole 
or  any  part  of  1  interest  in  a  patent, 
■will  be  valid,  although  it  is  it  the  time 
the  subject  of  litigation.     Ibid.,  510. 

10.  The  art  of  Congress  (§11,  act 
of  183G),  provi  s  but  three  khids  of 
assignment:  1st,  is  to  the  whole  inter- 
est; 2d,  as  to  an  lulivided  part,  .and 
3d,  an  exclusive  right  in  any  district. 
Blancluml'v.  EWruhje,  1  Wall,  Jr.,  339. 
— GiuKK,  J.;  Pa.,  1849. 

11.  This  statute  renders  the  monopo- 
ly capable  of  subdivision  as  to  locality, 
and  in  no  other  way.  The  patentee 
cannot  carve  out  his  monopoly,  which 
is  a  unify,  into  a  hundred  or  moro,  all 
acting  in  the  same  place,  and  liable  to 
come  into  conflict.     Ibid.,  340. 

12.  An  interest  in  a  u,rant  of  a  future! 


term  of  a  i)atent,  not  yet  in  csae,  is  not 
the  Hubjet^t  of  assignment  or  grant  at 
common  law,  or  within  the  meaning  of 
!^  11  of  the  act  of  1830,  and  the  right 
for  such  interest  rests  only  in  contract. 
dbMrn  V.  Cook,'l  Blatchf.,  149.— Nel- 
sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

13.  An  invention  may  as  well  be  sold 
before  as  after  the  appfuMtion  for  a  pat« 
ent.  Itathbonew  Orr,  5  ]\IcLean,  132. 
—McLean,  J.;  Mich.,  1850. 

14.  The  provision  of  the  law  rc<pii- 
ring  the  application  for  a  patent  to  bo 
made  in  the  name  of  the  inventor,  be- 
comes necessarily  a  part  of  the  contract 
— the  inventor  sells  his  right,  and  obli- 
gates hhnself  to  obtain  a  patent.  Ibid.j 
132. 

15.  Under  the  act  of  1830,  §  11,  an 
assignment  of  a  patent  m.ay  be  made  as 
well  before  the  issuing  of  the  patent  as 
afterward.  The  thing  to  be  assigned 
is  not  the  mere  parchment,  but  the  mo- 
nopoly conferred — the  right  of  proper- 
ty which  it  creates ;  and  when  the  party 
has  acquired  an  inchoate  right,  an  as- 
signment of  it  is  legal.  Gayler  v.  Wil- 
der, 10  IIow.,  493.— Taney,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

16.  Merc  delay  in  actually  making  an 
assignment  of  a  patent  for  some  years 
after  an  agreement  t<i  sell,  is  not  of  it- 
self evidence  of  fraud.  Troy  Iron  <0 
Xail  Fae.  v.  Corning,  14  IIow.,  209. 
—Wayne,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

1 7.  Whether  n  patented  discovery  is 
partible  in  its  nattwe,  so  as  to  enable 
the  patentee  to  make  separate  grants  of 
the  various  particulars  included  in  it ; 
query.  Hitter  v.  Serrell,  2  Blatchf., 
383.— Betts,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

18.  ConLjress  cannot  authorize  an  in 
ventor  to  recall  rights  which  he  has 
granted  to  others ;  or  reinvest  him  with 
rights  of  property  which  he  had  before 


1w 


".*-»-».-i. 


■&£.. 


'1, 

\ 

•  AH 

( HI  . .  - 


w^; 


^kk. 


■jr 


'Nn^/C^/^ 


'liifl 


^' 


^ 


It  ,,, 

hi 


'^ikt'i 


M. 


^t:^ 


:ii3>S^ 


Mi^ 


.'^W^:~L 


\!f^i 


4 


104 


ASSIGNMENT,  K  2. 


or  INVENTION   Oil  PATENT.      UKO()IU)IN(»   OF. 


c'liivcyt'd  ft)r  !i  valuable  consiileratioii. 
Jilooiner  v.  McQuewan,  17  How.,  553. 
— Tamcy,  Cli.  J.;  Slip.  Ct.,  1852. 

10.  An  usMlgninuiit,  tlioiigh  uiituuo- 
dctit  to  the  patent,  is  a  valid  legal  as- 
signment of  the  invention  afterward 
piitented  in  the  name  of  the  inventor. 
Jlich  V.  Lippincutt^  20  Jour.  Fr.  Inst. 
(3d  Ser.)  13.— GuiEK,  J.;  Pa.,  1853. 

20.  One  tenant  in  common  has  as 
good  right  to  make,  use,  and  sell  to 
third  persons  to  use  the  thing  patented, 
as  the  other  tenant  in  common  has. 
Ibid.  Chim  V.  Breioer,  2  Curt.,  524. 
— CuitTis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1855. 

21.  A  paper  purporting  to  bo  an  as- 
slgmiient  of  an  expired  patent  is  void 
as  an  .'issignmont.  Belly.  3IcCullou(jh, 
MS. — Lkavht,  J.;  Ohio,  1858. 

22.  It  is  not  to  be  presumed  that  a 
grantor  intends  to  grant  more  than  he 
has  a  right  to  grant,  or  that  a  grantee 
intends  to  receive  by  way  of  grant  that 
to  which  he  has  a  full  right  without  a 
grant.  Day  v.  Gary,  MS. — Ixgkusoll, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

23.  A  patent  gives  the  patentee  no 
})OAver  to  parcel  out  his  one  monopoly 
into  .a  thousand  sub-monopolies.  lie  may 
liold  a  close  monopoly  of  his  right,  or 
he  may  grant  out  his  entire  right.   But 
lie  cannot  divide  his  right  into  parts, 
and  grant  to  one  man  the  right  to  use 
it  in  its  connection  with  or  application 
to  one  thing,  and  to  another  in  connec- 
tion with  a  different  thing,  to  such  an 
extent  as  that  purchasers  from  any  of 
these  2>crsons  may  not  use  the  fabric 
jiurchased  exactly  as  they  like ;  and  if 
they  please,  in  violation  of  what  he  has 
supposed  were  rights  not  granted  by 
kim.     The   Washing  Machine  Go.   v. 
JSarle,  3  Wall,  Jr. — Giukb,   J.;    Pa, 
1861. 

24.  Goodyear,  the  patentee  of  vul- 


eanizi'd  india-rubber,  miglit  have  pre- 
venti'd  any  person  from  using  his  fal)rio 
for  any  puri)ose.  Uut  if  he  grants  to 
A  the  exclusive  right  to  use  it  to  make 
"wringers"  only,  and  to  J»  the  right  to 
make  "tubes"  only,  A  camiot  rest  rain 
C,  who  has  bought  tubes,  from  convert- 
ing them  into  wringers  by  any  process 
whatever  that  he,  C,  pleases.  Neither 
can  Goodyear.     Ibid. 

2.  Recording  of. 

1.  It  is  the  business  of  the  assignee 
of  a  patent-right  to  see  that  the  assign- 
ment is  \nii  on  record.  Jl/orrillx.  War- 
thington,  14  Mass.,  303. — Cukiam,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1817. 

2.  An  assignnv  ^f  a  patent,  thougli 
not  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  secre- 
tary of  state,  is  still  valid,  except  as 
against  creditors  and  subsequent  pur- 
chasers. Iluldenx.  Gurtis,  2  N.  Ilanip., 
03.— WoODHtriiY,  J.;  N.  II.,  1819. 

3.  The  exclusive  right  of  property  in 
an  invention  is  the  creature  of  statutory 
law,  and  must  be  strictly  regulated  by 
its  provisions.  Higgins  v.  Strong,)^ 
Blatchf.,  183. — Dewey,  J.;  Ind.,  183G. 

4.  Under  §  4  of  the  act  of  1793,  an  as- 
signment is  not  valid  unless  it  has  been 
recorded  in  tlie  office  of  the  secretary  of 
state  of  the  United  States.    Ibid.^  183. 

5.  And  a  note  given  to  an  assignee, 
whose  assignment  had  not  been  so  re- 
corded, is  without  consideration  and 
void.     Ibid.,  183. 

6.  An  assignment  of  a  particular  in- 
terest in  a  patent-right,  or  a  conveyance 
of  a  right  to  use  an  invention  within  .i 
limited  territory,  is  not  required  to  be 
recorded.  /Stevens  v.  Head,  9  Verm., 
177.— Williams,  Ch.  J.;  Vt.,  1837. 

7.  Under  §  4  of  the  act  of  1 793,  until  an 
assignment  is  recorded,  the  assignee 


assignmp:nt,  n.  2. 


10s 


or  IXVSNTION  OB  PATENTS.   RKCORDINO  OP. 


was  not  sul)stituto<l  to  the  rights  (itid 
respoiiHibilitu's  of  the  patentoo,  so  as  to 
iiiaiiitain  any  suit  at  law  or  in  equity, 
foutided  thereon.  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  1 
Story,  200.— S-rouY,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

8.  If  the  assigiuncnt  of  a  patent-right 
he  not  recorded  in  the  oflieo  of  tlie  sec- 
retary of  state,  a  note  given  to  the  as- 
signee for  such  right  is  invalid  for  the 
want  of  consideration.  McPall  v.  Wil- 
Kon,  0  lilaehf.  2(J0.— Curiam,  J. ;  Ind., 
1842. 

0.  The  statute  (§  11,  act  of  IS.IO),  re- 
quiring the  recording  of  an  assignment' 
witliiii  three  months,  is  merely  (firecto- 
ri/,  and,  except  as  to  intermediate  bona 
fide  purchasers,  without  notice,  any 
8uhsc(iuent  recording  of  an  assignment 
will  he  sufHcient  to  pass  tlio  title  to  the 
.nssignee.  Brooks  v.  Ihjam,  2  Story, 
542.— Stouy,  J. ;  Mass.,  1843. 

10.  Three  cases  oidy  of  the  record- 
in;^  of  assigmnents  are  provided  for  by 
the  statute  :  1st,  an  assignment  of  the 
whole  patent ;  2d,  an  assignment  of  an 
undivided  part  thereof;  and  3d,  a  grant 
or  conveyance  of  un  exclusive  right 
under  the  patent,  within  any  specified 
pan,  or  portion  of  the  United  States. 
Ibid.,  542. 

11.  A  grant  of  a  right  not  being 
exclusive,  need  not  to  be  recorded. 
Ibid.,  542. 

12.  The  provision  of  the  statute  (§ 
11  act  of  1830),  as  to  the  recording  of 
assignments  within  three  months,  is 
merely  directory,  for  the  protection  of 
bona  fide  purchasers,  without  notice, 
and  is  not  a  prerequisite  indispensable 
to  the  validity  of  the  assignment.  Pitts 
V.  Wiitman,  2  Story,  615,  618.— Story, 
J.;  Me.,  1843. 

13.  And  it  is  immaterial  whether  the 
assignment  is  recorded  before  or  not  till 
after  suit  is  brought.      It  11^  like   the 


common  case  of  a  deed  recpiircd  to  bo 
registered,  where  it  is  sutticient  if  it  bo 
registered  before  the  trial,  though  after 
the  suit  is  brought.     Ibid.,  018. 

14.  The  act  of  1830  affixes  no  pen- 
alty or  condition,  oti  a  failure  to  have  an 
assigntnent  recorded  in  tliree  months. 
The  assignment  takes  effect  from  its 
date;  but  if  not  recorded  within  three 
months,  the  act  imposes  no  forfeiture. 
lioyd  V.  MrAfpinr,  3  McLean,  429. — 
McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

15.  But  after  the  expiration  of  three 
months,  if  no  record  has  been  made  of 
the  assignment,  and  another  assignment 
of  the  same  right  is  made,  the  last  as- 
signment Avould  be  valid,  and  whether 
he  had  or  had  not  notice  of  the  pre- 
vious assignment.     Ibid.,  429. 

16.  The  act  prescribing  the  lime  for 
recording  of  assignments  is  only  direc- 
tory. The  recording  is  not  necessary 
to  make  the  trajisfer  operative,  but  is 
only  essential  to  enable  the  assignee  to 
sue  in  his  own  name,  lilanchard's 
Gun-Stork  Turn.  Co.  v.  Warner,  1 
Hlatchf.,  271.— Nklson,  J.;  Ct.,  1846. 

17.  A  patent  nuiy  bo  assigned  in 
whole  or  in  part,  and  such  assignments 
are  required  to  be  recorded.  Parker 
v.  Ilaworth,  4  McLean,  371. — McLeax, 
,L;  111.,  1848. 

18.  The  failure  to  record  an  assign- 
ment of  a  patent  is  not  essential  to  its 
validity  as  between  the  parties,  and 
against  strangers.  Case  v.  Medjicld,  4 
AIcLean,  527. — IIuntingtox,  J. ;  Ind., 
1849. 

10.  The  recording  of  an  assignment 
is  only  necessary  by  way  of  notice  to 
purchasers.     Ibid.,  511. 

20.  The  recording  of  an  assignment 

of  a  patent-right,  under  §  11  of  the  act 

!  of  1830,  is  no  constituent  part  of  the 

,  conveyance,  and  is  required  only  to  give 


JfirlililfJ- 


4411- 


«'«.. 


s 


r«^,£-?2t 


i*^\ 


«-K'l 


rm 


irl 


Ill's" 


^»^:: 


LL 


<.. 


Al  i 


A  :.  I  L 


•NWwwww^^^^'-^ 


WW«-:^^ 


100 


ASSKIXMKNT,  R.  n. 


or-  INVINTION  OH  I'ATKN'V.      RKCOROINa  Ul'. 


.i  ^^k 


notice.  Perk  v.  liumn,  IS  0(^1111.,  ^88. 
■ — Ki.i.swoKTii,  J. ;  Ct.,  lHt7. 

21.  Wlioro  A  nssitjiH'd  to  \\  certain 
parts  of  n  |»afi'iit-ri<^lif,  Hlipiilaliiij^  the}' 
were  I'rvv  iVoni  >>cuml»raii('(>,  and  it  ap- 
]>t'artMl  tliat  lu'lore  tlie  asNijjmiU'iit  of 
11  was  recorded,  the  same  interest  liad 
been  nssii,'ned  to  others,  of  M'hieh  A 
had  aotnal  notice,  but  such  assinnmt'nt 
Avas  not  recorded  until  aHer  IJ's,  J/il</, 
that  such  notice  precluded  A  from  avail- 
ing himself  of  such  want  of  recording 
as  a  deft'uce  against  an  action  hy  B  for 
fiaud  in  the  assignment  to  him.  Iliid.^ 
3S4,  :1SH. 

2'2.  An  assignment  of  an  invention 
before  i).atent  issued,  mjido  '..nder  tlic 
l)rovisions  of  §  0  of  the  act  of  1h;)7, 
need  not  be  recorded  before  bill  liled 
under  g  10  of  the  act  of  is.'tO,  .and  g  10 
of  tho  act  of  1837,  to  set  aside  or  an- 
nul a  patent  granted  to  .another  iipon  an 
interference  with  the:ipplicatif)n  of  such 
assignor;  it  ia  sufficient  if  it  be  recorded 
at  any  time  before  the  issuing  of  the 
patent.  G(>y  v.  Cornell,  1  JJIatchf., 
510.— Xki.sox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  184!). 

23.  The  act  of  Congress  requiring 
assignments  to  be  recorded  is  merely 
directory;  and  except  as  to  intermediate 
bo7ia  Jide  purchasers  witliout  notice, 
.nny  subse<|uent  recording  of  such  as- 
signments is  sulHcient  to  i)ass  the  title 
to  the  assignee.  Olcott  v.  Jlitir/ci/is,  2 
Anier.  Law  Jour,,  N.  S.,  319. — Mili.kk, 
J.;  Wis.,  1849. 

24.  By  §  11  of  the  act  of  1830,  the 
assignment  or  grant  of  .an  exclusive 
right  in  a  patent  must  not  only  be  in 
■writing,  but  must  bo  recorded  within 
three  months,  to  defeat  tlie  right  of  a 
subsequent  purchaser  without  notice  and 
for  a  v.aluable  consideration.  Gibson 
V.  Cook,  2  Blatchf.,  148.— Nelson,  J. ; 
K.  Y.,  1850. 


2.').  To  guard  against  an  outstanding 
title  ofovi-r  three  months'  duration,  the 
purchusi'r  need  only  look  to  tin?  records 
of  tho  Patent  Ollice.  Within  that  period 
he  must  protect  himself  as  best  he  can, 
as  an  unrn'itrded  assignment  would  pre- 
vail ;  but  it  must  be  an  assignment  in 
writing,  that  tuny  be  recorded  within 
the  time  limited.     Ibid.,  I4H. 

20.  The  chief  object  of  the  recpiiring 
assignments  to  be  recorded  is  nianifesl- 
ly  the  protection  of  bomt  jide  purchas- 
ers,  though  not  speci.aliy  ho  dectlareil. 
Ibid.,  148. 

27.  The  patent  act  of  1830,  .as  to  tho 
recording  of  assignments,  is  meri'ly  di- 
rectory for  tho  protection  of  boim  Jidf. 
purchasers  without  notice,  and  the  re- 
cording is  not  a  prere(|uisite  to  the  valid- 
ity «>f  tho  assignment.  Littnloi  v.  liirt, 
4  Ind.,  508.— Pkukins,  J. ;  Ind.,  1853. 

28.  To  render  the  assignment  of  a 
p.atent  valid  under  §  11  (»f  the  act  of 
1830,  it  is  not  essential  that  it  should 
be  recorded.  ^IcJurnttn  v.  Jlltv,  G 
Ind.,  430. — GooKiNS,  J.;  Ind.,  1855. 

29.  The  act  of  Congress  requiring 
assigmnenta  of  p.atents  to  lie  recordcil 
is  merely  directory,  and  designed  for 
the  benelit  of  subse(pient  bona  Jide  ])W- 
chasers.  Jlildreth  v.  Turner,  17  III., 
185. — Catuox,  J.;    111.,  1K55. 

30.  It  is  not  essential  to  the  validity 
of  ,an  assignment  of  a  p.atent  that  it 
sliould  be  recorded  in  the  I'atent  OtKce, 
iione  V.  Palmer,  28  Mo.  (7  Jones), 
539. ,  J. ;  Mo.,  1859. 

3.    Wliat  amounts  to  ;  Constniction  of. 

1.  A  variance,  merely  nominal,  or 
not  calculated  to  mislead — between  the 
description  of  a  patent  in  the  specifi- 
cation, and  in  an  assignment,  does  not 
indicate  fraud,  or  jjrevent  the  right  from 


^^ 


H«» 


ASSIGN  m>:nt,  li.  3. 


!•» 


or  INVINTION  OR  PATBNT.     'fUAT  I(t;  OOXITRUOTIO.V  Ol'. 


piiHsiii;,'.     C((tie  V.  Mony,  I  N.  I  lump., 
;tl». — WooDiiiruY,  J.;  N.  II.,  181H. 

li.  MiTo  cinMiiustunlial  tliirfri'iuu's  lii'- 
tweoii  till!  •Icscriptidii  in  llic  putuiit  and 
tliiit  ('oiitained  in  uii  usHi^iiiiiitiit,  will 
not  iTniKir  llio  assignment  invalid. 
JInhlr.a  V.  CurtiH,  2  N.  I  lamp.,  UH.— 
WouimuKY,  J.;  N.  II.,  iHli). 

;j.  'I'liu  (K'od  of  assii^nmi-nt  conveyed 
"a  new  and  nsefnl  improvement  called 
athrenhiiKj  nuiclnne,^''  when  the  patent 
was  for  an  '■'■  iiii/irovitni/it  in  the  tliresli- 
iiiLj  machine."  The  assij^nment  alsoj^ave 
liu'dat'!  of  the  jtatent  and  the  patentee. 
Jlelil,  that  the  misnomer  of  the  inven- 
tion in  the  assii^nment  did  not  render  it 
voitl,  iis  tlu)  deed  fnriiishcd  siiflicieiit 
means  to  correct  the  mistake,  and  itlen- 
tify  tho  thin}?  conveyed.  Jlannon  v. 
Jiii-d,  2-2  Wend.,  116.— Bronsox,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  1H:(D. 

4.  I>ut  if  otherwise,  the  deed  was  not 
a  nullity — it  might  bo  reformed  in 
equity.     Ibid..,  115. 

5.  An  assignment  may  l)c  exclusive, 
though  limited  to  a  certain  numh«'r  of 
machines.  Washburn  v.  (rouhl,  3 
Story,  131,  107.— Stouy,  J.;  Mass., 
1844. 

0.  The  term  exclusive,  in  §  11  of  tho 
act  of  1830,  comprehends  not  only  an 
exclusive  right  to  a  whole  patent,  bnt 
an  exclusive  right  to  the  patent  in  a  par- 
ticular section  of  country.     Ibid.,  131. 

1.  In  interpreting  an  assignment, 
we  must  look  to  all  the  provisions  of 
the  instrument,  and  give  such  effect 
to  it  as  its  obvious  objects  and  designs 
require,  without  uicely  weighing  the  pre- 
cise force  of  single  words.     Ibid.,  102. 

8.  The  Avords  "license  and  emjmw- 
cr,"  need  not  import  any  thing  difl'erent 
from  "grant."  In  their  broad  and 
g(;neral  sense  they  are  used  indiscrim- 
iuately.     A    mere    "license,"    strictly 


speaking,  passes  no  interest,  but  oidy 
makes  an  action  lawful,  which,  without 
it  wouhl  have  l)e(<n  imlawful ;  i)Ut  if 
the  instrunu'nt  passes  an  interest  then 
it  Itecoines  a  "grant."'     /bid.,  102. 

II.  Wiiert!  a  gnuit  to  license  and 
empower  parties  to  construct  ami  use 
fifty  patented  machines  within  certain 
territory,  with  a  covenant  that  the  pat- 
entee would  not  license  any  other  per- 
sons to  use  any  such  machines  in  such 
territory  for  a  gi-cn  jieriod,  and  reserv- 
ing, however,  tho  right  to  the  jtatentee 
to  construct  and  license  such  nuKthines 
elsewhere,  JIdd,  that  the  grant  was  of 
an  exclusive  right  under  tho  patent. 
Ibid.,  10(1,  101,  100. 

10.  The  limitation  of  the  number  of 
machines,  to  bo  made  or  used  under  a 
patent,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  grant 
of  an  exclusive  right  in  the  i)atent, 
within  such  territory.     Ibid,,  107,  108. 

11.  A  surrender  of  letters  patent 
renders  void  all  assignuicnts  under  such 
patent,  so  far  as  those  are  concerned 
who  assent  to  such  surrender.  GihHon 
V.  Jiichurds,  Index  I'at.  Dec,  No.  370. 
— Nklsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

12.  An  assigmnciit  of  an  exclusive 
right  to  make,  use,  and  vend  to  otherM, 
a  patented  macrhiiic  within  a  certain  ter- 
ritory only,  does  not  prohibit  the  as- 
signee from  selling  elsewhere,  out  of  the 
said  territory,  tiie  i)roducts  of  such  ma- 
chines. Simpson  v.  Wilnon,  4  How., 
711.— Nklson,  J.;    Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

13.  The  restriction  in  the  assignment 
applies  solely  to  the  using  of  the  ma- 
chine, and  is  no  restriction  as  to  place, 
of  the  sale  of  the  product.    Ibid.,  711. 

14.  An  assignment  of  all  interest  in  a 
patent  is  a  dissolution  of  a  i)artnership 
for  working  it.  Parkhurst  v.  Kins- 
man, 1  Blatchf.,  498. — Xklsox,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1849. 


{^ 


I A 


irtirtoiii^ 


"H^^l 


wm 


;i 


'^ 


*m 


I'.ii,^ 


■^W^ 


mii 


sm(^f 


!H 


f 


Sw-^^' 


kS 


M\H 


AS.SI(;XMKXT,  n.  a. 


or  INVBNTIUN  oil  I'ATKNT.     WHAT  IH;  C«>K»rRUCTtUN  Of. 


m 


Pi 


mm 


•Uii 


■Wri 


15.  WluTc  !i  piitt'iitt'c  pr.'uiti'd  to  V. 
i\u'  i'X('lii>«ivt'  rii;lit  to  foiiMtiuct  uiid  UHt« 
atiil  Vi'inl  williiii  a  coitiiiii  iKrritory,  ten 
jtlfDiiii;/,  /o////M«;///y,  and  yroovimj  \\\\\- 
chiiit'H,  mid  tlio  ^raiit  ili>clikn>(l  tliiit  V. 
was  to  oiijoy  ail  fxt-liisivc  umo  of  tin* 
puti'Ht  within  Haid  territory,  liinited  to 
Hnid  ten  iiiachiiK's ;  and  atlerward  the 
patt'iitfi!  ^^raiitcd  to  K.  tlio  ('vt•lIl^ivo 
ri^ilil  midt  r  llic  palfiit  <if  iiiakinii:,  usiii<;, 
and  vi'iidinir,  williiii  llu'  sainn  territory, 
imniUuKj  <niif  /ifiiiiiiKj  in(fi'/ihii:Sy  //i  l<f, 
tliat  till'  jxraiit  Hist  made  to  V.  coiivi'yod 
till)  t'litiif  intcri'st  ot'  tlic  patfiitci',  and 
tliat  tlic  siilfsi'fjiu'iit  j^raiit  to  K.  was 
void.  Jiittcr  V.  .Sumll,  'J  Mlalclif.,  ;}HI, 
382.— lli:rrs,  J.;  N.  Y.,  Ih.j'J. 

Ki.  All  as>iij,'iiiiiiiit  of  ail  intcri'st  in  a 
patent,  lull  ri'sorviiiLj  to  tlic  grantor  the 
whole  and  sole  power  of  disposal,  eoii- 
vcys  no  le_i;al  title,  Imt  the  assij^nee  is 
only  a  centiil  que  tnixt,  to  tho  extent  of 
his  interest,  in  the  profits.  Goixfi/cir  v. 
Dill/,  ]\[S. — Gkiek,  Dkkkksov,  J.T. ; 
X.  J.,  1.s5l>. 

•  17.  An  ai^reeinont  made  by  the  own- 
er of  a  patent,  securing  to  the  grantee 
the  exclusive  right  to  make,  use,  and 
sell  to  others  to  be  used,  the  machine 
patented  within  a  certain  territory,  but 
reserving  to  the  grantor  the  right  to 
sell  within  such  territory,  machines  of 
his  own  manufacture,  does  not  operate 
as  an  assignment  or  transfer  to  the 
grantee  of  the  right  and  title  secured 
by  the  patent  within  such  territory.  It 
is  an  agreement  in  the  nature  of  a 
license  to  niiinufacturc  and  sell,  but  more 
than  a  mere  technical  license.  It  is  a 
fixed  contract  right,  vested  in  tlie  gnxn- 
tee,  and  assignable  by  him.  JR/'tfs  v. 
t/ameson,  15  Barb.,  S.  C,  315. — Jonx- 
.so.v,  J. ;  X.  Y.,  1853. 

18.  Where  an  agreement  was  entered 
into  between  a  patentee  a:id   another 


person,  that  in  case  of  an  extension  of 
the  patent  such  person  should  have  ami 
Ih!  entitled  to  an  eijiiul  undivided  oii(>. 
fourth  part  of  the  rights  and  benelits 
that  should  be  secured  thereby,  on  pay- 
ing a  proportional  part  of  the  expenses 
of  obtaining  such  i'Xteiision ;  fjiori/ 
whether  the  terms  of  8ueh  an  agrei'- 
ment  are  not  words  of  grant  and  con- 
veyance,  and  whet  her  such  an  agreement 
would  not  be  a  suHicieiit  ;issigninent  of 
the  interest,  if  the  condition  was  per- 
formed. I'ittH  V.  J/nll,  a  r.ljitchf.,  201. 
— IIam,,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1H54. 

10.  Hut  the  ofVer  to  pay  the  ])ropor- 
tional  part  of  such  expenses  will  not 
vest  in  such  person  the  interest  in  such 
ext«'iision,  although  it  may  entitle  him 
to  iiriiig  his  action  and  recover  damages 
for  the  non-performance  of  ''le  agrco- 
iiieiit.      l/nif.  L'Or). 

20.  If  a  bill  of  sale  of  a  patent  con- 
tains  no  warranty,  but  a  simple  transfer 
of  title,  the  veiidi'c  cannot  set  up  a 
parol  warranty,  for  it  is  to  be  presumed 
that  the  writing  contains  the  entire  con- 
tract. ,/(>/////(!  v.  Collini^,  21  3Io.,  341. 
— ScoiT,  J.  ;  3Io.,  1H55. 

21.  Where  an  assigniiient  is  in  writing, 
the  j>resuiiii)tion  is  that  the  writing  con- 
tains the  whole  contract.  All  oral  ne- 
gotiations or  stii>ulatioiis  between  tlic 
parties  which  jin-ceded  or  accompanied 
the  execution  of  the  instrument,  are  to 
be  regarded  as  merged  in  it.  Jfi'Clure 
V.  'I'Jfri'i/,  8  Ind.,  83. — Davison,  J. ; 
Ind.,  1850. 

22.  Where  a  warranty  is  not  included 
in  the  written  contract,  it  cannot  he 
j)roved  by  parol  evidence,  unless  it  is 
also  alleged  that  it  was  false  or  fraudu- 
lent, and  that  thereby  the  vendee  was 
deceived  ;  and  then  parol  proof  is  only 
evidence  of  such  representation.   Ibid., 

oo 


ki 


» n* 


ASSUiNMENT,  C. 


lOi) 


or  PATRNT  Oil  C'OPVHinilT,  HY  OPERATION  OP  LAW. 


2.1.  An  Mfifoi'iiu'iit  nimlo  butwonn  a 
|i:tt(Mitci!  aiitl  li  tliinl  piTHcm  an  tniHtcc, 
that  llit>  latter  nIiouIiI  IioIiI  tlit>  patent, 
aiiil  liav»!  tlm  ctnilrul  tlu'n-of  lor  tlu' 
Ik'Iii  lit  «>r  tlioMo  will)  liail  a  ri;;lit  to  uxv 
thu  sami',  uiulor  fontrairtH  with  the  pat- 
('iit(H>,  traiiNturK  tlui  iMitiru  intoroHt  and 
(iwni'rsliip,  icijal  and  uquital)!*',  of  llic 
iiati'iilut!  ni  \\w  patent,  to  nucIi  tnistee, 
tor  thu  iKMH'Ilt  of  tlioso  int'ri'sti'd. 
JI,irfit/iorn  v.  Any,  10  How.,  221.— 
Nki.son,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1h:)U. 

'J4.  The  conveyanci!  of  a  patent  by 
A.  with  the  written  eonsent  of  U.,  in 
wlioin  the  title  then  was,  \n  e(|ually 
('tVectivo  with  n  conveyance  din-etly 
tVoni  \i.  Shrnnan  v.  (Jlnnti]).  Troiis. 
<'ii.,   ni    Verm.,    175.— RicnriKM),   J.; 

Vt.,  iHr)8. 

25.  A  paper  purporting  to  bo  an  ns- 
m^iiineiit  of  an  expired  patent  is  void 
ns  !in  assignment.  JJill  v.  Mi'Ciillouijh, 
MS,— Lkaviit,  J. ;  Ohio,  1H5H. 

20.  An  assignment  of  a  patent  dc- 
perihed  the  improvement  as  "a  patent 
for  an  im|)rovement  in  burning  lime,  for 
which  le|,ters  j»atent  were  granted,  May 
0,  1851."  JFild,  that  it  was  asuHieient 
description  of  the  thing  Hold,  and  that 
tlie  deed  need  not  contain  the  specilica- 
lions  of  the  ])atent.  If  the  purcliaser 
wanted  a  copy  of  the  sjiecitications,  he 
could  get  them.  JFill  v.  7yiuernier,  13 
Iiid.,  'Mil,  Sry2. — Pkukins,  J.;  Ind., 
1859. 

27.  Where  a  patentee  granted  to  an- 
other the  exclusive  right  to  make  and 
Holl  his  patented  Invention,  within  a  cer- 
tain territory,  he  to  ]iay  a  certain  sum 
for  each  machine  so  made  and  sold, 
but  the  i)Utenteo  reserved  the  riglit  of 
sending  machines  of  his  own  ma?iufac- 
ture  into  such  territory,  Held,  that  such 
contract  was  not  an  assignment  of  the 
patentee's  interest  in  the  patent  in  such 


territory,  but  a  more  grant  or  licenso  to 
nn«kii  an<l  h«'11  the  article  therein.  //><«• 
.try    V.   W/iitelri/,   AIS. — Lkaviit,     J.;* 

Ohio,  iHdl. 


C.  Op    I'atknt    on    Copyuioiit,   bt 
Oi'KUATioN  OF  Law. 

1.  The  recovery  of  a  verdict  by  iho 
plaintilV,  in  an  action  fur  the  infringo- 
ment  of  a  patent,  does  not  pass  any 
legal  right  to  the  defendant  to  use 
the  machine  made  by  him.  Kvery  fu- 
tiH'e  use  will  be  an  infringement  of 
the  plaintiirs  patent.  W/iiffrmorc  V. 
Cutter,  1  Gall.,  484. — Stouv,  J. ;  Mass., 
I8i;}. 

2.  The  levy  and  8alo,  under  an  oxc- 
cution,  of  the  nvtterkiU  of  a  patented 
machine  does  not  convey  to  the  jnir- 
(^haser  any  right  to  use  the  machine  in 
the  manner  pointed  out  in  the  patent. 
Sdichi  v.  Guild,  1  Gall.,  487. — SioitY, 
J.;  Mass.,  IHIU. 

n.  The  capture  from  an  enemy  of  a 
patented  machine  does  not  operate  as 
an  assignment  of  a  right  to  use  such 
machine.  LdinUi  Cxfii^,  5  Opin.,  725. 
— WiitT,  Atty.  Gen.,  IHJO. 

4.  L.,  an  American  citizen,  obtained  .1 
psitent  in  the  United  States  for  an  inven- 
tion for  producing  fresh  water  from  salt. 
He  afterward  went  to  Kngland,  and 
took  otit  a  patent  there,  and  one  of  his 
machiiu's  was  put  on  board  the  frigate 
IJoxer,  which  was  captured  by  an  Ameri- 
can brig  in  the  war  of  1812,  Held,  that 
the  United  States  by  such  capture  ac- 
quired no  right  to  use  the  invention, 
without  the  consent  of  the  inventor. 
Ibid.  -— -. 

5.  Whether  a  Acrdlct  for  a  plaintiff, 
and  tlie  assessment  of  damages  for  a 
violation  of  his  patent,  entitles  the  de- 


.  iij 


■ii 

i   Id 


'''X.riL 


■•^vii 


^^'"flsnS 


no 


ASsmSMKNT.  V 


r^.4 


^^ 


iHf  PArn\t  im  lOiMYUMtiir,   ii>   iii>HH4rii»i  or  t,\m. 


ti'inliMil  (o  IIHM  till'  liliii'liilir  Hiilm«<i|i|i<Ml 
I) ,  or  II  iiisliirM  |o  liiiii  llii>  iii;lil  lo  iitc 
it ;  »/»<  /'.y.     A't/'A 


I   M 


UN. 


/'/«■   V,    Ml  1 11*  I/I  r, 
l;i.  -  Slnio.  .1.  ;    Ma-s.,  IMV  . 

il.  Siii'li   It    i'<iiinlnifli)Mi  ul'   llii>   liiw 
Moiil)!  t'iial)l<'  any  iinxoii  in  iii'i|iiiit<  lliitl 
I'iglil,  li,\  a  riMct'il  hall",  aiji.iiisl   ll»«>  |iiil 
iMili')',   ami   <'iini|M'l    liiin    In  n)  II,   an   (n 
|)«>iH))iiM  ami  |ilari's,  u  lu'ii  il  iiii'^hl  inter- 


(•!«'    » 'Mil 


liall 


•    I'M 


Mill 


('(.,    IH,' 


)  >\illi  III-*  |M'iiiiatH'iit  111 
ItMt'sl  ,  |li(>  \t>iv  all>'Ui|>i  iil'llio  |iali>iiit>(< 
In  ••iir<iri'('  lii«.  I'NiliiMiM"  |iii\  ili'i,f('  wiiiilil 
Ili\«il\i'  ilii'  iiiitssiiy  ol"  |iaiiiii};  Willi  il. 
Jf'iif.,  l:i. 

V.    11 Mill  caiiiinl  I'tfoi'  llii>  ill  I'l'mj 

am  li>  |nir<'liasi<,  any  inxio  lliaii  il  can 
llii«  iilaiiiliiV  li>  M'll,  llii'  |ialriil  lif.lil,  lor 
tlu'  w  liult'  |n'i  iotl  il  lias  111  run.    //>i,f.,  I  I. 

S.    liitt  wlific  a  ili'ilaialiiMi  jfiu'H  li"'  '  Uiil  il  may  ln>    icai  In'ij   t>y  a  <ii  liiior'H 
n    uxt'V    iliiriii"    a    liiiiili'il    pci-iiMl,  nn.      hill,  ami   lio  a|i|>lii'il  In  lli<<  pay  im  nl  of 


til- 


i*i\U;  tiiiviMi>,  iir  li'vv    ••I'  «'»i'<'iilloii, 
aN><i^iiiiit*nl    nt*    an    iiixnUtnrH    I'Mn  (:«, 

ir,in./»('ii>7/(   ».    ('niHf>,.'   Wniiil    A    Mifi,, 

."i;in       Wdomiii'Im  ,  .1. ;   Miih^i.,  ImiV, 

I'J.  'I'Ih'  |>in|irily  »n|HiMc|  li\  iji,. 
Male  of  an  rii'^iaM  I  pliili'  nr  Hli'irnlv.iii 
plait's,  mill  ilii<  rup  'iKlit  nl'  II  map,  tir 
liiMik  ni'imii'dI  lit  llii'  aiitlinr  niMJir  i||(< 
iit'lH  III' ('niiKnss,  an<  all>"frciln'r  ili(*\>r. 
rill  ami  iiiili'pi'mlriil  nl'  t  a<  Il  mini ,  jntl 
liaVi'  IMMIi'i  t's-i;|l  y  I'iMim  hull.  '^hji/ii'liH 
V.  i\iifi/,  It    llmv.,  ftito.      Ni^i.NitN,  J 


l.'l.    Till' iiii   >i  pnroul  I'i^lit     I'lipyii^hi, 

xi'iin'i'il  liy   fill'  slaliili'  In  I  In'    iiiIImh', 

lii'iiif.;  iiil.in^ilili'   ami  Hit  iii'i'il 


iiiiil. 


is  Mnl   tilt'  Niiliji'i't   nl'  Mt'i/.ni't<   m   ^alo   liy 
I'M'illlinii       al      Irani     al      I'nnillinll     I  l\v. 


Jllli'iuaitl  lilt'  p.tii  \  Mii'H  I'nr  ii  iisit  iliir 
in^  II  HtiliM'tpu'iil  pcrinil,  il  si't>niN  tfial 
u  vt'iilii'l  ami  jiitlirniiiil  in  llif  ruruu'r 
I'aM'  WKiilil  m»l  ln'  a  li'jj;al  liar  lo  a  lo 
I'DVi'iv  ill  ilu'sri'iiml  at'linii.  'I'lii'  pirary 
IN  iKil  tli(>  Kiiiiit%  nor  IH  till'  ^'lavanit'ii  ilio 


bUllH', 


\).   A 


//>/./.,  II. 
n    .'iiillior 


Jio    lias    olitaiiit'il    11 


ropyiii;lil  iimlt'i-  llio  atl  ol"  Coiiixn'SH 
rami't  In- tli'pii\  cil,  aj;;ainsl  his  will,  ami 
ill  la\or  nt'  his  cifililors,  tif  any  of  thi' 
ri;;lits  soiMirod  to  him  l>y  siu'li  ai'ts;  auil 
possiMy  ihi'y  I'aiiiinl,  ai^jiiu  I  his  will, 
Moi/.i'  ami  Sill  thf  hooks  iht'insi'ivi's,  tlu* 
i'M'lusivo  rii;lil  of  vi'iitlinti;  wliich  is 
vostoil  in  liiin,  t\h>/>(i'  v.  (>niui,  i 
]J.  3lou.  AOU.— Maksiim  I.,  ,1.;  Ky., 
lS4t. 


ill!'  tlihls  of  llii'  author.      //»/«/,,  ,i    1. 


II     II 


m,i\ , 


o\\  '    \  I' 


I. 


tlnill   It 


wlii'llnr  a  lianshr  l>y  a  kmK'  ninh  r  a 
ilci'l'i'i'  nl'  I'nilll,  Wniiltl  pa  till'  li||t> 
si>  as  In  prnli'i'l  till'  pinrhasiT,  iinli  nh 
Ity  a  cnini'y anro  in  I'oiilorniily  with 
till'  i-fipiircnit'nlH  of  I  In   stalnh'.    //>iif., 

.■>;i-'. 

lt>.  Tlic  sail'  of  a  coppiT-philc  III"  a 
map,  on  an  r\rrillioii  a'^aiiml  llii'  nwiiii- 
of  ihi'  t'opy  liiihl,  iliH'M  iiol  I'.'irry  wiili 
it  or  pass  to  ihi'  puit  hasi-r  ihr  rii;hl  tn 
print  ami  piihlish  lhi>  map  ini^iaMtl 
upon  il. 


//'/./., 


!>:V2. 


111.    It  m;iy   well  ho  ilonhli'tl  wju'llur 

pati'iils  ami  ropyriijlils,  lichl  mitli'i-  tlif 

laws  of  till'  I'nili'il   States  are  siihji'it 

to  sei/.nre  ami  sale  on  execution;  siicli 

1(>.   Hill   this  protection  iloes  III >l   ex- j  incorporeal   ri;^hls  ilo   iiol  exist  in  any 

tend  to  tho  proceeils  of  the  salo  of  his  j  pari  ieiilar  slate  or  ilisliici,  hut   arc  ci>- 

exleiisive  with  the  rnilcii  States.  iSd'- 
l't>llt\.  (i/(ti/(h'll;/,  17  How.,  f'l. — CuK- 
TIH,  .1.  ;   Slip,  ft.,   I.H.'il. 


eopyriijht,  wliclher  existinij;  in  Ins  own 
hands,  or  licltl    hy  another  lor   his  use. 

U.   A    patented    machino,    and    the 


T\ 


le  mere  ownorship  ot  a  eopppr- 


riyht  of  Use  atlachetl  to  il,  may  pass  by  1  plaU'  of  a  map,   hy   the  owner  of   il 


10 


AirAi'llMKNlS  IN   I'AIKM'  ('Ahl...  A 


111 


^•^w^ 


•*•*•»» 


uKMUBNri    liNT  iir  mnn  ut. 


i'0|iyri^li()  <|iM<r4  iiMi  iilttwii  In  Mil' pliib  1  irii'iil  of  ilH  ^Hlmtln^  itint   l»y  MurvitMi   of 
til)*  oHi'liHivu  ri^lil  ol' |ii'iii)iiiK  iti.'l  jtiilt- 


llii>  iiii'Mr|iMi'ftil  ri^lil  hiiIimImIh  wliMlly 
iiii|i>|M<iiii«-iit  III'  1111*1  "'|iiiritti>  IVoin  lliK 
itliili-,  iiinl   iliiKM   riot    j.ikHM   uilli    il  liy  u 


pliil 


o  <>r  «<i'('iUnni. 


/Ai./., 


|irnri'N.H  till  ii     |n'<-xii|i>Ml,  wli  >  lin|»|»itiMM| 
In    Imi    III    SvW    Voik,     //(A/,     lliii»     th*^ 
lii'lil   inultr  (III-  ml.  nl'  i'mimfHs;  liiit  '  i'itr|iiiriiliMit  w.%n  t\<>\    uii    iiilmliiliiiil  ..f" 

N«<w  Ydik,  or  IoiiikI  witliiii  it  ill  lint 
lii/<<'  <if  iho  Hiti'y  in>  of  tint  |iiin<i«nh,  iiinl 
lliiir  I  till  iiiMirt  liifi  tio  inriNfliitliiili  of  Om 
lu'iioii,     /f>iJ.,  h;i;», 

4.     A    |I|«»<-|'HH  (»r    ltlltl*-||||||-||l,    wfH'llu'P 

ilil-iM-t   or  Inifii^ii,    iiy    wliidi    tliti    |>rn|i 

••riy  nl'  Ik  )ii-r<-iiiliint  \h  n\U%i')n<t\  Uy  vir- 
liir  iif  Nittio  lii\v-4,  criniMii,  ^i\|.  till'  (!ir' 
riiil,  C-Miil  jiirist|i<li<iii  nvi-r  ll  pel  huh 
lii>t  III!  ihliiil)i>!iiil,  I'l',  lunl  iiol.  CuiiimI 
illiiti  I  III!  liiNlrirl.    S>iifillri-  V.  Itudtiitn% 


mill'  ))|  Miii'li 

jM.   Ill  III!  iirliuii  I'lir  iIhi  iiiri'iii;<i>Miitiii 
(if  It  piiNMil,  il'  llin  jury  ui|ii|il    iih  llii> 


IIII'llHllI'd       It 


I    il 


mil  ii'i's 


Ml 


IMirit    i> 


r  III 


Kiinil  I't'i',  provnl  in  llii<  r.iHr,  hihIi 
M*i'ili<'t  will  i)|M<ntli«  to  vimt  lli«>  lillo  of 
llii'  piili'iil,  In  llic  I'vti'iit  of  ilM  iiNi<  liy 
till'  ill  ri'iiiliiiil   i'<iMt|iliiiiii'i|   of,  llirmi^rli- 

iMll  llHtrllii.      Siiklm  \,  /Iniiliit.'A  jiluli'lif,, 


;.».• 


Nki. 


•ON, 


J.;  N.  Y.,  I   M. 


ATrACIIMKN'IS     IN     rAIKNT 

(!ASKS. 

\.  CoMMiCNnaiKN'i'  OK  Si  riH  iiv. 
I.  'I'lio   rii^lil,  III   iillarli   |iri»|»('ily  In 


('iiniiH 


I  II 


II*    lljilirlllllMro    <>!    lii'lMiiiiN   fiiii 


|irii|M>i'ly  \w  iiKfil  only  in  «-hni>h  in  HJiirh 
NiK'li  iMTHiilis  :in<  :ini<'ii;ilito  In  |M'ii('I'Ss 
/;/  fit  ruiiniiin,  .iinl  in  surli  casr  hIhh, 
Hiirli  an  altacliincnl  laniinl.  hit  issiii'il 
i'x»'t'|>t  iH  |iiii'l  III",  or  toj^i'ilier  with 
ni'iHH'MH  lo  lin  scrvt'il  ii|iiiii  lii'^  |irrHiiil. 
/},!!/ \.  Xiwxrk  I.  Ii.  <■».,  I  nialrlii:, 
ij;iO,  (i.'ii.  -Nia.soN,  .1.;  N.  V.,  Ih.mi. 

'J.  Till'  allirlinH'iit  of  ill*!  |irojicrly 
of  a  foi'»'iu;n  ri>r|ioralion  will  iiol  confer 
jiiriHilirtioii  ii|iiin  llic  (ViriMiit  Ooiirt  iih 
anaiiiHt  Midi  coriMiralioii.     /A///.,  o:i;i. 

!).  Wlicrc  a  rorpuralirn  was  (iii'alcil 
1)y  llio  laws  of  Now  .lorncy,  ami  liail  ils 
jiinc.r  t)f  businosH  in  that  Htato,  but  niHo 
liail  a  Htoro  in  N«'W  A^irk,  wliort)  ItH 


L'< 


>0( 


Iswcrc  ;  "lil'intl  aMiit  was  conitiir 


lie 


\\ 


2  «!iirt. 


I'r 


It  IIH, 


.1.;   Ml 


I  Mr.  I. 


.%.  I'loi'iiHM  of  allarlinii'iil,  .■l^!lin>«^  lln* 
|Mo|MM'ly  of  H  lion  ri'siilciii,  i|i>fiiii|ant 
i-aniiot  iNHiiii  from  ii  Oirniit  Oourt,  ox< 
iM'|il  iiM  part  of,  or  loiri<tli«>r  mIiIi  |iro)!(m« 
to  Ik'  Korviil  on  bin  iiirMim  ;  ami  no 
jiiil^iiMnl  <  in  \»i  rrnilrri-i|  a^jaiiiMt  a 
non-rcNiili'iit  ilnfiiMl.int  wlio  hitM  not 
bc'i'ti  porHi'iiiiily  Hrrvml  wiili  pronoHH, 
nnli'ss  lif  I  as  cnti-ri'ii  an  appfariuico. 
/f>U,  7. 


0.  Till-   altai'liincnt   of    ili, 


troiii 


riy 


of  II  tiitii-ri'Hiilfitt  (lrfi>ii<i;iiit  raniiot  con* 
fcr  JHrisiliftion  upon  tlir  l/'inuit  CourtH 
of  I  lie  I'liitcil  Slates  ;  Jiirisilii  lion  call 
only  Im'  acipiired  l»y  service  of  proconH 
upon  the  ilcfcnitaiil  personally  within 
the  ilistrict,  if  a  iioii  rcMiileni.  (thiJfVc, 
V.  Il,i>/in,ir,l,  '_'(>  How.,  215,  210.— Ca- 
TitoN,  ,1.  ;  Slip.  (X.,  IH57. 

II.   To    KNFOUCK     OllKDlKNCK   TO    I'ltO- 
<  KHH,    4l;C. 

I.  Wliero  a  plaint iir  in  an  injunction 
suit  cmleavored  to  entrap  tin;  ilefi;n<lant 
into  n  violation  of  an  injiimlion,  //»,/(/, 
that    tho    proceeilin;^    on    tlic    p:irt    of 


|>l:iii 


itiir 


woiilil  not,  either  in  coii>ciem;o 


eJ  !i gainst  it  in  Nuw  York  by  attach- 1  or  law,  justify  an  alliicliincnt,  anil  tlmt 


4T^^\ 


'>« 


3ii 


S^. 


''wa 


>w. 


<J, 


y^ 


^ 


Wi-tNi' 


w 


^K 


*t,0 


fSj 


'4 


y  >Kji 


a* 


172 


AITAC  II.MKNTH  IN  I'ATKNT  CAAKH,  K 


roR  viiii.ArioN  or  iNjrxt'TiON. 


tli«>  plnintiff  mIkhiM  Ihi  flinr^til  wiili  tlu< 
<-i»«H  of  (III-  ii|i|ilii-atiiiii.  S/mrkuunt  v. 
Jii)fjin»,  'i  Mlatchr.,  MO,  Ml.— Hicrrn,  J. ; 
N.  v.,  IHH». 

'-*.  Wlirrt'  :iti  iiijiiiiclioti  wiw  Uniii'iI 
it^iiiiiHt  .'(  (Ifl'ciiiliiiit,  i'«*M(riiitiin;{  liiiii 
t'l'Diii  iiNiii<r  II  crrtitiii  iiiachitM',  niul  atlci- 
wui'il  Hucli  il<>t(iiilaiit  IcaMi'il  ilio  iiiacliiiM' 

to  nllicrH,  \\\u\  colitilllK')!    to  ll'4f,  ImiI    it 

lia<l  iit'M'r  Im'cii  ill  tlio  li-^^'al  |in>ts('<.Hii)ii 
of  HiK'li  tlcii'ihlant  Nitu'tt  lit*  WW*  t<iijoiii<'il, 
/A/'/,  oil  a  tiiotioii  for  ail  attacliiii«'iil, 
tli.il  tli<<  (I<'t<'ii<l:iiit  coiiM  net  ))«•  ri';^:iril 
I'll  an  ill  contt'tiipt,  and  tliiit  an  attach 
liiciit.  woiijil  net  isMiu'.  tSloiits.  /'ittm, 
0  I",  iiti.  Law  Jour.,  IHO,  loo. -Kank, 
J.;  I'll.,  INIO. 

n.  WluTi'  nil  onK-r  piaiitliij^  nn  iii- 
jiiii'tioii  was  iiia>U',  ami  llii'  writofiii- 
jiiiictioii  iHHiu'il  tliorcoii  wan  not  tc«ti'<l 
till  more  than  nix  woi'ks  artor,  and  ws\h 
ii.it  H«M'Vfd  till  wit  hill  a  few  <lay>*  of  «»ii(' 
Vt'ar  af;«r  tin?  day  of  its  lest,  //(/»/, 
tliat  a  disolicdii'iu-o  of  tho  writ  would 
not  1)1'  piinishalilo  hy  attarhnu'iit.  Mr- 
Criiirk  V.  ,/iioim;  .'»  lilatrlil'.,  487. — 
T/.TTs,  J.;    \.  v.,  IH.-,(!. 

4.  Ill  order  to  warrant  an  attiU'hint'iit 
for  II  bivai'h  of  an  injunction  tlu?  party 
to  !»«' proci't'dcd  aj^ainst  must  ho  ajcirty 
to  tlu'  suit,  and  have  hml  iiotinc  of  the 
a)i|ilifati(iii  for  the  iiijututioii.  ^^icklan 
V.  Jiur>li)i,  M  or  4  Ulatchf. — IIai.i.,  ,\.\ 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

6.  On  a  motion  for  an  .attachiiicnt  for 
n  violation  of  an  injinu'tioii  the  olijcc- 
tion  cannot  ho  taken,  that  tho  injunction 
is  broader  than  tho  order  authoriziii;.? 
it;  if  the  injunotion  served  is  too  broad, 
the  defendants,  when  served  with  it, 
should  iiiimedi.'itely  take  means  to  set  it 
aside  for  that  reason,      [hid. 

0.  An  attachment  for  a  violation  of 
an  injunction  may  issue  ajjainst  tho 
a;;ont  and  acting  officer  of  tho  defend- 


ant, a  foreii^n  <'oi'|ioraiioii,  and  lit>  in  not 
eveiii|ited  llieiefroni  «in  (he  ((round  lliitt 

lit)  U  a  mere  Nerviuit  o(  the  (iefeudant. 

I.  Where  lie  violation  of  the  iiijiiiir- 
lioii  was  the  iimc  of  the  tiling  |>ateiite(l 
oil  n  Hteaiiil'  tat,  //>/>/,  that  the  ell^ilM>er 
waM  properly  made  a  party  to  the  pro> 
ceediii;^,  and  that  an  atlaehtnotit  would 
i.xsiu' iij^aiiisl  him.      Ihitl, 

H,  To  warrant  an  attachment  for  n 
violation  <»f  an  injunction,  the  werviee  of 
the  writs  should  not  he  lei)  in  dnuht. 
Where  the  plaintilf^aM' evideiiee  of  tho 
Hcrvice  of  the  writs,  but  the  parly  pro. 
eeeded  against  sworo  positively  that  he 
had  never  been  served  with  any  Hiich 
writs,  but  only  with  a  <'opy  of  the  order 
of  the  court  ^rantiii);;  an  iniuiietiini, 
Ifilif,  that  there  wax  mo  much  uncer- 
tainty as  to  service,  that  the  writ  et' 
attachment  should  not  be  ^'ranted, 
\l'hij>ji/f  V,  J/iitchinHoii,  \  I'lLitrlit". —  Nki,. 
HON,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IH.',8. 

t).  Where  the  use  complained  of  waH 
nmler  an  aj^rt'onu'iit  with   the  p.att'iitee, 

made   snbsecpient    to    the  allowam t' 

\\n'   injunction,  an   attachment   tshoukl 
not  issiio.     Iftid. 

10.  An  attachment  as  for  a  <'onleiii|if, 
for  disobeyinj;  an  "ijunction,  issued  after 
verdict,  to  restr,.  ,  a  defeiidanl  from  in- 
friiiL^'injj:  the  plaintiir's  patent,  will  not 
be  p'anted,  imh'ss  the  allej^ed  violation 
is  a  use  of  th.at  actually  patented  to 
the  jilaintifV,  or  its  evident  ccpiivaient; 
the  injunction  issued  can  only  ho  as 
broad  as  the  patent.  Pop}h:nliiin»en  v. 
N.  Y.  G.  P.  Comb  Co.,  MS.— iN.iEU- 
soi.i,,  J.;  X.  Y.,  iS'iH. 

II.  Where,  therefore,  the  plaiiititl"s 
patent  was  for  tho  use  of  thifoll  cr  its 
equivalent,  in  the  vulcanization  of  iiuli.i- 
rubber  and  other  gnms,  and  an  injunc- 
tion  issued  aj^ainst  the  defendants  to 


tip 


I'll  \rmm  m  oamm  or. 


ATTACIIMMNT,  C— ArTIIni:. 

1«ll<t  ti;    tlHIIIlM  (ir. 


17S 


n>!«tr:iiii  llnlr  iiiiTrltiKiti^  nih'Ii  imlfiif, 
ittiil  tlii'y  .«rt»»rwiit'>'l  ii«t't|  $hiil»  n/hniMii 
mill  fill  ill  It  Miiiiuliii'  wiiy  to  lliut.  in 
wliicli  (in/oit  WiiM  ty«<*<l  liy  |(liiiiitirt"N 
priti'iit,  //''/'/,  on  ill  inntiuii  tor  tin  iiIIik'Ii 
nil  lit  I'or  vii*|iitiiii^'  tint  injunction,  tliitt 
Hiirli  phkli'M,  tlioii^;))  Noiiit'wliat.  tli>\tlili-, 
(iiiilil  not  l)i>  niMxiilfrcil  an  (•qiiivairnt 
fur  tiiit'oil,  nn<\  tliiil  tint  attitrlinicnl 
iiiiiMt  l)tt  iU>iii<sL     I/tiil. 

C«      rUAl-lICK  IN  (!amKM  ((K. 

1.  TIk'  proper  moili'  nf  proof,  on  Is- 
nwn  iiiailf  ii'i.lir  in(t'rri);;ati<iiiH  lilt-il  on 
nil  ulturliincnt  lor  ii  coiitfinpl  in  not 
()lK>)'iii<{  an  iiijiinction,  in  by  tCHtiniony 
liikt'ii  orally  lu'loro  n  niiiHtor.  Park- 
hiii-Kf  \.  /\i)innittn,  '2  IMatcht',,  77. — 
llKViH,  .1.;  N.  v.,  1H»H. 

ii.  A  plaintilV,  ill  nioviii);  for  anatt.'irh- 
iiiciit  ii;;aiiist  a  tIt>ttMiilaiit  in  hik-Ii  a  casi', 
iiiiist  Htati>,  ill  tilt'  pniolk  on  wliicli  tlic 
npplii'atioii  in  riiiui<lt>il,  tlut  Hpc<*ili(;  acts 
of  oiiiinHion  or  cuiainiHsiun  on  tlio  part 
of  tlic  ilct'cnilaiit  wliicit  vonHtitiito  the 
alli'^cil  coiiliMiipt.     /"/>/(/.,  77. 

;!.  WliiTi',  ill  Hiich  a  prococilinj;,  (he 
ilifi'iiilant  is  unKiictl  to  answer  iiiter- 
rDjjiitorieM  to  bo  Hkul,  hucIi  intorroj^alo- 
rics  must  ho  limited  to  the  parti<!iilar 
ortciices  Ko  al!e}j;(!il  a^^ainst  him ;  ami 
it  is  not  competent  for  the  plaintilV  to 
iii(|iiiie  ill  rei,'anl  to  matters  not  ehaijjeil 
H|ii'cilically  .Ij^aiiist  the  (lefemlant  in  tlii' 
proofs  fiirnishoil  on  the  applicutiuu  for 
the  attachment.     Ibid.,  "jx. 

4.  Nor  can  tho  plaintilF  rocpilrc  tlio 
defendant  to  answer  as  to  particulars 
cliarged  on  the  information  an<l  belief 
of  the  plaintirt'or  others,  and  not  estab- 
lished by  direct  evidence.     Ibid.,  78. 

5.  Interrogatories  unauthori/.ed  by 
law  are  demurrable,  ami  tho  defendant 
is  exonerated   from  answering    them ; 


and  iiM  lo  ■iicti  the  ibTeiidaMt  wilt  bi«  i>n* 
tilled  to  t'o.Hts  nn  the  demurnrn — but 
the  iiiifor('i>nit>iit  of  Htu'h  ro«tH  will  bo 
Httiyi'd  until  the  mm  it  rs  nt  Immiu*  imi  tiny 
inleri'ogatorieH  aimwered  Hhull  bo  din- 
pusi'd  of.     Ibid.,  7»<. 

0.  Oti  a  inoiioii  for  an  nitaehinent, 
altldavits  that  the  pateiilett  is  not  tho 
lii'Mt  and  ori|{in.'il  inventor  of  thu  tUUm 
patented,  are  not  admissible,  aw  that 
ipiesiion,  so  far  as  the  injunction  is  con- 
cerned, Im  Mettled  when  the  writ  waH 
^rulltcll.  W/ii/i/tlf  V.  Ifii/i  fiihMoii,  i 
lilatchf.  —  Nn.uox,  J. ;  N.  V.,  IH.-)H. 


AUTHOR. 

Sec  also  riiAUTs,  S:c,.\  CorviuoiiT,  C 

1.  If  a  musical  composition  is  bor- 
rowed from  a  former  one,  or  is  iiwulo 
up  of  ditlcreiit  parts  copied  from  «)lder 
compositions  without  miiterial  <'lian^u, 
and  put  togitlier  into  one  tune,  with 
only  slight  alterations  or  additions,  tho 
person  so  combining  is  not  an  author 
within  the  meaning  of  thu  statute. 
lind  V.  (hirx.Hi,  H  Law  Hep.,  O.  S.,  411. 
— Tanky,  C'h.  J.;  Md.,  lH4r,. 

2.  It  is  t'or  the  jury  to  decide  upon 
tho  whole  evidence  whether  a  plaint  ill" 
is  or  is  not  the  author  of  the  thing  eopy- 
righted  by  him.     Ibid.,  411. 

3.  A  eojiy right  is  jtrinin  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  person  taking  it  is  tho 
author,  and  tho  burden  of  proof  is  on 
tho  defendant  to  show  tho  contrary. 
Ibid.,  412. 

4.  To  constitute  ono  an  author,  ho 
must  by  his  own  intellectual  labor  ap- 
plied to  the  materials  of  his  composi- 


^a^k 


iS«^.> 


'^fsl 


INririg 


^ 


■  i'^ 


,^ 


•"  *'v*jt^ 


ul. 


^"MiS 


^^ 


^WWW> 


■fawWi 


muSmh 


y^M 


174 


|!|M.  IN    i;(,>ri'IV.     IUM,S  OF  K\('I.I"I'|(>\S. 

WItIS     I- Aihl'MllNS    SMIII'M)    IIM     I'MxI.S;    \\\{  \'V    1 1 1    I'UMMN. 


'fc/^ 


*- 


tioii,  |iri>(lii('«>  ;iii  III  nmijcmiiil  or  r«>iii|ii 
liilioii  new  ill  ilMoir.  Afwiff  v.  /•}/• 
i-iff,  '2  nialrlif.,  JiJ.  -  Hkits,  .1.;  N.  V., 
ISKI. 

Ti.  Ill'  iniiy  iMiiii|iil('  or  !in;iiii:;i'  a  new 
|)|i'(liii'(iiin  iVoiii  mali'iials  lid'oii'  known, 
or  olitaincil  liv  ollicrs  I'or  him,  Inil  can 
tiol  a|i|tio|irial«>  l)y  «'o|>yrit;lit  lliosc 
malt'iiaU  in  (In-  stale  in  wliicli  (lii'v  arc 
I'miiisluMl.      //'/(/.,  III. 

'\.  All  aiiflior  may  •>»'  naid  In  1«>  tlit> 
crritor  or  iiivi'iitor,  IxMli  of  (lio  i<l«'as 
ooniaiiu'il  in  liis  liook,  mid  (lie  comlii 
jiation  ol'  words  {o  ri'iiri'scni  ilnan. 
Sfmci-  V.  '/'/ii'iiurx,  '2  Aiiut.  Law  lu'^., 
U'JS.— (Jkikk,  .1, :  Ta..  is:.,i. 

7.   An  aiillior  and  liis  assiLjiiw  nro  in 
clndi'd  in   tlu'   iiu'anin:^;  of  (lie  txi'iicral 
]>Iirasi>,  /iftfiiri/  f>ri>f»'iit(>i;     Kiiiie  v. 
\V/u,ttl,i/.   <.t    Aincr.  Law   Kog.,  01. — 
I'  \i>\\  \i  1  n>ii{,  .1. ;  i'a..  ISOi). 

S.  An  itutlior  wiio  lia«i  olitainod  !> 
copyiiulil  iiMilcr  tin'  statute,  cannot  bo 
(icpiixcd  ai^ainst  iiis  will,  ar.d  in  t'avor 
I'l"  his  crcditiM's,  o{'  any  ol'  the  rii^hls 
set'urod  to  him  ;  i)ossil)|y  they  eaiuiot, 
a'^ainsl  his  will,  sci/e  and  sell  the  books 
tliemselves,  the  exclusive  rii;ht  orvond- 
im;  whii'h  is  vosteil  in  him.  (\u)fH'r  v. 
(iiDiii,  i  l>.  Mon.,  ."JSUK — Maksu Ai  I.,  J.; 
Ky.,  \'S\\. 

!>.  'rheincor)v>re;\l  rii;-ht — eo]>yrii;'lit  — 
beiiij;  intaiitiilile  and  secured  by  i;raiit, 
IS  not  the  sul>iect  ot'  sei/nre  and  sale  on 
execution;  but  it  may  be  reached  by 
erevlitor's  bill,  and  be  applied  to  the 
debts  ot"  the  author.  Sf(/>/uiis  v.  (\t(/i/, 
14  IIow.j  iJiU.— Nklson',  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 

10.  It  luay  well  be  doubted  whether 
jiatents  and  e<tjv\-ritxlits  lield  midcr  the 
laws  ot'  the  I'liited  States  are  subjeet 
to  seizure  and  sale  on  execution;  such 
inoorjH'iro.-il  riijhts  do  not  exist  in  any 
partieiihir  st.ite  or  district,  but  are  i  iv 


exIeiiHive  with  ihe  I'niteil  SlaleH.  tSfc- 
vrnn  V.  (t'finfifiiitf,  IT  Mow.,  451. — 
CiHiiH,  .1. ;  Sup.  t'l.,   IHr»l. 

11.  A  person  who  hires  another  \,\ 
write  :i  book,  and  (,'ives  him  tht*  dc- 
seriplion  !iml  scope  of  the  work,  is  n<i| 
the  author.  The  literary  nuiii  wlm 
writes  the  book  and  prepares  it  tor 
pnbliealion  is  the  author,  and  the  eop\. 
riL;ht  is  intended  to  piolecl  iiim,  and 
iiol  tln>  person  who  employe!  him.  />,< 
W'iff  V.  /tri>,>/i.i,  IMS.— Nki.son,  .1.; 
\.  v..  IS(i|. 

\2.  Where  the  incidents  and  even!s 
ot'  ;i  person's  life  were  riiriiished  liy 
siich  peiNon  to. 'mother,  who  prepared 
them  I'or  publication,  and  the  i-opvriolit 
was  taken  out  in  the  name  of  the  per- 
son so  t'liriiishiii!;-  such  facts,  /AA/,  that 
he  was  not  tlu'  author,  and  that  a  partv 
I'laimiiii;  as  his  assiixiiee  could  not  main 
tain  an  :ictiou  I'or  iul'rini^ement.      //>/</. 


WU.L  IN  KQUITY. 
See  Equity;    15.  'J,  3. 


r>ILLS  OF  KXCKrTlOXS,  IX  PAT^ 
ENT  C  ASES. 

1.  The  practice  of  spreaflini:^  in  ex- 
(e»so  the  juilire's  ehartxo  upon  the  roo- 
<ud,  is  unnecessary  and  inconveniont 
The  substance  only  of  the  eharjje  is  to 
be  examined  ;  and  if  it  .-ippeai's  upon  tl.o 
wlmle,  that  the  law  was  Justly  expound 
I'd  to  the  jury,  jxeneral  expressii>iis, 
which  miiiht  nectl  (pi.alilication,  if  tlu'V 
were  the  direct  jtoint  in  judgineut,  are 


(o    be    u 

HcnHO. 

Sioitv,  .1 

'J.  Wh 

CoinpeL.'ii 
dciue,  it 
Coiirl,  .nil 
is  an  ex  pi 
/'//;)<)<•/• 
Sroitv,  .1. 

:i.  Wh 
senled  on 
tlie  applic 
WW  to  lh< 
hill  of  e\c 
evidence  i 

4.    Kxce 
clijirne  to 
ciiarije  at 
liy  the  con 

(ir  n.  li. 

,1.;  Sup.  ( 
r..  Whei 
tlie  jury  ;ii 
court,  tlu'\ 
fused.  Vv'i 
7.— i'.KTIS, 

(i.     KXCC] 

llie  court  t 
(|ucsted,  in 
slructions  j 

7.  iOxec] 
jiidLjc,  not. 
taken  afto 
have  been 
court,  wlie 
have  been 

8.  A  bill 
the  act  of 
cause  to  tli 
iinioiint  in 
sum  of  '^2,1 
court  shall 
not  be  alloi 
lalo  to  con; 


iiAm_. 


:c- 
iit. 
to 

.1 

IS. 
.'V 

re 


IIIM.S  OF  KXC'KITIONS. 


m 


WIIKN    I'iXCUI'iliiNH  HIIO('M)   III  TAKKN;    nilAT  Til   (llMAiy. 


|f»  lie  »iiiilt'i'Hl(.(i<l  ill  such  r(',stri('t<>(l 
si'iiwo.  /'j'lunisw  /•J<i(<i/i,'i  Wliciit.,  427. 
Sionv,  J.;  Slip.  Cl.,  iH'j'j. 

'J.  Wlicn^  no  i'X(M'|»li<>ii  is  Inki'ii  t(»  tin- 
,i>iii|«'t'tii('y  or  HiiHici«MK'y  ni'  ilu«  cvi 
(liiuf,  \l  in  iml  |ir(i|ifily  Ix'lort^  the 
Ciiiirl,  .iimI  |Ii(>  iMiltiii!^  it.  on  tlic  rci'Ditl 
is  ;in  »><|it'nsivc  and  iiinicci'ssiiry  Ijiirdcn. 
r,  nnor/c  v.  Dintoiftu;  '2  I'ot.,  14,  15. — 
Siouv,  .1.;  Slip.  ('!.,  IH'2(>. 

;t.  WliciH"  1lll•(^ll!u•;^|'o^  ilic  (•(»iirt  prc- 
s('Ii((mI  only  a  i^ciMMiil  |>rinci|ilco|'la\v, 'riil 
the  a|»|iiit':ition  of  (lie  cviili'iifc  (o  it,  was 
lr|1  lo  the  jnry,  it.  is  not,  in-ci'SMiiry  in  u 
trill  of  (>\<t'pti<)ns,  to  put.  any  part  of  tlic 
i\iil('iic('  upon  till' ivcoi'd. —  //>iif.,  15. 

4,  l<Ari'p(ions  taken  to  u  jiid<;e's 
iliMii^i'  to  a  Jtiry,  slioiild  not,  !)»>  to  tlu; 
ciiiirL;*'  !il  Ii'iiL^tli,  Init  to  till'  piiintH  nili'd 
liy  tilt'  ronil.  Sfitti/i.to)!  \.  WVnf  ('hrs- 
/«r  A'.  A'.  Co.,  i  How.,  40l.-Mihi:A.\, 
.1.;  Slip.  (U.,   iHir.. 

h.  U'lu'io  prayers  for  instruct  ions  to 
till'  jury  are  not,  eoinpiied  with  l»y  the 
court,  they  are  lo  l/e  eonsidered  as  r((- 
fused.  /'Jnic'-Hiiii  v.  /A'//.'/,  -  Uialtthf., 
7.— I'.icns,  .1.;  N.  V.,  1845. 

(i.  Kxeeplions  lie  to  the  refusalH  of 
tlie  court  to  ujive  instructions  when  re- 
HUcsted,  in  like  nianner  as  to  the  iii- 
slrMclions  actually  <^iveii.      /hid.,  7. 

7.  Kxceptions  to  the  ch.'iri't!  of  the 
judiX*',  not  takon  a,t  the  trial,  cannot  he 
t.'ikcu  afti'rward.  The  point  should 
have  hcen  lu'onj^ht  to  the  notice  of  the 
court,  when  the  mistake,  if  any,  could 
have  hecn  corrected.     7A/</.,  13.  • 

8.  A  bill  of  exceptions,  iiiulor  ^  17  of 
the  act  of  ls;Ui,  in  order  to  take  a 
cause  to  the  Supreme  Court,  Avhcre  the 
iimount  in  issue  does  not  exceed  the 
sum  of  ^2,000,  .and  "in  cases  -where  the 
court  sIkiII  ileeni  it  reaKontiMe,''''  should 
not  he  allowed,  unless  the  exceptions  re- 
late to  constructions  of  the  |»atent  laws, 


iind  involve  importanl  and  not  IriHiii'^ 
ni.'ifters  eonneclcd  willi  ihc^e  laws,  ami 
<|nestions  really  doiihtful.  .(/A;/,  v. 
/llmif,  1  Wood.  Si  Mill.,  157.~Wooi>- 
iiritv,  .F.  ;    .Mass.,  1H4(!. 

!t.  i'oiiils  ninsl  he  made  and  llie  ex- 
crptioiiH  taken  in  the  iiMial  w;iy  at  the 
trial,  in  order  lo  entillc  tin  parly  lo  the 
heiielil  of  tliem  on  writ  of  error.  lAtoti: 
V.  Si/.if)>/,  I  Iilalchf.,  544. —  Nki.hon,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  iH-.d. 

10.  Where,  !il  the  trial,  th(^  points  and 
exee|itions  were  taken  in  the  rei|iiiied 
form  to  entitle  the  parly  to  Ihe  licm  lit 
of  ihini  on  a  writ  of  error,  hut  no  hill 
of  excepiioiis  was  setlled  in  form,  hut 
llie  p.'iper  hook  w.'is  made  up  under  Ihe 
direction  of  ihe  jndt;e  at  the  trial,  in 
the  form  of  n  ^-^'^^>,  |o  move  \'<>\-  a  new 
I  rial,  hut  wilhoiit  prejudice  to  ihe  rii^lit 
of  the  parly  to  make  a  hill  of  excep- 
tions, J/ifif,  that  :iii  oi'der  in  the  ease, 
afterward  made  hy  llie  jiid;j,e,  or  an  iil- 
lowance  of  .i  writ  of  eri  ■  :,  jj;iving  leuvo 
to  make  a  bill  of  except  ions,  was 
proper.      ff>i<f.,  544. 

11.  vV  jud<iin(!nt  will  not  he  opened 
to  enable  the  plainliirin  error  to  amend 
the  bill  of  exceptions.  Afler  jiidi^ment 
has  been  pronounced,  it  is  too  late  to  as- 
si'rt  that  the  statemeiils  cdMlained  in 
the  bill  of  exceptions  were  impin'fect  or 
erroneous,  or  to  maki'  a  new  case  by  the 
introduction  of  iu!W  evidence,  and  a  new 
exception.  Gdj/lc/' \.  WlliUr,  lu  How., 
510.— Tanky,  (!h.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1h50. 

12.  It  nmst  .appear  by  the  transcript 
or  record,  that  an  excejition  to  instruc- 
tions was  taken  Avhile  the  jury  were  at 
the  bar,  or  error  cinnot  be  fissiL^ned 
thereon.  Phelps  v.  3/ai/er,  15  IF.,  IGl. 
— Tankv,  Ch.  .1. ;  Stii).  "ct.,  1 S52. 

i;<.  An  objection  not  taken  in  the 
court  below,  cannot  betaken  lieibre'tho 
Supreme  Court  on  app -al.    .Kiumnan 


rr^i^ 


LI  i  i 


li..-  i\ 


Nil 


«te. 


•'■uJli 


•Uuiai^ 


"iMi  '■ 


"'*,. 


176 


r.ooK,  Axn  COPY  of. 


WHAT  iH,  u  rriiiv  tiik  coi'VitKiiii'  laws. 


V.  J-tir/x/nn'.-it,  18  IIow.,  2!t5. — CiUTis, 
J.;  Sii]).  C't.,  1855. 

14.  Ill  coiisideriiij^llicqiioMtions  raised 
in  the  court  IjcIow,  the  .Siipreino  Court 
IS  cotifiuod  to  the  cvidv'ticc  reported  in 
tlio  liill  of  o.vccptions ;  it  ciuinot  he 
known  in  llio  appeilsito  court  Avliotliur 
the  report  of  t!ie  evidence  may  or  may 
not  be  inc'omi)lete  or  imperfectly  stated. 
IJills  of  exception,  when  i)roi)eriy  taken, 
and  duly  allowed,  Itecome  a  part  of  the 
record,  and  as  such  cannot  be  coutra- 
dicled.  C/uifee  v.  JSos.  JJelt  Co.,  22 
How.,  222.— CuFFOUi),  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1859. 


BOOK,  AND  COPY  OF. 

1.  A  book  '.vitliin  the  statute  need 
not  be  a  book  in  the  ordinary  and  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  word,  viz. :  a 
vohime  made  up  of  many  sheets  bound 
together;  it  may  be  printed  only  o;i 
one  sheet,  as  the  words  of  a  song,  or 
the  music  accompanying  it.  Glaij*'> 
V.  Stone,  2  Paino,  383. — Tnoxirsox,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1R28. 

2.  The  literary  property  intended  to 
be  protected  by  the  act  is  not  be  de- 
termined by  the  size,  form,  or  shap'^  in 
which  it  makes  its  appearance,  but  by 
the  subject  matter  of  the  work.  Ibid., 
380,  387. 

3.  The  preliminary  steps  required  by 
law  to  secure  a  copyright  cannot  be 
reasonably  applied  to  a  work  of  so 
eiihemeral  a  character  as  that  of  a  ucavs- 
paper.     Ibid.,  31/2. 

4.  It  cannot  reasonably  be  pi-esum- 
ed  that  Congress  intended  to  include 
newspapers  under  the  term  book. 
Ibid.,  393. 

5.  A  label,  used  in  the  sale  of  any 
article  is  not  a  book  within  the  pro- 
visions of  the  statute  respecting  copy- 


rights.     (Joffien  V.  Ilrnntnn,  4  MeLean, 
517.--M»Lkax,  J.;  lud,  1849. 

0.  A  book  necessarily  conveys  tho 
idea  of  thought  or  conceptions  dollied 
in  language,  or  in  characters  written, 
lirinted  or  publishe<l.  Its  identity  does 
not  consist  merely  in  the  ideas,  knowl- 
edge, or  information  communicated,  hut 
in  the  same  conceptions  clothed  in  the 
same  words,  which  make  it  the  same 
composition.  Stowe  v.  Thomas,  2 
Amer.  Law  Reg.,  229. — GuiKU,  J.;  Pa., 
1853. 

7.  A  co/)y  of  a  book  must  be  a  tran- 
script of  the  languar/e  m  which  tho 
conceptions  of  the  author  are  elolliej. 
The  same  conceptions  clothed  in  ano- 
ther language  cannot  constitute  the 
same  composition  ;  nor  can  it  be  called 
a  transcript  or  "cojoy"  of  the  same 
"  book:      Ibid.,  229. 

8.  A  book,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
■  littute,  does  not  include  a  translation 
of  a  work.     Hyid.,  230. 

9.  After  publication  of  a  book,  those 
only  can  be  called  infringers  of  the 
author's  rights,  or  pirates  of  his  prop- 
erty, Avho  are  guilty  of  printing,  publish- 
ing, importing,  or  vending  without  his 
license,  "  copies  of  his  book."  Ibid.,  231. 

10.  A  translation  may  be  called  a 
transcript  or  copy  of  the  author's  thought 
or  conception,  but  in  no  correct  sensecan 
it  be  called  a  copy  of  his  book.  Ibid., 
231. 

11.  The  words,  "a  copy  of  a  book," 
found  in  §  G  of  the  act  of  1831,  import 
a  transcript  or  copy  of  the  entire  Look. 
Rogers  v.  Jeioett,  12  Mo.  Law  Hop., 
340.— CuuTis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1858. 

12.  A  book  may  exist  without  print- 
ing ;  and  such  book  when  made  or  com- 
posed is  entitled  to  copyright.  Jioberti 
v.  Myers,  13  Mo.  Law  Rep.,  399.— 
Si'RACiUE,  J.;  Mass.,  1860, 


IJUUDEN  OF  PROOF.— CAVEAT. 


ll'i 


PUKPOHK  AND   Ert'KCr  OF  CAVEAT. 


13.  Any  composition,  large  or  small, 
whidi  int'ludes  results  of  successive 
mental  j)rocc8ses,  rationally  combined, 
wlictlier  it  fill  a  great  volume,  or  be 
contained  in  a  single  small  sheet,  is 
within  the  legal  denciniinalion  of  a  book. 
Keeiie  v.  Whccitley^  9  Amer.  Law  Wa^., 
G3,  09. — Cadwallaukk,  J. ;  Pa.,  18(50. 

14.  IjuI  statements,  propositions,  or 
sentences,  having  no  connection  or  mu- 
tual tlependence  would  not,  by  being 
written  or  printed  in  motiveless  juxta- 
position, be  brought  within  the  defini- 
tion of  a  book  or  literary  composition. 
Miicli  less  would  an  isolated  statement, 
proposition,  or  sentence,  though  writ- 
ten, be  within  the  definition,  as  it  has 
been  imderstood  for  thousands  of  years. 
Ibid.,  09. 


BURDEN  OF  PROOF. 


See  Evidence,  A. 


CAVEAT. 

1.  §  12  of  the  act  of  1830,  providing 
for  a  caveat,  -was  introduced  for  the 
benefit  of  the  inventor,  bnt  it  is  not 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  his 
right ;  nor  does  the  omission  of  it  im- 
pair his  title.  ITildreth  v.  Heath,  MS., 
(App.  Cas.)— Ckanch,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C, 
1841. 

2.  The  caveat  only  enables  the  in- 
ventor to  have  notice  of  any  interfering 
."application,  but  gives  no  notice  to  the 
world,  or  even  to  the  interfering  a])pli- 
cant.    It  is  notice  to  the  Commissioner 

ou'y.    Ibid. 
12 


3.  The  fact  that  a  patent  is  granted 
to  one  person,  while  another  has  a  caveat 
jjcnding  and  in  force,  will  not  of  itself 
vacate  the  patent  granted,  nor  author- 
ize the  Commissioner  to  grant  ft  patent 
to  the  caveator.  Covhrtinc  v.  Water- 
tnan,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Cuancii,  Ch. 
J.;  D.  C,  1844. 

4.  An  inventor  is  bound  to  notify  the 
public  of  his  claim,  by  a  caveat  or  ap- 
plication filed  in  the  Patent  Office,  des- 
ignating his  discover)',  and  Avhat  he 
means  to  secure  to  himself.  Sparkman 
v.  Iliyijhts,  1  Blatchf.,  208. — Beits,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1840. 

5.  A  caveat  may  bo  resorted  to,  to 
assist  in  construing  a  patent.  Smith  v. 
Doicning,  MS. — Wooduuky,  J.;  Mass., 
1850. 

0.  A  caveat  answers  a  double  pur- 
pose ;  first,  to  give  notice  of  the  in- 
ventor's claim,  and,  second,  to  pre- 
vent a  patent  from  issuing  to  another 
for  the  same  thing.  Allen  v.  Ilunte)', 
0  McLean,  304. — McLean,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1855. 

7.  A  caveat  is  evidence  as  to  an  in- 
vention, so  far  as  it  extends  to  the  de- 
scription of  the  invention,  and  the 
machinery  which  was  then  constructed. 
Jones  v.  Wetherell,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— MoRSEix,  J.;  D.  C,  1855. 

8.  There  is  no  law  allowing  a  cavea- 
tor, as  such,  to  withdraw  any  portion 
of  the  fee  required  on  filing  his  caveat. 
Anon.,  MS. — Black,  Atty. Gen.;  1857. 

9.  The  caveat  is  to  set  forth  the  "de- 
sign and  purpose"  of  the  invention,  and 
its  "  principal  and  distinguishing  char- 
acteristics," but  it  is  not  necessary  that, 
it  should  explahi  the  principle  involved, 
or  the  modes  in  which  it  can  be  applied, 
nor  how  it  is  distinguished  from  other 
inventions.     Ibid. 

10.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  accompany 


m 


J 


/*(i|i^* 


i^f^l 


1,. 


'''k 


Vim 


■w;*.4^fl 


"^j 


PI 

"'•ill  I 


178 


CIIAUCJK  OF  JUDGK. 


IN    PATEXT  ACTIONS;    PBACTICB  AH  TO. 


yii 


*i*l 


f% 


■Sh^\ 


ml 


r-fliife. 


mik 


tho  caveat  with  spociinons  of  liif^rodiontH 
or  t'oiii|)(nm(l.s,  or  models  or  dra\viiijj;s, 
or  witli  ail  oatli  of  invention  or  discov- 
ery.    I/>i(l, 

11.  Tlio  Coinmissioiun"  can  jx'rfonn 
no  act  iiiion  a  cavc^at  but  fillnjjj  it,  nor 
in  fonsfi|ii('n('('  of  it,  except  to  give  the 
c!iv(!ator  notice  of  a  conflicting  applica- 
tion when  made.     I!>id. 

12.  A  caveat  is  not  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  an  invention  is  not  perfected. 
Johnson  V.  Jioot,  !I\IS. — Si'KAguk,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1858. 

13.  Tho  jturpose  of  a  caveat  is  to 
save  the  discoverer  of  an  invention 
from  the  elfe<^t  of  the  rule  of  law  that 
gives  to  the  hivcntor,  who  first  adajHs 
his  invention  to  practical  use,  the  right 
to  the  grant  of  a  patent ;  ami  if  the 
Commissioner  complies  Avith  the  terms 
of  §  12  of  the  act  of  1830,  as  to  giving 
the  caveator  notice  of  any  interfering 
application,  it  ia  to  secure  him  against 
the  eflfect  of  the  rule,  Phelps,  Dodge 
tfc  Co.,  V.  Broxcn  Bros.,  13  IIow.  Pr.,  8. 
— Xklsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

14.  But  if  the  Commissioner  acci- 
dfMilally  omits  to  give  the  caveator  the 
notice  required,  his  rights  will  not  be 
prejudiced  thereby.     Ibid. 

15.  A  cavtat  will  directly  protect 
only  one  of  several  distinct  patent- 
able subjects,  falling  within  its  general 
scope,  at  the  election  of  the  party  in- 
venting them.  WoodruJ'  &  Cobb,  IMS. 
( App.  Cas.)— Meruick,  J. ;  D.  C,  18G0. 

16.  lint  connected  Avith  other  circum- 
stances, it  may  furnish  strong  ad/nimc- 
idar  proof  in  favor  of  his  claim  to  pri- 
ority as  to  another  invention  in  u'.ie 
same  line.  And  when  such  other  in- 
vention is  verv  similar  to  the  first,  but 
small  additional  proof  will  be  necessary 
in  determining  the  contemporaneous 
date  of  the  second  invention.    Ibid. 


]  7.  A  caveat  is  not  required  to  ho 
specific  in  its  terms,  nor  is  it  presumed 
to  ciciiioe  the  whole  invent 'on  of  ilui 
party,  but  is  fikd  iv.  t!ie  ofii(  e  rather  as 
a  wnrning  that  the  inventor  is  in  tho 
exercise  of  due  diligence  in  tho  pursuit 
and  j)erfection  of  his  discovery.  Col- 
lins V.  White,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mer. 
KICK,  J. ;  D.  C,  1860. 


CHARGE  OF  JUDGE,  IN  PATENT 
ACTIONS. 

1.  If  either  party  deems  any  point 
presented  by  the  evidence  to  be  omitted 
in  the  charge,  it  is  competent  for  such 
party  to  rccpiire  an  opinion  of  the  court 
upon  that  point.  If  he  does  not  it  is  a 
waiver  of  it.  The  court  cannot  be  pre- 
sumed to  do  more,  in  ordinary  cases, 
than  to  express  its  opinion  upon  tho 
questions  which  the  parties  themselves 
have  raised  at  the  trial.  Pennovk  v. 
DUxlorfxie,  2  Pet.,  15. — Story,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1820. 

2.  It  is  no  part  of  the  duty  of  the  court 
to  give  an  instruction  as  to  abstract 
j)oints,  not  actually  presented  by  tlie 
stale  of  the  car.se.  Pitts  v.  Whitman, 
2  Story,  619.— Stoky,  J.;  Mo.,  1843. 

3.  The  court  is  never  boiuid  to  give  an 
instruction  to  the  jury,  even  Avhen  per- 
tinent and  relevant,  precisely  in  the 
form  and  manner  in  which  it  is  put  hy 
counsel.  It  is  only  the  duty  of  the 
court  to  give  such  instructions  in  point 
of  law,  as  clearly  avisc  upon  the  evi- 
dence, and  are  rrop.ir  ti.)-  ih;  •.  "sidor- 
ation  of  the  jury,  i.i  su;  h  tc.i  ij  .'.id  in 
such  m.w.'r  as  sh'.^  ;  -mp'^rt  \--hh  ;he 
real  inert;  andjuB!^:e  of  the  ^;aoe,^4ncl 


'(•fHPil 


'» *• »% , 


CITAUTS,  MAPS,  PKIXTS. 


179 


EXTENT  or  COPYUIOUT   IN. 


I'liabletlic  jury  to  j;iv('  !i  proper  vcrilict 
in  jtoiiit  <>t"  law.     Ihid.,  &20. 

4.  The  court,  tliough  m-asonably  ro- 
quosted,  i8  not  bound  to  instruct  the 
jiirv  on  points  not  arisinj^  in  the  case,  or 
on  abstract  or  irrelevant  propositions, 
points  not  raised  by  the  evidence. 
Alien  V.  Blimt,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  143. 
— WooDHUUY,  J.;  Mans.,  1840. 

5.  Instructions  should  always  arise 
out  of,  .and  bo  limited  to  the  facts,  or 
the  evidence  in  the  cause ;  and  instruc- 
tions, which  are  general,  abstnvct,  or 
not  springing  from,  and  pertinent  to 
tlio  facts  of  the  case,  are  calculated  to 
mislead  the  jury,  and  are  therefore  im- 
j.ruper.  Gayler  v.  Wihkr^  10  How., 
505. — Daniel,  J.  (Dis.  Opin.) ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1850. 


CHARTS,  MAPS,  PRINTS,  &c. 

1.  Under  the  act  of  1802,  the  per- 
son intended  and  described  as  the  pro- 
prietor of  a  copyright  in  a  print  is  one 
who  shi'II  not  only  invent  and  design, 
but  who  shall  engrave,  etch,  or  work 
the  jiriut  to  which  the  right  is  claimed  ; 
or  who, /rom  his  own  toorks  and  inven- 
tions^ shall  cause  the  print  to  be  de- 
sij^nedand  engraved,  etched  or  worked. 
IVtnns  v.  Woodruff,  4  Wash.,  51. — 
Washixgtox,  J.;  Pa.,  1821. 

2.  In  the  first  case,  the  inventor  and 
designer  is  idcntitied  with  the  engraver, 
or  in  other  words  the  entire  work,  or 
siihjoct  of  the  copyright  is  executed  by 
the  same  person.  In  the  latter,  the  in- 
vention is  designed  or  embodied  by  the 
person  in  whom  the  right  is  vested,  :ind 
the  form  and  completion  of  the  work 
are  executed  by  another.     Ibid.,  51. 

3.  But  in  neither  case  can  a  person 


claim  a  copyright  for  a  mere  invi'iitioii, 
tiie  work  of  his  imaginatiim  locked  up  iu 
his  own  mind,  or  existing  in  a  form  not 
visible  to  otliers.    Ibid.,  51. 

4.  Neither  is  ho  so  entitled,  unless 
he  has  not  only  invented,  but  also  de- 
signed or  represented  the  subject  iu 
some  visible  form.     Ibid.,  5 1 . 

6.  The  phrase  dcsi>jn,  wlu'u  used  as 
a  term  of  art,  means  the  giving  of  a 
visible  form  to  the  conceptions  of  the 
mind,  or  in  other  words,  to  the  inven- 
tion,    IJnd.,  52. 

0.  Where  neither  the  design  nor  the 
general  arrangement  of  a  print,  nor  tlie 
parts  A\!iich  composed  it,  were  the  in- 
vention of  the  plaintiif,  but  he  had  em- 
ployed and  paid  the  artists  who  had 
composed  and  executed  it,  Held,  that 
he  was  not  entitled  to  a  copyright  ini- 
der  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress.    Ibid.,  53. 

7.  Where  a  person,  at  his  own  ex- 
pense, ha>  caused  a  survey  to  b')  made 
of  a  particular  locality,  as  Nantucket 
Shoals,  which  corrected  errors  in  for- 
mer charts,  and  made  a  chart  of  such 
survey,  Held,  that  though  he  could  not 
have  a  copyright  in  the  shoal  itself,  nor 
in  the  original  elements  of  his  charts,  that 
he  had  a  right  to  the  result  of  his  labors 
and  surveys.  liliint  v.  Patten,  2  Paine, 
395.— TiiOMi'SOX,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1828. 

8.  Arujthcr  party  might  resort  to  the 
original  materials  of  the  chart  and  sur- 
vey for  himself,  but  he  could  not  av;ill 
himself,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  o{' 
the  surveys  of  the  plaintiff.    Ibid.,  WH. 

9.  And  though  the  plaintitf  had  de- 
posited one  of  such  charts  In  tlie  Na\y 
Dei)artm('nt,  it  did  not  thereby  become 
a  public  document,  which  any  one  had 
a  right  to  copy.     Ibid.,  ;59G. 

10.  The  natural   objects  from  which 
Icliarts  are  made  being,  however,  op'!! 


'^i 


w 


180 


COLOUAliI.E  ALTEUATIOXS. 


%. 


J*^* 


iW 


'?!! 


A^ 


ni 


IlKABINU   OK,    IN    IlKHrKOT  To   INVKNTION    AND   IM  .     NT. 


""ijii."--. 


'V^^i 


to  all,  n  <'()|iyri^ht  cannot  HuhHi^t  in  a 
'  chart,  as  a  v^cnoral  Biibject,  altlioiijjfh  it 
may  in  an  individual  work,  and  otiiurs 
may  be  restrained  from  copying  hucIi 
work.     Ifji'd.,  400,  401. 

11.  IJut  a  rij^ht  in  Hncli  a  subject  is 
violated  only  when  another  copies  from 
the  chart  of  liiin  who  has  secured  the 
copyrijfht,  and  thereby  availed  himself 
of  his  labor  and  skill.     Ibitl,  402. 

12.  In  all  such  cases,  It  is  a  proper 
question  for  a  jury,  wliethor  the  one  is 
a  copy  of  tlie  other  or  not ;  if  there 
■was  some  small  variance,  it  would  be  a 
proper  subject  of  inquiry,  whether  the 
alteration  Avas  not  Juurely  colorable. 
lOid.,  402. 

13.  A  subsecjuent  compiler  has  a 
right  to  avail  himself  of  all  prior  pub- 
lications, the  copyright  of  which  is  not 
secured  ;  and  if  he  con'pilcs  his  chart 
from  some  other  publications,  it  is  no  in- 
fringement of  another's  copyright,  al- 
though it  may  agree  with  such  prior 
chart.     Idid,  403. 

14.  A  man  has  a  right  to  a  copyright 
of  a  map  of  a  state  or  country  which 
he  has  surveyed,  or  caused  to  be  com- 
piled from  existing  materials,  at  his  owi. 
expense,  or  skill,  or  labor,  or  money. 
Emerson  v.  Davies,  3  Story,  781. — 
Srouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

16.  Another  may,  however,  publish 
another  map  of  the  same  state  or  coun- 
try by  using  the  like  means  or  materi- 
als, and  the  like  skill,  labor,  aud  expense. 
But  he  has  no  right  to  publish  a  map 
taken  substantially  and  designedly  from 
the  map  of  the  other  person,  without 
any  such  exercise  of  skill,  labor,  or  ex- 
pense.    Ibid,  781. 

16.  Where,  on  a  bill  filed  for  an  al- 
leged violation  of  a  copyright,  and  an 
injunction,  the  alleged  infringement 
consisted  in  making  use  of  the  complain- 


ant's map  by  the  defendant ;  but  the 
answer  denied  that  the  defendant  had 
made  any  use  of  such  map,  and  alleged 
that  he  had  obtain<><l  his  materials  from 
original  sources,  and  also  denied  any 
intention  or  desire  to  make  any  refer- 
ence to  complainant's  map,  Jltld,  that 
an  injunction  would  not  be  granted,  as 
there  was  no  infringement.  /Smith  v. 
Johnson,  4  Blatchf. — Inueusoll,  J.;  N.Y., 
1853. 


COT.ORABLE  ALTERATIONS 
AND  VARIATIONS. 

See  also  Double  Use  ;  Equivalent  ; 
Foi!m;  Ixvkjjtiox,  E. 

1 .  Mere  color.ible  differences  or  slight 
improvements  cannot  shake  the  right  of 
an  oiiginal  inventor,  or  protect  an  in- 
fringer. Odiorne  v.  Winkley,  2  Gall., 
64.— Storv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1814. 

2.  The  right  secured  to  the  inventor 
is  founded  on  considerations  of  |)ublio 
policy,  and  is  not  to  be  destroyed  hy 
open  infiivetion,  or  mere  colorable  im- 
provements. tSmith  V.  Pearee,  2  i\Ic- 
Lean,  1 78. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

3.  A  mere  coior.able  or  slight  altera- 
tion of  a  machine,  or  a  change  in  its 
proportions,  gives  no  ground  for  a  pat- 
ent ;  nor  can  it  shelter  from  the  conse- 
quences of  an  infringement.  The  in- 
(juiry  always  is,  whether  the  ])rinciple 
of  the  two  machines  is  the  same. 
Brooks  V.  Bickncll,  3  McLean,  262.— 
McLean,  J. ;  Ohio,  1843. 

4.  Mere  colorable  diflferences  in  form 
and  structure  do  not  make  a  diiFersncn 
in  principle.  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5  Mo- 
Lean,  63. — Leavfit,  J. ;  Ohio,  18*t». 

5.  An  unsubstantial  or  eolorabi«  al- 


■>- 


COMniNATfON,  A. 


181 


WHAT   1'ATKNTAUI.K ;    CONHTUL'CTtON  Or  i'ATKNTH  FOR. 


tPt»tion  in  a  machino  or  a  compound, 
iiH  whore  tliey  are  formed  on  tlu'  Humo 
principle,  tlioujjh  vuriod  in  form ;  or 
where  tli«  ingredients  are  the  wame,  but 
conibinetl  in  a  ditU'rent  mode,  or  there 
is  a  Hubstitute  of  one  ingredient  having 
tiio  same  qnalitien,  and  producing  th«' 
name  result,  in  an  infringement.  Allen 
V.  Jfiinter,  0  McLean,  313. — IMcLkan, 
J.;  Ohio,  1856. 

0.  Mere  colorable  alterations,  Hub- 
staiitially  the  same  as  other  inventions, 
and  involving  the  sanu)  principle,  aflbrd 
11(1  lii'oniid  for  a  j)atent.  McConnlck  v. 
Miiiuii/,  0  McLean,  657. — McLeax,  J. ; 
HI.,  1H55. 

7.  If  the  cliango  in  a  niadiine  con- 
sists merely  in  the  employment  of  an 
obvious  substitute,  the  discovery  and 
aiiplicalion  of  which  could  not  have 
involved  the  exercise  of  the  inventive 
faculty  in  any  considerable  degree,  tlie 
change  will  be  treated  as  merely  an 
unsubstantial,  colorable  variation,  or  a 
double  use,  and  not  patentable.  JSccr- 
son  &.  liicant,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— MoKSFi  r,,  J.;  D.  C,  1855. 


COMBINATION. 

A>    What  is;  what  Patbntable;  Con- 
struction OP  Patents  roB 181 

B.     WUAT  AN  InPRINUEMENT  Dt,  AND  WHAT 
NOT 18G 

A.  What  is;  what  PatextableiCon- 

STKUCTIOX   OF   PatEXTS   FOB. 

1.  If  to  an  old  machine,  Home  new 
combinations  be  added  to  produce  new 
effects,  the  light  to  a  patent  is  limited 
to  the  new  combinations.  Whittemore 
v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  480.  Stouv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1813. 


2.  If  difVerent  ofTeets  have  been  pro- 
duced by  the  attnic  (i/>plictition  of  ma- 
chinery in  several  parts,  and  a  person 
merely  combines  them  together,  or  adds 
a  new  etVect,  ho  is  not  entitled  to  .i 
patent  for  the  whole  machine.  Ibid., 
48'2. 

;».  A  machine,  or  an  improvement 
may  be  new,  and  the  proper  sid)ject  of 
a  patent,  although  the  parts  of  it  were 
before  known,  and  in  use.  The  com- 
bination, therefore,  of  old  machines 
to  produce  a  new  and  useful  restilt,  is  a 
discovery  for  which  a  i)atent  may  bo 
granted.  Evans  v.  Eaton,  Pet.,  C.  C, 
343.— Wahiiin(JT()x,  J.;  Pa.,  1810. 

4.  A  jtatent  may  bo  for  a  new  com- 
bination of  machines  to  produce  cer- 
tain effects,  and  this  whether  the  ma- 
chines, constituting  the  combination,  be 
new  or  old.  Jiarrett  v.  Hall,  1  Mas., 
474.— Story,  .1.;  Mass.,  1818. 

5.  If  an  invcutioii  « onsist  in  a  new 
combination  of  machinery,  or  in  im- 
provements npon  an  old  machino,  to 
produce  an  old  effect,  the  patent  should 
be  for  the  combined  machinery,  or  im- 
provements on  the  old  machine,  and 
not  for  a  mere  mode  or  device  for  pro- 
ducijig  such  effects  detached  from  the 
machine.     If/id.,  476. 

6.  If  a  cond)iiiation  be  not  -wholly 
new,  but  up  to  a  certain  point  has  exist- 
ed before,  and  the  patentee  claims  the 
whole  as  new,  instead  of  his  own  im- 
provements only,  and  takes  out  a  pat- 
ent for  tlie  wliole  machine,  his  patent 
is  void,  for  it  exceeds  his  invention. 
3Ioody\.  Fiske,  2  Mas.,  118. — Story, 
J.;  Mass.,  1820. 

7.  The  same  patent  cannot  1-^  for  a 
comhination  of  different  machines,  and 
for  distinct  improvements  in  each. /Jit/., 
119. 

8.  If  old  materials,  and  old  principles 


^"'^i^i^ 


'"J 


■■■{,;'■  w** 


■si 


^■^iprpipp,^' 


f.  ^)*l 


lH'i 


COMUINATION,  A. 


;i 


.^28 


.,y 


'Id 


»U :  'I 


m 


WUAT  PATKNTAULM ;    VUMirrHVCTION  OF  PATKNTH  ItlR. 


ill  iiu'i'liaiiics  or  utluTwiHO,  aro  usoil  in 
ii  Htal«>  of  coiiihiiiHtioii,  HO  UH  to  |ii'oiliii-(> 
a  iH'>v  li'stilt,  llio  iiiv«'iili>r  of  ilu-  urii- 
clc  so  piddiu'ctl  is  «'ii(itlfil  to  a|i|il}  for, 
uml  iii.iy  obtain  a  valiti  pati-iit.  I'l  nnoi'k 
V.  />l'ili>t/iii;  i  Wash.,  Om. — Wahiiin*!- 
TON,  J.;  Pa.,  IH-Tj. 

0.  A  cotuliiiiutioii  though  Hiiii|ili'  and 
()l)vioiis,  if  iii'W,  is  iu'viTtlu'U'ss  jiati'iit- 
alilo;  ami  it  Ih  no  oliji'otion,  tliat  n\>  to 
A  cortaiii  point,  it  niakcH  uhu  of  old  niH- 
••liini'iy.  J'Jarlr  v.  Stiiri/t)\  4  Mas.,  11. 
— Stoky,  .F.  ;  .Mass.,  iKiT). 

10.  A  pattMit  for  a  niacliint',  <'onsist- 
iiiuf  of  an  cntiro  now  cond)ination  of  all 
its  parts,  tliouujli  t-acli  part  has  lu'cn 
usi'd  in  forn\t'r  ni:i<hint's,  is  i,'ood  if  tlii' 
niachiiH'  is  suhstantially  niwin  its  st  rue 
tiu'i'  and  inodo  of  oporation  ;  hut  if  tho 
name  condjination  t'xisti'd  hcfDre  up  to 
i\  certMin  point,  and  tho  invoiition  con- 
sists ill  addin;j;  soim-  jkw  m.-icliini'iy  in 
some  improved  mode  of  operation,  or 
Home  new  comhination,  the  patetit  inusi 
be  limited  (o  (he  iniprovcment.  W/iit- 
iicijw  IJiniiutt,  JJald.,  SI  4. — Uai.dwkn, 
J.;  I'a.,  18;)1. 

1 1.  Where  a  patent  was  for  tlio  eon- 
struction  and  use  of  a  j)eeuliar  eylindtT 
descrilit'il,  iiMil  the  several  p.irts  llu-reof 
in  <'<)nil)iuatiou  for  the  purpose  set  forth, 
i.  e.,  niakin<;  j)aper,  J/rlif,  that  it  was 
not  till'  cylinder  alone,  oi'  its  sevt-ral 
pnrts,  which  were  cl.iirncd  y«/*  .w,  hut 
that  they  were  claimed  in  thi'ir  actual 
comliination  with  the  other  machinery  to 
make  jiaper.  Ainca  v.  Jfotoanl,  1  Sumn., 
486,  487.— Stokv,  J.;  Mass.,  IH.IM. 

12.  That  is  a  condtination  which  re- 
quires «litierent  things,  or  diftereut  con- 
trivances, or  difterent  arrangements,  to 
be  brought  together  to  accomplish  a 
given  purpose.  It  does  not  follow, 
liowever,  that  a  combination  is  not,  and 
may  not  be  treated  as    an    entirely. 


('ariur  v.    /Irai/i/nt   J/iimtj'.    Co.,  'j 
Story,  440. — Sroiiv,  J.  ;  MasM.,  lM4;j. 

\'.\.  Where  in  a  patent  for  impiovo 
inenls  in  the  ribs  of  cotton  ^iiis,  the 
claim  was  for  increasing  the  depth  be- 
tween the  upper  and  lower  Hurface  of 
the  rib,  and  also  as  a  part  of  the  same 
improvi-mtnt,  the  slopinif  up  of  the 
imtU'r  surface  ho  as  to  leave  no  Hhoiilder 
between  the  t  .vo,  J/<U,  tiiat  it  wtm 
not  a  claim  for  two  diHtinct  improve, 
menis,  but  for  parts  of  the  same  ini- 
proveiuent — but  neither  alone  as  coii- 
stitutinj;  it — as  making  an  entirety. 
/f'ltf.,  440. 

14.  If  a  condtination  is  new,  it  Is 
patentable,  although  a  |»art  of  the  ap- 
paratus may  have  been  applit'd  to  sim- 
ilar purposes  in  other  and  dilferont  ma- 
chines, /'itfn  V.  Whitman,  2  8tory, 
(ilH,  (il!).— Srouv,  .r.;   ^le.,  1H4.1. 

15.  A  patent  may  be  taken  lor  a  com- 
bination of  ohl  partH.  Jhivoll  v.  JJrown, 
;l  West.  Law  Join-.,  152. — Woodiiikv, 
J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

10.  A  combination,  to  be  patentable, 
must  be  substantially  new,  not  a  copy  ; 
the  |)arts  may  have  been  used  before; 
it  is  the  bringing  of  them  together  tli.U 
constitutes  the  invention.     Jlnd.,  152. 

1 7.  It  is  not  iiecess;(fy  to  have  any 
new  power  or  std)8lance ;  but  it  is 
necessary  that  the  condmiatlon  opernte 
in  a  new  mode  or  manner;  this  coiisti- 
tutes  the  new  j)riiiciple.     Ibid.,  152. 

18.  If  the  new  mode  is  merely  a 
change  in  equivalents,  and  there  are  no 
new  results,  it  is  not  enough ;  but  if 
there  is  any  new  mode  of  operating, 
then  it  was  new.     Ibid.,  152. 

19.  If  results  are  different,  it  argues 
a  substantia!  change  in  the  mode,  results 
c.'xnnot  be  different,  if  tlie  means  arc  the 
same.     Jiiid.,  15;3. 

20.  A  new  combination,  or  invention, 


L-^»... 


^••I 


•VMm 


COMMIXATIOX,  A. 


188 


WHAT  PATKNTAKLH;   CoNHTHlKmuM  Or  fArKMH  roH. 


nmy  ho  tho  rcMult  of  iiccitU'iil,  iw  wt-ll 
im  lalxir,  iiiul  Ih  to  Ik>  iiliku  |)rolurti)<l 
ill  t'itlinr  (!UM«.     7Z>*(/.,  153. 

■J I.  In  ordor  lo  HU|>|ioi-t  a  claim  tor  n 
(•oiiihiiiiUioii,  it  inuHt  tlitVur  inatiM-iali}' 
ami  NiiWstaiitiaily  t'nuii  t'oriiicr  coiiihitia- 
fioiis.  Jlnijii/  V.  Henry,  M  WcHt.  Law 
JiMir.,  15  L — NVooitiiL'KY,  J.;  MasM.,  1h45. 

22.  To  (iffi'af  Miicli  :i  flaim,  if  in  not 
HiitlifiiMil,  lo  sliow  lliat  cacli  part  or  eU>- 
iiiciitot'tluM'(iii)l)iiiatioii  liaH  itrcti  known 
luid  iit*t>il  bi'foru,  but  that  nil  tlio  partH 
liad  been  known  and  iisi'd  in  «;oniliina- 
tion.     I  hit  I ^  l"»l. 

2U.  Il  M  not  ft  now  invention,  il'  all 
the  parts  of  n  combination  had  been 
applied  to  a  dillcrcnt  object  before,  and 
llit'V  wiMc  now  oidy  applied  to  a  new 
object.      Ihid.y  155. 

24.  Where  a  patent  is  for  a  now  com- 
bination, there  iH  no  claim  to  invention 
except  in  rei^ard  to  the  oond)ination, 
and  no  parts  of  the  inacliine  need  be 
proveil  to  be  new.  llovcy  v.  iStecens, 
1  \Vood.«fe  Min.,  y02. — WouDliuuv,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1840. 

25.  When  a  certain  particular  combi- 
nation of  known  mechanical  powers  or 
]iriiici])les  prochices  a  new  and  useful 
cjfi'i't  in  a  manufacture,  that  condona- 
tion becomes  the  lawful  subject  of  a 
patent.  Wdrncr  v.  Go(>(Iye<ir,  3IS., 
(Api>,  Cas.)— Ckancu,  Ch.  J, ;  D.  C, 
1840. 

20.  In  mechanics,  inventions  consist, 
not  in  the  discovery  of  new  j)Viiiciples, 
hilt  in  new  cond)ination  of  old  ones. 
The  principles  of  mechanics  are  few, 
8iraj)le,  .and  well  understood  ;  their  com- 
binations arc  various  and  inexhaustible. 
Any  new  combin.'ition,  which  is  of  sub- 
stantial advantage  in  the  arts,  comes 
within  the  policy  and  protection  of  the 
patent  law.  Tyler  v.  Dcval,  1  Code 
Rep.,  31.— McCaleb,  J. ;  La.,  1848. 


27.  A  patent  for  a  combination  can- 
not be  supported  by  evidence  of  nov* 
city  of  one  of  itit  parts.  Ilnttvn  v.  Clay' 
ton,  2  Whart.  Dig.,  408. — Kanr,  J.; 
Ta.,  1H18. 

2H.  A  cond)ination  to  be  patentablo 
nnist  etlect  u  new  rcHult,  or  an  old  ro- 
suit  l>y  a  new  mode  of  action  ;  there 
must  1m'  novelty  eitlur  of  product  or 
process.     Jhid. 

20.  A  cond)itnition,  in  order  lo  bo 
patentable,  must  bring  some  new  feu* 
tures  into  the  combination,  and  prodnco 
new  and  beneliciMi  results.  It"  it  does 
that,  it  is  of  no  matter  how  slight  tho 
change.  Adtnna  v.  JfJdiodrdti,  MS.— 
Si'UAdi'K  J. ;  Mass.,  1H48. 

:i().  If  there  is  a  ncKVclly  in  the  a})- 
pli(;ation  and  in  the  nnichine,  and  if  it 
produces  new  and  valuable  results,  it  in 
patentable,  whether  oniy  the  condjina- 
tion  is  new,  or  only  an  important  part 
ofil.     If>iil. 

31.  If  a  coud)iinition  is  nttw,  and 
produces  a  new  and  useful  result,  it  is 
the  proper  sidiject  of  a  patent.  Titthdtn 
v.  At' 7u»y,  AlH. — Nki.hon,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1840. 

!J2.  Though  a  mere  cond/mation  of 
machinery  in  the  abstract  may  not  bo 
new,  yet  if  used  and  .applied  in  connec- 
tion with  the  ])ractical  development  of 
a  newly  discovered  principle,  producing 
a  new  and  useful  result,  the  subject  is 
patentable.     Ibid.     [Hut  see  j)08t  43, 

33.  In  a  patent  for  a  combination, 
where  the  novelty  of  the  invention  con- 
sists in  the  combination,  it  is  altogether 
immaterial  whether  the  elements  form- 
ing the  combination  are  new  or  old. 
liiu'k  v.  JItnnance,  1  JJIatcId",  404. — 
Nelson,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

34.  In  order  that  a  new  combination 
m.ay  be  patentable,  the  change  between 


•.*/'! 


^Niw 


Uti 


""■■  I 


tk"    H 


lt4 


OOMIUNATIOX,  A. 


4 


m 


ft: 


t/S, 


WHAT   PATBMTAMI.K ,   C'UilMTkt'CrlUN   Of  l-ATHNTN  ruft. 


%^ 


it  mill  any  provuitiHooinbiiintion  iiiiiNt  t)i> 
i«ul)r«t!iiiiiiil,  iiiid  not  furiiiiil ;  uiiinI  ri>- 
qulrc!  niiuil,  iiij,'«'miify,  liilxir,  tinu«,  iiml 
t'X|)«'nHr,  Tlu'  n«'W  iiitieli'  nuist  lu'  flil- 
furuiit  t'roin  tliu  oiiu  <>n  which  it  in  an 
iin|ti-o\  iincnt,  not  only  in  uh  imih  hiiniral 
contriv:iMc<'  .iiiti  ('on«>trnctii)n,  hut  in  W^ 
practical  oixiation  anil  cttVct  in  |iro- 
ducinj^  tho  nHi-ful  rcHiiit.     Ifiid.,  4()ft. 

80.  It*  ft  coniliinalion  inoliuh'S  new 
pnti'iitahic  niatiir  with  olil  mailer  not 
l>altiiial)li',  it  makes  :i  nt!\\  patcntah!*- 
romliiiialioii.  Iliiin  v.  Morae^  MS. 
(App.  (:as.)-CuANCii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  ('., 
J8H). 

;{(1.  Ami  it  is  nut  flic  less  patent. (hlc 
hec;niM  it  im-liiiU's  new  malter  in  cori- 
nt'ction  with  the  old.  Tho  hul  n>ay  not 
in  itself  he  paU'ntahh' ;  hut  joined  to 
the  new,  !i  coiuhination  may  he  lormed 
which  may  ho  patented.     Ifnil. 

.T7.  Nor  is  the  inventor  ohliged  to 
take  separate  pati'iits  for  each  new  pat- 
linlahle  matter;  he  may  he  willinj;  to 
ask  only  f<ir  a  limited  usl'  of  the  new 
mailers,  to  irif,  in  voiuliinatioti,  and 
not  for  11  exehisivo  use  of  them  for 
every  purpose  for  which  they  may  Im- 
applicahle.     Ihid. 

38.  Altli<<u>;h  all  the  parts  {jjoin;^  to 
constitute  the  plaintiff's  invention — a 
car  wheel — may  have  been  known  be- 
fore and  developed  in  prior  wheels,  if 
the  patentee  first  hioiii;ht  them  together 
into  a  whole,  .and  that  whole  is  materi- 
ally different  from  any  whole  that  ex- 
isted before,  he  is  the  original  and  first 
inventor,  and  entitled  to  a  patent  there- 
for. MiDiy  V.  Sizcr^  MS. — Si'uaguk, 
J.;  Mass.,  1849. 

39.  Where  the  effect  and  oper.ition 
of  mcehanic.al  contrivances,  -which  are 
to  be  deli'rmined  l»y  experts,  enter  into 
the  question  of  tlu;  extent  of  a  com- 
bination, it  is  a  mixed  question  of  law 


an<l  fact,  and  n  proper  ono  to  he  detor* 
min«>d  by  tlie  jury,  under  instrui'tionn 
from  tho  liourt.  J'hote  v.  Silnfti/,  I 
lUatchf.,  458,  405.— Nkj.«o.n,  J.;  N.  Y., 
IH40. 

40.  One  part  of  II  cnmbln.ilion  being 
old  does  not  necessarily  prevent  the 
combination,  itself  being  mw.     J/tili  v. 

Wileit,  2  Mlatehf,  199.— Nklmon,  J.; 
N.  v.,  1861. 

41.  It  is  imnmtorial  whether  the  pat- 
enlet>  is  the  inventor  of  any  one  or 
more  of  the  ehuncnts  of  a  cond)inntion. 
These  inuy  aW  bo  old ;  but  if  tho  pat- 
entj'c  was  the  first  toeomhine  them,  for 
|Im>  purpose  specified  in  his  patent,  his 
pali'tit  will  be  good.  Fiutto  v.  Silshy^ 
2  r.latchf.,  270.— Xiaso.v,  J.;  N.  Y., 
ib:*!. 

42.  To  defeat  a  «'Iaim  for  !i  combina- 
tion, by  the  existence  of  a  prior  com- 
bination, such  prior  combination  nnist 
have  been  ono  of  j)ractieal  utility,  and 
must  have  j'lnbraced  all  tho  »'lemeiit» 
embraced  in  the  plaintiff's  combiiiatioii. 
Ihid.,  27."). 

4;).  Where  a  patentee  claims  a  ccr- 
t.'iin  combination  of  machinery  as  his 
invention,  his  da; in  can  only  be  sustain- 
ed by  esf;i'>lishing  its  novelty — not  as 
to  its  parts,  but  as  to  the  combin;itioii. 
It  will  not  supi)ort  the  patent  to  show 
iliat  a  new  result  is  produced.  IjC  Hoy 
V.  7ht/i<f)n,  It  How.,  177. — MoLkax, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

44.  A  claim  for  a  combination  which 
does  not  point  out  and  designate  tlu; 
)jarticular  elements  wITkiIi  compose  a 
combination,  but  only  declares  that  the 
combination  is  made  up  of  so  much  of 
the  described  machinery  as  effects  a 
particular  result,  may  be  sufficient.  It 
is  a  question  of  fact,  which  of  the  de- 
scribed parts  are  essential  to  that  result ; 
and  to  this  extent  not  the  coiistructv^u, 


COMRINATIO^f,  A. 


18b 


WHAT  l>ATIINTAr«l,l;   CllNlfTHL-irTlD.V   i>r  rATKWTH   rOR. 


but  til*'  aiiplicntiMll  of  the  rhnm  nImiuIiI 
ho  It'll  to  tho  juiry.  Sihhy  v.  Fvote,  I J 
lldw.,  '-".'0.     ('(  KiiH,  J,;  Sup,  (H.,  1852. 

45.  The  um»  (if  Ik  hlai't  in  (>uiitH'('t!«Mi 
with  II  him>-kilti,  buiii^  tu  w,  n*  nUn  the 
t'l'Utiiro  of  '>'iioruill>j(  ht>;it  in  i\w  hiiiiic 
rui'Miico  tu  i/iirn  tho  utoiio,  iiikI  itrodiicc 
Nti'iirn  in  tho  boih'r  to  work  thi  hlowi-rs, 
uiid  tho  urnuij^c  H'lit  crtVi-tiiii^  a  '^rtviii;. 
of  I'lH'l,  //»/'/,  thiit  Hiii'h  iinimgi'iiu'iit  or 
('oiiil>iii!itinii  WHS  jmt«ntuhU«.  tSoe/fy, 
A'c/K/J'^',  RfS.  (App.  Can.) — Mokkkij., 
.1.;  I).  C,  1853. 

U\.  If  tho  npi'cifloiition,  tiikon  us  u 
wiioh',  KmvoH  no  roiiNoimhh;  (l(Mi}>t  cori- 
(•orniiijf  till!  intiMition  of  the  pati>ntt^o  to 
iiiitluiltt  ill  his  claim  n  oii'taiii  pari  of  a 
(•()uil»iiiatloii,  tho(i'4li  fhiTi!  may  Ix?  an 
error  in  tlt'H(ribiiii,j  it,  it  will  he  coii- 
KiiU'rcil  an  iiK'ludud.  Kittle  v.  Mer- 
»«a»i,  2  Curt.,  470. — Curtih,  J.;  Mass., 
1855. 

47.  To  make  a  valid  olaim  for  a  <"om- 
hination,  it  in  not  noccswary  that  tin' 
sovoral  t'lcmciitary  parts  of  the  coinlii- 
iiation  plumld  act  Bitnultaiiooiisly.  If 
such  parts  arc  so  arranged  that  tho  Kur- 
cossivo  action  of  each  contrihutes  to 
produco  one  result — which  result  is  tho 
product  of  tho  simultaneous  or  sueees- 
sivc  action  of  all  siudi  parts — a  valid 
clahn  for  combhiinj^  such  elementary 
parts  may  bo  made.  Forbush  v.-  Cook^ 
10  Mo.  Law  llep.,  005. — CuHTis,  J.; 
:\[;iss.,  180  7. 

48.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  include  in 
the  claim  for  the  combination,  as  ele- 
ments thereof,  all  parts  of  tho  macrhine 
which  arc  necessary  to  its  action.  Ibid., 
6';\ 

49.  If  a  combination  is  new  and  use- 
ful within  tho  meaning  of  the  pat<'nt 
laws,  it  is  the  subject  of  a  patent,  an.l 
it  is  not  imi>ortant  whether  it  required 
much  or  little  thought,  study,  or  experi- 


titent  to  mnke  ii,  or  uhuther  it  vo«tii 
much  or  tin  •'  expense  to  tlevisu  uud 
expcute  it.      t  blil.t  007. 

50.  Tho  UMo  «>f  new  m.'ileriaiH  in  n 
combination,  or  a  chanp*  of  form,  uP 
the  II  '  of  one  cipiivulcnt  for  Miiothuf, 
dot<H  not  render  it  new  In  tlie  Hcnst-  of  tliu 
prttent  law,  but  some  ii  >w  nio*lo  of  o))- 
elation  in  list  be  introdiir  d.     /AAA,  007. 

51.  Viid  it  is  deeiHlve,  thouj^h  not  thu 
only  c\  dt'nc'*',  that  a  now  mode  of  ojh 
eraiion  lias  been  ii  M'oduoed,  if  eitlu-r  a 
new  elfect,  or  a  better  otfe( '  or  a>4  gooiil 
an  effect  more  economicalb  ittaiiicd,  is 
prodiicol  by  lli     channe.      J/fiil.,  008. 

52.  If  a  person  iii\>,ii  a  new  rnc- 
chaniral  device  or  arraiifj^ement,  to  bo 
used  in  the  place  of  a  t'ormcc  d'vice  or 
arraii;^eineii(  which  was  a  pi»rt  of  a  cer- 
tain combination,  and  which  new  device 
is  iitdepeiuU-nt  of  all  other  similar  do- 
vices,  and  is  not  to  \>o  used  in  conjunc- 
tion with,  or  in  aid  of,  or  in  addition  to 
such  <»ld  <1>  \ice,  which  made  ono  of  the 
elements  of  tho  old  combinittion,  lie 
may  have  a  j)atent  for  .•.  combination 
containing  his  new  ilevice  or  arrange- 
ment, in  connection  with  the  remaining 
parts  of  tho  old  combination,  as  such 
combination  constitutes  a  now  machine, 
and  not  an  improvement  merely  on  tliu 
niaehine,  containing  the  combinafion  of 
the  old  elements.  Potter  v.  Ilolktnd^ 
MS.— iNdKiwoi.L,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

53.  Hut  if  such  new  mechanical  do- 
vice  is  but  an  improvement  on  tho  old 
or  former  one,  and  is  to  bo  used  in  con- 
junction with,  or  in  aid  of,  or  in  addi- 
tion to,  tho  oUl  one,  then,  it  .■loems,  ho 
coiiM  only  have  a  patent  for  his  improve- 
ment and  not  for  the  whole  combination. 
Ibid. 

54.  Though  a  coinl)inatlon  of  machin- 
ery, or  a  part  of  it  may  not  be  now, 
when  used  to  jn'odiice  a  new  jn-oduct, 


-»''*^\ 


IV 


v^^^Wwt^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT.3} 


!l.O 


1.1 


no 


■M    12.5 


US 

U 


■  40 


11-25  iu 


2.0 

nil 

1.6 


Hiotographic 

Sdences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


! 


o^ 


WW  I 


•••-'' 

T^-" 


iiiii 


5?*tli 


!i    1 


>*L 


< 


1^'^ 

^kU 


186 


CO>rr,INATI()N,  B. 


ixfhin(1kmk.;t  or  I'atent  rou. 


if  it  is  so  t'oiiibiiit^d  and  iiioditii-d  as  to 
produou  now  results,  there  is  novolt;- 
within  the  patent  law.  Ze  Jioi/  v.  Tu- 
tham^  22 How.,  139. — McLkan,  J.; Siij). 
Ct.,  185'J. 

65.  One  now  and  operative  .agency  in 
the  j)roJiiction  of  tlie  desired  result 
gives  novelty  to  the  ent're  combination. 
Ifjul,  139. 

50.  ^Vlthough  the  elements  of  a  com- 
bination may  not  be  new,  yet  if  the 
combination  and  arrangement  of  j^arts 
are  new,  .and  produce  useful  and  valuable 
results,  the  invention  is  patentable.  Xa- 
rowe,  Ex  parte,  MS.  ( App.  Cas.) — Dun- 
lop,  J.;  D.  C,  IBOO. 

57.  In  order  to  make  a  combination 
patentable,  its  constituent  parts  should 
be  co-active,  and  not  dead  parts.  The 
connection  of  a  thousand  dead  parts  in 
one  machine  having  but  a  single  opera- 
tion, can  never  be  considered  a  com- 
bination, lieny,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Mo  isELL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1860. 

58.  Though  the  combination  of  parts 
in  a  machine  may  be  old,  yet  if  the 
parts  dift'er  in  constrtiction,  and  are  so 
made  for  a  specific  purpose,  and  the 
eft'ect  or  result  produced  by  such  change 
in  construction  is  valu.able,  and  the  com- 
bination has  never  before  been  applied  to 
such  purpose,  the  aiTangement  or  com- 
oination  is  new  and  patentable.  3lac- 
hay.  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moit- 
SELL,  J.;  D.  C,  1860. 

59.  Though  all  the  primary  elements 
of  a  combination,  or  all  its  sub-conibina- 
tions  have  existed  before  iu  different  ma- 
chines, if  they  have  never  before  been 
brought  together  to  constitute  one  ma- 
chine, and  co-operate  to  jiroduce  one  re- 
sult, the  person  who  so  brings  them 
together  is  entitled  to  a  patent  for  such 
combination  and  arrangement.  Howe  v. 
Morton,  MS. — Spkaguk,  J.;  Mass.,  1860. 


60.  There  are  two  chiJ^ses  or  kinds  of 
combinations  which  arj  proj)erly  the 
sul'Ject  of  a  patent.  First,  in  wliidi 
all  the  parts  were  before  known,  and 
where  the  sole  merit  of  the  invention 
coiiisists  in  such  an  arrangement  of  tlicni 
as  to  produce  a  new  and  useful  result, 
or  where  an  inventor  has  succeeded  in 
making  such  an  arrangement  of  known 
l>arts,  that  they  produce  a  result  never 
before  obtained.  Hecond,  where  some 
of  the  parts  or  elements  of  the  com- 
bination are  new,  and  their  invention 
claimed,  but  where  they  are  used  in  com- 
bination with  parts  or  elements  that  were 
known  before.  Lee  v.  Jilandy,  MS. — 
McLean,  Leavitt,  JJ.  ;  Ohio,  1 860. 

01.  Parts  of  a  machine  which  do  not 
perform  any  distinctive  valuable  func- 
tion, or  confer  any  utility  upon  the  com- 
bination, and  are  in  fact  useless  in  their 
operation,  will  not  make  the  combinn- 
tion  patentable.  Thomas,  G.  D.,  Ex 
parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mekkick,  J. ; 
D.  C,  1860. 

B.   Infringement   of   Patent  fob. 

1 .  An  action  will  not  lie  by  a  paten- 
tee of  an  improvement,  consisting  of 
a  combination  of  several  machines, 
against  a  person  who  has  made  or  used 
one  of'the  machines,  which  in  part  con- 
stitutes the  discovery.  Eoans  v.  Eaton, 
Pet.,  C.  C,  343,  344. — Washington,  J.; 
IX  1816. 

2.  The  separate  parts  of  a  combina- 
tion may  be  used  without  any  infringe- 
ment of  the  patent,  but  they  cannot  be 
used  in  their  combined  state  to  produce 
by  the  same  operation  the  same  result. 
Gray  v.  James,  Pet.,  C.  C,  401.— 
Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1817. 

3.  If  a  patent  is  for  a  combination  of 
several  machines,  it  is  no  infringement 


COMinXATlON,  J 5. 


I.NFlllNdKMKNT   0»'  I'ATKNT  I'OU. 


of  the  i»!Vteiit  to  use  any  of  the  inuchiiifs 
BC'pJir.'itcIy,  If  tlio  wliolo  combination  in 
uot  usod.  Barrett  y.JIall^  1  Mas.,  474, 
477. — Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1818. 

4.  Where  a  patent  is  for  a  new  com- 
bination of  existing  macliinery  or  ma- 
chines, and  does  not  specify  or  chiini 
any  improvement  or  invention,  except 
the  combination,  u/iless  that  combina- 
tion is  substantially  viola^^^ed,  the  paten- 
tee is  not  entitled  to  any  remedy,  al- 
though parts  of  the  ni.achinery  are  used 
by  another.  Moody  v.  Fiske^  2  Mas., 
117. — Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1820. 

5.  In  such  a  case,  proof  that  the 
machines,  or  any  part  of  their  fetructu.-e, 
existed  before,  forms  no  objection  to 
the  patent,  unless  the  combination  liad 
existed  before.     Ibid.^  117. 

6.  "Wlu're  a  patentee,  in  his  patent, 
claimed  three  things,  not  sejjarately,  but 
in  combiuation,  and  the  defendants 
made  use  of  but  two  of  the  three  i»arts, 
Jleld^  that  unless  the  whole  combina- 
tion was  substantially  xued  by  the  de- 
fendants, it  was  not  an  infringement  of 
the  plaintiff's  patent,  although  one  or 
more  of  the  parts  may  be  used  by  the 
defendants.  Protcty  v.  Ruggles,  1  Story, 
571.— Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1841.  [Affirm- 
ed 1842,  jt)os«  9.] 

7.  A  patent  for  a  combination  of  A, 
B,  and  C  cannot  be  technically  or  legally 
deemed  at  once  a  combination  of  A,  B, 
and  C,  and  of  A  and  B  alone.  Ibid., 
572. 

8.  Where  a  patent  is  for  an  entire 
process  or  combination,  and  not  for  the 
several  parts  of  it,  and  a  party  does  not 
use  the  entire  process  or  combination, 
but  only  a  part,  it  is  not  a  violation  of 
the  thing  patented.  Jloioe  v.  Abbott, 
2  Story,  194.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1842. 

9.  If  a  combination,  as  claimed  and 
patented,  consists  of  several    (three) 


parts,  arranged  in  a  particular  manner, 
with  reference  to  each  other  and  to 
other  parts  of  the  machine  or  thing,  the 
use  of  uny  two  of  such  parts  only,  or 
of  the  two  combined  with  a  third  which 
is  substantially  different  in  form,  or  iu 
the  manner  of  its  arrangement,  or  con- 
nectitjn  with  the  others,  is  not  an 
infringement  of  the  thing  patented. 
Prouty  V.  Ihiygks,  10  I'et.,  341. — Ta- 
m;y,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1842. 

10.  One  combination  is  not  the  same 
with  another,  if  it  substantially  differs 
from  it  in  any  of  its  parts.  Ibid.^ 
340. 

11.  A  patentee  of  an  improvement 
in  the  cotton-gin  described  and  claimed 
his  invention  as  consisting  in  a  particu- 
lar ibrm  of  the  rib,  for  separating  the 
fibre  from  the  seed,  and  so  connecting 
the  lower  and  U])per  surfaces  of  the  rib, 
that  when  the  rib  loas  inserted  in  the 
frame,  there  should  be  no  break  or 
shoulder,  but  a  smooth  uninterrupted 
j)assage  upward  between  the  ribs.  Jleld, 
that  his  patent  was  for  the  combination 
of  the  form  of  the  ril).  of  the  manner 
of  connecting  its  up])er  and  lower  sur- 
faces, and  the  manner  of  fixing  or  fast- 
ening it  to  the  frame  as  stated ;  and 
that  if-  the  defendants  did  not  fix  or 
fasten  the  ribs  of  their  machine  against 
tlie  framework  substantially  in  the 
manner  described  in  the  plaintiffs  pat- 
ent, they  were  not  guilty  of  any  viola- 
tion, of  the  plaintiffs  patent.  Carver  v. 
Hyde,  IG  Pet.,  518,  520.— Taney,  Ch. 
J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1842. 

12.  The  use  of  any  one  of  certain 
specified  improvements  of  a  combina- 
tion, included  in  a  patent,  of  which  the 
patentee  was  the  inventor,  without  any 
violations  of  the  others,  is  sufficient  to 
entitle  the  patentee  or  his  assigns  to  an 
action  of  infringement.    Pitts  v.  Whit' 


„., 


188 


COMBINATION,  IJ. 


I 


<:■; 


-n: 


^ 


m 


'fHV 


';v> 


i% 


'n 


INFlllSUEMENT  OF    I'ATENT   FOR. 


m((n^  2  Story,  021. — Stobv,  J.;  Me., 
1843. 

13.  Wlu'i-e  an  invention  conHists  in 
t)ie  coniltination  of  certain  known  mo- 
ch.'inical  structures,  the  use  of  any  parts 
essential  to  such  combination,  less  than 
the  whole,  is  no  infringement.  Brooks 
V.  Bic/c/iell,  3  INIcLeaii,  453,  454. — Mc- 
Lean, J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

14.  IJy  a  change  in  position  in  a  com- 
bined machine,  its  mechanical  action  is 
not  affected.     Ibid,,  455. 

15.  There  is  no  infringement  of  a  com- 
bined machine,  unless  every  pari  is  used. 
Jiroolcs  V.  Jiicknell,  4  INIcLean,  73. — 
McLean,  J. ;  Ohio,  1845. 

10.  A  pivtont  for  a  combination  is  not 
infringed  by  the  use  of  any  part  less 
than  the  Avhole  of  the  combination. 
Jioot  V.  UI((U,  4  3IcLean,  180,  -McLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

11.  Where  a  patent  is  for  a  new  com- 
bination, and  not  for  newly  invented 
parts,  a  violation  m.ist  extend  to  the 
whole.  Aiken  v.  Bonis,  3  Wood.  & 
Min.,  353. — ■Woodbury,  J. ;  Mass., 
1847. 

18.  "Where  an  invention  consists  of 
a  combination  of  known  mechanical 
powers,  the  use  of  a  part  less  than  the 
whole  combination,  is  no  infringement. 
Parker  v.  Ilaworth,  4  McLean,  373. — 
McLean,  J.;  111.,  1848. 

19.  But  where  the  invention  consists 
not  only  in  the  combination,  but  in  the 
improvement  of  several  of  the  parts  of 
the  combination,  the  violation  of  one  of 
them  is  an  infringement  for  which  an 
action  will  lie.     Ibid.,  374. 

20.  Whe.'e  a  patent  is  for  a  combi- 
nation, constructed  and  operating  in 
a  particular  way,  to  constitute  an  in- 
fringement, the  defendant  must  have 
used  the  same  combination,  construicted 
and  operating  substantially  in  the  same 


way.  Gorhd  n  v.  Mixter,  1  Ai.ier.  Law 
Jour.;  N.  S.,  643. — Si'itAOUK,  J. ;  Mass., 
184!). 

21.  If  but  two  of  the  three  elements 
of  combination  are  used,  there  is  no  hi- 
fringement.  Nor  is  it  any  infringement 
if  any  one  or  all  tlie  elements  of  combi- 
nation were  constructed  and  operated 
substantially  ditfercnt  from  the  plain- 
tifTs.     Ibid.,  543. 

22.  Nor  do  additions  or  improve- 
ments to  a  combination,  or  any  element 
thereof,  though  meritorious,  give  any 
right  to  use  or  appropriate  the  original 
combination.     Ibid.,  543. 

23.  In  a  patent  for  a  new  and  useful 
improvement  in  the  mode  of  forming  rails 
for  railroad  carriages,  for  use  in  cities, 
&c.,  "  where  it  is  desirable  that  the 
wheels  of  ordinary  carriages  should  not 
be  subjected  to  injury  or  obstruction," 
the  patentee  claimed  the  employment 
of  plates  or  vails  having  n.arrow  grooves 
on  each  side  of  the  track  for  the  flantres 
of  the  car  wheels  to  run  in,  by  which  they 
were  adapted  to  the  unobstructed  pass- 
ing over  them  of  the  various  kinds  of 
common  carriages,  such  rails  being  also 
sunk  to  a  level  with  the  surface  of  the 
street.  Held,  that  such  patent  consisted 
of  the  combinations  of  such  grooves 
with  the  rail,  on  both  sides  of  a  railroad 
track,  and  such  combination  being  de- 
pressed to  a  plane  corresponding  with 
the  street,  and  that  the  use  by  the  de- 
fendant, of  a  double  iron  rail,  with  a 
groove  or  interval  between,  large  enough 
for  the  flange  of  the  wheel,  placed  on 
the  inner  side  of  a  curve,  the  ordinary 
flat  iron  rail  being  used  on  the  exterior 
line  of  the  s.ame  curve,  and  the  whole 
constructed  on  the  same  plane  with  the 
general  track  of  the  road,  without  re- 
gard to  the  convenience  of  carriages  to 
pass  over  it,  was  not  an  infringement 


H.i<, 


.'  ^SKi'! 


COMBINATION,  B. 


ISO 


ii:  '^-  Mm 


ISFKINdKMKNT  OF   PATENT   FOR. 


of  siicli  cumbiiiation,  hnviiig  iisuil  but 
Olio  ek'ineiit  of  the  jilaiiitilf's  combiuji- 
tioii.  i^tuiipHon  V.  Ii<tl.  cfc  iSitn.  Ji.  li. 
Co.,  10  How.,  343-340.— Daniel,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

24.  Wlie'"0  in  an  action  for  an  in- 
fringciiu'nl  of  a  iiiill  for  grindinj^  bark, 
tlio  uovdty  of  ll»o  plaintilF's  invention 
wliii'li  consisted  in  the  formation  of 
grliulinj?  chambers,  by  the  combination 
of  movable  conical  rings,  with  stationa- 
ary  cylinders  arranged  concentrically, 
and  in  the  consequent  multiplication  of 
the  grinding  chambers,  so  as  to  increase 
the  grinding  surfaces  in  a  machine  of  a 
given  size,  Held.,  that  no  one  had  a 
riglit,  without  the  authority  of  the  pat- 
ontees,  to  use  the  combination  of  such 
two  parts  that  formed  the  grinding 
chambers,  and  that  a  changu  in  the 
shape  of  the  chambers,  or  the  t^rm  of 
the  teeth,  though  the  machine  might 
thereby  be  improved,  was  only  a  ditfer- 
ence  in  degree,  and  not  in  the  thing  it- 
self. Wilbur  V.  Beecher,  2  Blatchf,,  140, 
142.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

25.  A  combination,  when  the  patent 
is  for  that,  is  not  violated  when  only 
parts  of  it  are  used,  and  not  all  of  them, 
which  are  material.  Smith  v.  Down- 
ing, MS. — Woodbury,  J. ;  Mass.,  1850. 

20.  If  a  combination,  properly  so 
called,  consists  of  two  or  more  distinct 
things,  and  the  patent  is  for  combining 
them  in  one  whole,  if  all  are  not  used 
the  patent  is  not  infringed.  Foster  v. 
Moore,  1  Curt., 292. — Cuktis,  J.;  Mass., 
1852. 

27.  A  combination  may  be  improved, 
and  a  patent  taken  for  such  improve- 
ment, but  at  the  same  time  the  improve- 
ment cannot  be  used  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  original  patentee.  Ibid., 
292. 

23.  But  even  w^here  a  strict  combi- 


nation is  claimed,  if  one  of  the  elements 
t)f  that  combination  is  complex  enough 
to  admit  of  an  improvement,  without 
destroying  its  identity,  such  improved 
combination  would  be  an  infringement. 
Though  one  element  is  thus  imj)roved, 
the  whole  combination  in  tho  sense  of 
the  patent  laws  would  bo  used.  Ibid., 
293. 

29.  The  patent  was  for  sawing  matches 
in  sheets,  so  as  to  leave  them  united  at 
one  end,  and  then  wrajjping  them  in  pa- 
per in  a  particular  mannt>r,  Held,  that 
the  patent  was  for  tho  entire  and  com- 
plete mode  described,  and  was  not  in- 
fringed by  nutting  up  matches  attached 
at  one  end,  but  not  wrapped  in  strips  of 
paper.  Byam  v.  Farr,  1  Curt.,  205. — 
Curtis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1852. 

30.  If  a  combination  has  three  (".if- 
ferent  known  parts,  and  the  result  is 
accomplished  by  the  union  of  all  these 
parts,  arranged  with  reference  to  each 
other,  the  use  of  two  of  these  parts 
only,  combined  with  a  third,  substan- 
tially different  from  the  former,  is  not 
the  same  combination,  and  no  inter- 
ference. Brooks  v.  Fiske,  15  How., 
219. — Catron,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

3 1 .  A  patent  which  claims  mechanical 
powers  or  things  in  combination,  is  not 
infringed  by  using  a  part  of  the  com- 
bination. To  this  rule  there  is  no  ex- 
ception. MeCormick  v.  Many,  6  Mc- 
Lean, 54V. — McLean,  J.;  111.,  1855. 

32.  Where  the  invention  consists  of 
a  combination  of  known  mechanical  pow- 
ers, the  use  of  less  than  the  whole  will 
be  no  infringement.  Pitts  v.  Wemph 
6  McLean,  601: — McLean,  J. ;  111., 
1855. 

33.  If  the  whole  of  the  combination 
be  taken,  though  something  be  added, 
still  it  is  an  infringement.     Ibid.,  561. 

34.  Where  the  riglit  of  recovery  rests 


Hid 

as,, -I  .' 


111'' 


4i.|; 


100 


COMI'.INATION',  1{. 


iNI'KINUKUKXr  or  TATKNT   I'OIL 


on  a  C()inl)liiatinii,  tlio  plaiiififT  nniNt 
imtvo  tli.'it,  all  those  parts  siiltstaiitial  to 
tla'ir  coiiiMiiatioii  liavo  Ik.'cii  iist'd  l>y 
the  (li'ti'iidniits.  Tho  t'liiployiiu'iit  of 
one  or  more  of  t host' parts  less  than  tiio 
wholo  will  not  constitntc  an  intViiii^c- 
nient.  >>inUh  v.  liUjgins^  MS. — Uiaxs, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

3').  If  an  invention  Is  an  iin|trovc'- 
nicnt  on  a  known  niaehini'  by  a  mere 
clianLT*' of  form  or  coinltination  of  parts, 
the  patonteo  cutuiot  treat  anotluT  as  an 
infrinj^er  who  lias  improved  tlie  orij^inal 
macliine  l»y  nse  of  u  diflerent  form  or 
coniliination  performinLC  the  same  fniic- 
tions.  The  inventor  of  the  first  im- 
provements cannot  invoke  tho  doetrino 
of  equivalents  to  suppress  all  otlier  im- 
provements whieh  are  not  merely  color- 
ahle  invasions  of  the  iirst.  McCorniirk 
v.  Tih-oti,  I'O  How.,  405.— GuiKU,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

!JG.  A  elaim  for  a  combination  of 
meehanieal  devices  or  i)arts  is  not  in- 
frintjeil  by  one  who  nses  a  part  of  the 
combination.     Ibul.^  40(). 

37.  In  a  ))atent  for  a  combination 
there  is  no  infrint;;ement,  unless  all  the 
essential  parts  of  the  combination  are 
substantially  imitated.  Bell  v.  Daniels, 
JMS.— Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1858. 

S8.  It  is  familiar  law  that  there  is  no 
infringement  of  a  combination,  unless 
the  defendant  nses  all  the  parts  of  whieh 
that  combination  is  composed.  Latta 
V.  Shatck,  MS. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1859. 

39.  But  there  is  another  kind  of  com- 
bination to  which  this  doctrine  does  not 
•npply,  and  that  is  where  the  combina- 
tion is  of  old  .and  new  parts  of  a  ma- 
chine. In  such  a  case,  if  a  defendant 
takes  the  new  part  only,  he  infringes, 
Ibid.  • 

40.  Where  a  patcTitee  claims  a  part 


of  his  meeh:mic:il  contrivance  as  an 
e-isenti;d  elenu-nt  of  a  i'ombiiialion, 
but  wiiieh  is  really  not  material  to  his 
invention,  he  may  Htill  recover  aj^aiiist 
llm.se  wlu)  dispense  with  it  while  usiu" 
the  rest  of  the  combination.  I'd/iir  v. 
('iuiij>l/ttl,  MS. — Leaviit,  J.;  Ohio, 
1850. 

1 1.  Where  a  patent  was  for  a  certain 
coiiibinatiou  of  maehinery  designed  or 
inlendi.l  to  elfect  a  certain  purpose 
(dyeing  parti-colored  skeins  of  yarn  by 
innnersion  in  a  dye,  and  at  the  same 
lime  gatiging  or  measuring  the  extent 
of  coloring  of  the  skein),  which  was 
not  new,  Jfild,  that  in  ordt-r  to  estab- 
lish an  infringement,  the  patentee  nnist 
show  that  the  defendant  is  emiiloyins 
substantially  the  same  description  of 
machinery.  If  the  defendant  employs 
maehinery  of  a  different  desc-iption,  a 
different  mode  of  accomplishing  the 
same  result,  the  patentee  has  no  ground 
of  comi>laint.  ^S^nith  v.  JIi(/[/i/it<,  ]MS. 
— Nki.son,  J.;  N.  Y.,  18(50. 

42.  In  a  combination  where  all  the 
parts  have  before  been  known,  and  the 
invention  consists  in  a-  new  arrange- 
ment of  them  to  produce  a  useful  re- 
sult, there  is  no  infringement  unless  a 
party  has  used  all  the  elements  of  such 
a  cond)ination.  J,ce  v.  Blandy,  ]MS. — 
Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1 8G0. 

43.  In  a  combination  where  some  of 
the  elements  iire  new,  and  their  inven- 
tion claimed,  but  they  are  used  in  com- 
bination with  old  parts,  there  will  be 
an  infringement  by  the  use  of  that  part 
Avhieh  is  new,  and  the  invention  of  the 
jiatentee.     Ibid. 

44.  A  patent  for  a  combination  of  old 
things  a])i)lied  to  produce  a  new  and 
useful  result,  is  not  violated,  unless  all 
its  parts  or  elements  are  used.  Dodge 
V.  Card,  MS.— Leaviit,  J.;  Ohio,  1860. 


IfS'^^i 


COMMISSION I:R  01-'  I'ATKNTS,  A-V. 


101 


I'OWKIIH  ()»"— ACTKIM  or,    WIIBM  t'ONCI.L'HIVIC. 


C'OMMTSSIOXKU  OF  I'ATKNTS. 

\,    I'oWKU  OP;  ON  Api'UOAtions  ror-.  and 

IN  ailANTINO  I'ATKNTH IDI 

II.      I'liWEIl  OK;    ON    iNTKUhKllKNCKH 191 

C,    TowKiior;  on  Si.uusnkkuh  and  I{k- 

ISSIIK9 I'JI 

|>,      I'dWKU  (IK  ;    ON  KXTENHIONH I'JI 

i;.      I'OWKU  OF;     IN   (/AHKH  OP    AlM'KAI 1!>1 

f".    Action  ok;  wiikn  Concm'sivk I'jl 

Ci.      "AOTINUCuMMlHllIONUU;"    ToWKItH  OP    l!);i 

A.  I'oWKKOK;  OV  Ari'LU'ATIONSFOU, 
ANU  IV  (ill ANTING  PaTKNTS. 

See  Ai'PMC'ATiONs  Fou  Patents,  15. 

B.  POWKUOP;    ox  TNTKRFICItKNCFS.  ' 

Sc'o  Inteufekknck.s,  a. 

C.  PoWRIt   OP ;    O.V   SUURKNDEUS  AND 

lllCISSUES. 

Sco  Reissue  op  Patent,  B. 

D.  PowEK  OF ;  ON  Extensions, 
Sco  Extension  of  Patent,  B. 

E.  Power  of;  in  Caseh  op  Appkal. 
See  Appeal,  B.  2. 

F.  Action  of  ;  wnEN  Conclusive. 

1.  Tlio  necessary  consequence  of  tlie 
ministerial  character  in  wliich  the  secre- 
tary of  state  (now  Commissioner  of  Pat- 
ents) acts,  is,  that  the  performance  of  the 
prerequisites  of  the  patent — as  wheth- 
er a  correct  specification  and  ilosciip- 
tion  of  the  invention  has  been  niado, 
and  in  sucli  full  terms  as  is  required  l>y 
law — is    re-examinable  in    any   action! 


hroiii^ht  ii|inM  the  patfiil.  (I'ntut  v. 
Ji'ii/nintiif,  (1  Pet.,  'JH,  :;t2. — Mau- 
siiAi.i,,  Ch.  J.  ;  Sup.  Ct.,  \H-A'2. 

'2.  'I'liDuj^h  tlio  d(■ci^4i(|||  of  the  Hoard 
of  CoinmissioiiL'rs  (their  power  iH  now 
viHted  ill  «he  Commissioner  of  Patents), 
eoiistiliited  l»y  |5  IH  of  the  act  of  IH;UJ, 
to  iletermine  as  to  tlie  extension  of  a 
patent,  is  eoiiehisivo  within  tlie  scopu 
of  its  authority;  it  is  not,  howover, 
eoneJMsive  upon  the  question  of  law,  as 
to  the  rii;ht  of  reiuswal.  Uroo/cs  v. 
Jiif/i/iill,  a  McLe.an,  258. — McLean,  J.; 
Ohio,  IH4H. 

;J.  Such  decision  is  however  entitled 
to  feifard,  as  a  practical  construction 
of  the  law  tliat  the  heirs  of  a  patenteo 
m.'iy  procure  a  renewal  of  a  patent ;  and 
such  a  construction  is  in  accordance 
with  tlie  jtrinciple  and  polic}  of  the 
law.     I/n'<f.,  2.5H,  2'>[>. 

4.  The  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  upon  a  reissue  is  conclusive, 
unless  impeached  on  account  of  tVaud 
or  connivance  between  him  and  the  pat- 
entee, or  unless  an  excess  of  authority 
is  manifest  upon  the  very  face  of  tho 
papers.  yiUen  v.  Ulioit,  3  Story,  744. 
— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1H45. 

5.  Where  a  ]»articul.'ir  authority  is 
confided  to  a  public  officer,  to  be  exer- 
cised by  him  in  his  discretion,  upon  an 
examination  of  facts,  of  which  ho  is 
made  the  appropriate  judjfe,  his  de- 
cision upon  these  facts,  i  i,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  controlling  provisions,  ab- 
solutely conclusive  as  to  the  existence 
of  those  facts.     Ibid,  745. 

G.  The  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents,  in  accepting  the  surrender 
of  .an  old  and  granting  a  new  patent,  is 
not  rc-examiiiable  elsewhere,  unless  it  is 
apjiarent  from  the  face  of  ihe  patent, 
that  he  has  exceeded  his  authority,  or 
there  is  a  clear  repugnancy  between  the 


*«■ 


'.VWv 


,%c'v; 


^C, 


r*'trr 


i%v,i:^.^,,..,£:H^ 


«ltk>|«<«»Wh£ 


\ 


«•> 


102 


COMMISSIONKIl  OP  PATKNTS,  F. 


ACTION   or,    WHIM  ('ONCMHIVK. 


< 


% 


m 


lift 


titf'' 


m 


5;^ 


oM  and  new  pat»'iu,  or  the  new  ono  haH 
brt'ii  c)l»taiMi'il  l»y  CKlluHion  l)ot\vi'»'ii  tlif 
CoiMtiiiHsiDnor  and  tlio  patentee.  IVood- 
teorth  V.  /Stnuc,  M  Story,  783,  764. — 
Ktokv,  J. ;  IMasH.,  1848. 

7.  Till'  decision  of  the  ofliccrH  of  the 
government  in  grunting  a  renewed  pat- 
ent, by  reanon  of  a  deleetivo  or  iiiHulIi- 
cient  Hpecification,  ite.,  is  jn'inia  fitcie 
evidenee  that  the  chiirn  for  a  renewal 
>vas  within  the  statuti-;  and  eonehtHive, 
except  as  to  fraud.  The  in<piiry  an  to 
the  surrender,  is  limited  to  the  IJiirness 
of  the  transaction.  tStimpson  v.  Wi'8t. 
Ji.  Ji.,  4  How.,  404. — McLean,  J. :  Sup. 
Ct.,  1H45. 

8.  Tlio  decision  of  the  Board  of 
Connnissioners  (or  the  Conunissioner  of 
I'atents),  ujion  an  application  for  the 
extension  of  a  patent  under  §  18  of  the 
act  of  18;)0,  is  not  conclusive  upon  the 
question  of  their  jurisdiction.  Wilson 
V.  Jiusseau,  4  How.,  688. — Nelson,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

9.  The  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  as  to  the  character  of  an  ad- 
ministrator, when  applying  for  a  re- 
newal of  a  patent,  is  conclusive,  and  the 
letters  of  administration  need  not  be 
produced  in  an  action  on  such  renewed 
j)atent.  Woodicorth  v.  Hall,  1  Wood. 
&  Min.,  254. — WooDBUiiY,  J. ;  Mass., 
1840. 

10.  There  is  no  method  of  pleading 
by  which  the  courts  can  be  called  upon 
to  settle  the  regularity  of  the  prelimi- 
nary proceedings  in  the  Patent  Office. 
The  question  of  the  regularity  of  the 
proceedings  in  petitioning  for,  and  ob- 
taining the  patent,  and  the  correctness 
of  the  judgment  of  the  officer  in  award- 
ing it,  cannot  be  inquired  into.  Wilder 
V.  McCormick,  2  Blatchf.,  35. — Betts, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1846. 

11.  The  Commissioner  is  presumed, 


in  Issuing  new  h'tfers  patent,  to  luivo 
discharged  his  duly  faithfully  and  cd 
rectly.  Allin  v.  lilunt,  '2  Wood.  Sc  Min.j 
138. — WottDui'UY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1H|((. 

12.  Whether  the  decision  of  the 
Commissioner  is  binding  an<l  eonehisive, 
so  as  not  to  be  overturned,  except  for 
fraud,  or  error  a))parent  on  the  patent ; 
(pterj/.      I  hid.,  131). 

13.  The  acti<»n  of  tlio  Commissionor 
of  Patents  iti  the  reissue  of  letters  pat- 
ent  is  not  re-examinable  elsewhere,  ini- 
less  a  clear  case  of  fraud  is  nuuh)  out. 
Day  V.  Goodymr,  MS. — Giukk,  J. ;  N. 
J.,  1850. 

14.  The  decision  of  tlie  Conunissioner 
of  I'atents,  upon  an  application  for  an 
extension,  where  he  has  jurisdiction,  is 
conclusive,  as  to  the  regularity  of  the 
proceedings,  and  cannot  be  the  subject 
cf  examination  and  review  elsewhere, 
except  i)erhapH  in  the  case  of  fraud, 
which  is  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule.  Colt  V.  Young,  2  Bl.atchl.,  473, 
474.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

15.  The  proceedings  before  the  Com- 
missioner of  I'atents,  in  the  surrender 
and  reissue  of  a  patent,  are  not  open 
for  consideration,  excc[)t  on  the  grouiul 
of  fraud.  Hattinw  Taygert,  17  How., 
84.— McLean,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

10.  In  respect  to  an  extension,  the 
law  makes  the  Commissioner  the  judge 
of  the  entire  merits  of  the  patentee, 
and  the  existence  of  the  legal  grounds 
for  an  extension,  and  in  the  absence 
of  fraud,  his  adjudication  is  conclusivo. 
Clam  V.  Brewer,  2  Curt.,  618. — Cub- 
Tis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1855. 

17.  The  power  and  duty  of  granting 
a  new  patent  for  the  original  invention, 
upon  a  lawful  surrender  of  the  old  pat- 
ent, is  confided  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents.  His  decision  is  not  re-examiu- 
able  by  the  courts,  unless  it  is  apparent 


COMMISSION KK,  0.— COMI'ILATIOX. 

lOS 

"ACriNU"   I'DWRH  or.                                                                        WHAT   IH. 

upon  tliii  faco  of  thu  patent,  tiiat  \\w 
Coininissioncr  has  oxrcciU'd  liis  aiitlior- 
itv,  or  mll«'^<'^  tlit'n>  is  a  clcur  repugnancy 
bt'twoen  tin;  oltl  and  tlie  new  patent,  «>i' 
nnleNH  tho  new  ono  Iuih  Ih'cii  obtained 
by  eoIiuMlon  between  the  Coinmissioner 
and  tlie  patentee.  J'ottc.r  v.  Jfolland, 
MS. — Inokksoli,,  J. ;  (U.,   1H58. 

1«.  Tho  doc'ision  of  a  t'ornier  Com- 
missioner of  J'atentu,  while  Jinreversed, 
is  biiidin^x  npon  a  Hubsofinent  Conunis- 
bioner.  jMroirc,  Ki'  parte,  MS. — (App. 
Cas.)  DuNLor,  J.;  I).  C,  1800;  Simjt- 
ton,  Hx  parte.     Ibid,,  1801. 

G.  "AcriNG  Commissioner,"  PowKits 

OF. 

1.  A  p.atcnt  is  not  invalid  because  it 
is  ocrtilled  by  a  person  as  "  at'tintf 
Commissioner,  instead  of  beinj.r  certified 
by  the  Commissioner  liimself.  Wilson 
V.  Kosscaii,  4  How.,  OOH,  088. — Nelson, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

2.  The  certifieato  to  a  patent,  made 
by  a  person  as  "  acting  Commissioner," 
is  legal  and  sufficient.  Woodioorth  v. 
Hall,  1  Wood.  &  Mill.,  254.— Wood- 
bury, J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

3.  The  appointment  of  an  acting  Com- 
missioner will  be  presumed  to  have 
been  duly  made,  where  drawn  in  ques- 
tion incidentally  or  collaterally,  if  it  be 
shown  that  the  person  certifying  is  in 
the  public  discharge  of  those  duties. 
Ibid.,  255. 

4.  The  signatures  of  acting  Commis- 
sioners carry  as  much  verity  and  legal- 
ity on  the  face  of  certificates  them- 
selves, as  those  of  tho  Commissioner 
himself.    Ibid.,  256. 

5.  It  is  questionable  whether  evidence 
is  admissible  in  an  action  between  third 
parties,  where  the  Commissioner  is  not 

u  party,  that  an  acting  Commissioner 
13 


hafl  not  been  duly  appointed ;  it  ih  to 
be  presnnu'd  he  was  duly  appointed. 
WoadumitU  v.  ll(dl,  1  Wood.  A  Min., 
:tl»7,  :M)8.— VVooDuiuv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1h40. 
0.  I'nder  {J  2  of  tho  act  of  IHUO,  the 
chief  clerk  hiis  l»een  considered  as  the 
"acting  Commissioner,''  whenever  the 
Commissioner  lias  been  unable  to  <lis- 
charge  Iiis  duties  from  any  necesKury 
catise,  as  well  as  when  a  vacancy  occurs 
from  death  or  resignsilion.  I  bill.,  'MVl. 
V.  A  patent  signed  by  "an  acting 
Commissioner  of  Patents,"  is  valid  upon 
its  faco.  Tho  courts  will  judioiall^  take 
notice  of  the  jiersons  who  preside*  over 
the  Patent  Ollice,  whether  perniiiiienl- 
ly  or  transiently.  'Ilic  Yorlc  cO  Mary. 
li.  li.  Co.  v.  Winana,  17  How.,  41.— 
Camimjell,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854, 


COMPH.ATIOX  OF  A  BOOK. 

1.  To  compile  is  to  copy  from  various 
authors  into  one  work.  Story''a  ICxrs. 
v.  Ilolcotnbe,  4  McLean,  313. — McLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

2.  Such  a  work  entitles  the  compiler, 
under  the  statute,  to  a  right  of  prop- 
erty ;  which  right  may  be  compared  to 
that  of  a  patentee,  who,  by  a  combina- 
tion of  known  mechanical  structures, 
has  produced  a  new  result.    Ibid.,  314. 

3.  Between  a  compilation  and  an 
abridgment  there  is  a  clear  distinction. 
A  compilation  consists  of  selected  ex- 
tracts from  different  authors ;  an  abridg- 
ment is  a  condensation  of  the  views  of 
the  author.     Ibid.,^\A. 

4.  The  former  cannot  be  so  extended 
as  to  convey  the  same  knowledge  as 
tlie  original  work ;  the  latter  contains 
an  epitome  of  the  work  abridged,  and 


i« 


feivwW^wU.^ 


i'N:^i:^^fe^'. 


104 


COMPOSITIOX  OF  MATTKll,  A. 


i 


< 


»»-f4 


H 


m-^; 


i 


'!? 


i 

f  ■ 

■ 

'9 

3 

1 

3 

"7 

■ 

K 

1 

k 

1 

H 

I 

a 

WHAT  rATRNTAIIt.B. 


cnnco'nii'ritly  cortvi'V^  iiubstnntlnlly  the 

HitliU'  kii()\vli'<l<;c.  Tlut  t'ol'iitrr  citliiiot 
•dopt  tlitt  iirrati^^'i'iiii'iit  of  the  wurks 
citrtl;  tho  liitli'i' iiitHt  ailo|it,  tlu<  iiraii^e- 
int'iit  III'  (|u>  work  al>i'tt|^<  il.   //>/(/.,  ait. 

G.  Till'  I'oriiicr  iiilViiij^os  tlm  copy- 
right, it'  iiiiittiT  trtuiscrihi'd,  whori  |)uli- 
llMheil,  nIi:iII  iiii|):iii'  thu  vahio  of  the 
ori;^iriaI  IxmiU;  ,"  liiir  aliridf^mciit,  ihoiigli 
it  limy  iiijiiru  tlio  ut-igiiial,  in  hiwt'iil. 
I/ntL,  Ml 4. 

0.  Ami  w  hilo  a  prior  compiler  can- 
not inoiiopiili/t!  wliat  waH  not  orij^inal 
with  liiiiisi'If,  iiiid  what  must  he  nearly 
iihMiticai  in  all  Hiich  works  as  diction- 
arii's,  gazetteers,  «fcc.,  in  a  like  subjeet, 
u  siil)se(pient  compiler  cannot  employ 
Ko  nnieh  of  a  prior  arrangement  and 
materials  as  to  hhow  a  substantial  in- 
vasion of  tlie  other,  and  not  character- 
ized by  enough  new  or  improved  to 
indicate  new  toil  and  talent.  ]\'if)/»  v. 
J\mtrs,  '2  Wood.  &.  iMiii.,  51!),  514.— 
WooDHLUY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1847. 


COMPOSTTTOX  OF  lilATTER. 
A.  What  Patentaulb 10 1 

B«   How  SHOULD  Bt:  SET  FORTH  IN   SPECI- 
FICATION'     105 

C.  Infuingkment  of  Patent  fob 19G 

A.  What  Patentable. 

1.  It  is  not  necessary  that  every  in- 
gredient, or  that  any  one  ingredient 
used  by  the  patentee  in  his  invention, 
should  be  new  or  unused  before  for  the 
purpose  intended.  The  true  question 
is  whether  the  combination  of  materials 
used  by  the  patentee  is  substantially 
new.  Hyany.  Goodwin^  3  Sumn.,  618. 
— Stoey,  J. ;  Mass.,  1839. 


2.  Kacli  of  th«'  Ingn'dientH  may  havo 
been  in  e\teiir«ive  and  common  iisr,  and 
some  uiay  havu  lu'en  ilNed  for  the  Nunio 
purpose,  but  if  they  have  never  boen 
comliim-tl  together  in  the  manne  slated 
in  the  patent,  !.ut  the  combination  1h 
new,  the  invention  of  the  combination 
is  patentable.     I/)i(l.,  filH. 

3.  The  patentee  is  not  limited  to  tho 
Name  precise  iiii;redieiitN  in  making  his 
compound.  It'  the  Hiime  purpose  can 
be  accomplished  by  the  Nulmtitution  in 
part  of  other  ingredients,  lie  can  extend 
his  patent  so  as  to  embrace  them  also, 
subject  to  the  risk  of  having  his  patent 
defeated  'f  cither  of  tho  original  or 
substituted  combinations  have  been 
known  or  UHcd  in  the  combiiiatiun. 
lOkf.,  621. 

4.  It  is  not  every  alteration  or  change 
in  tho  quantity  or  <piality  of  a  coinpo. 
ition  which,  will  entitle  a  person  to  a 
patent.  The  (piestioii  is  not  whetliur 
the  compositions  are  identical,  but,  are 
they  sulwtantially  the  same?  JStnat  v, 
iSiloer,  iJrightly,  100. — Uo(JEI{s,  J.; 
Pa.,  1840. 

5.  If  a  compound  is  made,  not  before 
known,  of  dilferent  ingredients,  it  is 
ground  for  a  patent,  not  for  the  thing 
constructed,  but  for  the  compouiuls  of 
which  made.  Jlotc/ikiss,  ICxrs.v.  Green- 
xoood,  4  McLean,  401. — McLka.v,  J.; 
Ohio,  1848. 

6.  There  is  a  wide  diflerence  between 
the  invention  of  a  new  method  or  pro- 
cess by  which  a  known  fabric,  itrodr.ct, 
or  manufacture  is  produced  in  a  lietter 
and  cheaj)er  way,  and  the  discovery  of 
a  new  compound,  substance,  or  nianii- 
facture  liaving  qualities  never  found  to 
exist  together  in  any  other  inatorial. 
Goodyear  v.  77/6  Itailroada,  2  Wall, 
Jr.,  300.— Grieu,  J. ;  N.  J.,  1853. 

7.  In  the  first  case  the  inventor  ca* 


COMPOSITION  OF  MA'ITKU,  A,  B. 


ItfS 


yfiAi  rATiirrABUi— -BOW  to  n  pncRtni). 


it'iti'iit  imiliii)^  hut  liiM  prfM'OMM,  niul  imt 
iiiit  cniiiiiositioti  of  iimtt«>r;  in  tlin  lut- 
t(<r  Ixith  :iri'  ii<>w  nml  orijLciiiiil,  iiikI  IhiiIi 
|i;itrriliil»l»',  not  MoviTiilly,  l»ut  iih  oiio 
dim'ovory  or  invention.     /AiV/.,  'M\\. 

8.  If  a  piitcntt'o  b«  thu  invonlnr  or 
discoverer  of  a  new  iniimifiiefuro  or 
coiiipoHitioii  of  nmttor  not  known  or 
iisL'il  by  ofhorN  boforo  liiH  (liHeovcry 
thereof,  hirt  franeluMO,  or  m>lo  ri^lit  lo 
UMO  iin<l  vend  to  otlierHto  li«'  lined,  is  tliu 
new  eoinposition  or  Hubstimrc  itwelf. 
The  jirodiH^t  iiiul  fhe  proeoss  eonHtitute 
one  di»»cov«ry.     Ihid.,  'W2, 

0.  Patents  !ire  fxi'imted  "to  promote 
vcieiiee  and  useful  arts."  Tliey  an*  not 
odious  ntonopoiies,  or  restrietions  on 
tlu'  rif^hts  of  tbc  public;  and  courts  are 
houml  to  fjirc  the  Hpeeifieation  a  liberal 
ronstruelion,  and  not  annul  its  benetits 
hv  formal  or  sulitlc  objections.  In  a 
patent  for  a  composition  of  matter,  if 
the  patontoe  has  set  forth  fully  the  ma- 
terials, tlieir  variouH  proportions  and 
the  processes  necessary  to  its  j)roduc- 
tiou,  ho  has  done  all  that  the  law  re- 
quires, and  sbouUl  be  entitled  to  its 
protection.     Ibid.,  .^0.1,  304. 

10.  Where  an  invention  was  described 
(IS  a  "process,"  but  the  description  of 
the  "manner  and  process  of  malting  the 
same"  showed  clearly  that  the  invention 
was  not  merely  an  improved  method  or 
process,  but  a  new  jiroduct,  fabric,  or 
maiuifactnre,  it  was  ludd  in  an  action 
for  infringement,  by  using  the  product, 
that  the  patentee  liad  a  riglit  to  prohibit 
the  sale  or  use  of  the  composition,  as 
tlio  product  and  process  Mere  both  new. 
Ibiif.,  .105. 

11.  It  is  no  ground  for  the  rejection 
of  !Ui  application  for  a  patent  for  a  com- 
position of  matter  that  the  thing  in- 
vented is  an  imitation  of  a  real  existing 
lubstance  or  material — as  an  artificial 


hotu'y.  If  tlu>  nrtitieial  i«  n  );ood  and 
wholi>!4ome  hiibstilufe  for  the  real,  and 
cati  lie  tna(b'  a. id  supplied  at  ft  cheaper 
rate,  then'  is  no  jjood  n-ason  why  it 
should  not  bu  deemed  n  new  and  useful 
inventioti.  Cifhin  tb  .Vnrfliff,  Hx 
pnrti\  MS.  (.\pp.  CaM.) — Muuhki.i.,  J.; 
I).  C,  1807. 

n.    How  TO   UK  HKT  KOKTII  IN   SlMXIFI" 
CATIOSf. 

1.  In  ft  patent  for  n  compot^itiuu  of 
matter,  the  specification  must  be  so  full 
and  clear  as  to  enalde  one  skilled  in  thu 
art  to  which  it  ajipertaiiis  to  compoutKl 
and  use  the  invention  without  niakin'f 
any  experiments  of  Ids  own.  Woody. 
Ihidirhdl,  5  How.,  5.— Tanev,  Ch.  J.; 
Sujt.  Ct.,  IH40. 

2.  Where  the  specification  of  a  new 
composition  of  matter  gives  oidy  the 
names  of  the  substances  to  be  ruixed 
togetlier,  without  stating  any  relative 
proportion,  o:  where  the  proportions 
are  stated  .'Hiiltiguously  or  vaguely,  tho 
patetit  is  void,  as  it  would  not  enai>lo 
any  one  to  compound  and  use  tho  in- 
vention witliout  experiment.     Ihid.,  5. 

.T.  But  where  tho  p.atente(i  gives  a 
certain  proportion  as  a  general  rule, 
which  on  the  face  of  tho  specilication 
seems  generally  applicable,  the  patent 
will  be  valid,  though  soiuc  small  diller- 
ence  in  the  proportions  may  be  occa- 
sionally required,  according  to  the  <pial- 
ity  of  the  materials  made  use  of.  Ifiid., 
5. 

4.  In  most  compositions  of  matter, 
some  small  difference  in  the  proportions 
must  occasionally  be  required,  since 
the  ingredients  proposed  to  be  com- 
pounded must  sometimes  be  in  somo 
degree  superior  or  inferior  to  those 
most  commonly  used.     Ibid.,  5. 


"■< 


^^^^;smi 


i  Uii 


IM 


roMi'nsnrnN  ok  m aitkm.  fi,  » . 


mm  TO  MM  DiwHiitKit—iNrHiNiiKMrwr  nr  I'^trmt  rot. 


'■^ 


hi 


'"^ 


If ; 


||  1, 


ft.  Wlii'ti  tliP  Hpi'rlrtcntlnM  nfn  |mtn«t 
Itoiii'Mlly  HclH  t'nrlli  llii>  |ii'iii>i'NM  itiiii  iihmIi' 

nt'    «'i)|ll|lill|||i|il|^    Ik     IKMV     IIMil     VIllllllMl' 

rnMi|toHiiii)n  ot*  iniitlor,  coiirlM  Hlmiilil 
f;i\i<  it  II  lihi'i'iit  ritiMlnit'litiii,  If  ilii< 
pali'iiItT  liiiM  hi't  t'nrtli  t'lillv  till'  nii'tlniiilN, 
llifir  vtiiiiiiiM  |iro|Mirtii>nM,  iiml  llio  pro- 
(•i<M<<i>N  iii'OCNMiiry  to  till*  pruiliit'liiiii  nf 
M.irh  fMin|)<isiiioii,  lii<  Iimm  iIdiio  nil  lli.'il 
tlif  liiw  ri'<|iiirfM.  (iititihjiin  v.  liiiit- 
iiuhf,  '.'  Willi,  .If.,  :iii:i,  :itu.  (Juiku, 
J.;  N.  J.,  IHrt.'l. 

•),  ir  tlu»  H|»<'ritl<'iili<)H  hoiicMtly  HftM 
fiMfli  lilt"  mifiirr  ntnf  </in;<fn  of  tlu'  in- 
vciilidh,  it  is  Miilliciciit.      i/iitf.,  ;HI|. 

7.  Tho  H|H<<Mliciitioti  niiiMt  bo  looki'd 
to  lor  tlii>  I'll!!  tlim'liiNiiro  of  ilii>  iliMi'ov- 
»ry,  iiinl   tin'  I'xtcnt   ol'  tlu'   invi>n(or'N 

I'l.lillH.       Tho    CXil'Ilt     of   lIlO     |llllOlltco'K 

riiilit  iniiHt  Im>  jiiili;oil  iVnm  tlio  wliolo 
itixtniiiu'iit  takoii  to^othor,  iiikI  not 
iVoiii   any   oiio   Hciitotuv.      /fihf.,    Mtll, 

H,  In  piitontK  for  coinplii-iitiMl  inn- 
oliiiioH,  it  in  cMMMitiiilly  propor  tliiit  tlu' 
upocilication  hIiouM  cloarly  net  forth 
what  the  pat.>iit«>t<  ailinits  to  hooM,  and 
MJial  ho  olaiins  to  ho  of  his  iiivi'iition. 
I'nit  in  aiioinaloiiH  cason,  when  ii  prod- 
wct  has  hoon  <li»oovor«Ml,  nnd  tho  pv<>- 
rosH  of  conipomuliiij;  it  or  ohlainin«»  it 
is  (lisclosoti,  tho  palcntoo  1»y  statint;  liis 
(lisi'ovoiy  and  rovcaliiit:  his  procosH  Ims 
dono  all  that  ho  i;»  rcquirod  to  do  or 
can  do.  Tho  o.-ircfiil  soparation  of  now 
from  old,  tho  litniiation  of  olaims  to 
l^artioular  jvirts  or  oonihinations,  oaiuiot 
1)0  roipiirod  as  .1  substantial  part  of  the 
spooifioation.     rf)i(7.,  365. 

C    iNFmNQEMENT  OF  PaTKJH"  FOR. 

1 .  The  nsinpj  or  vending  of  ti  patented 
composition  of  m.itter  is  a  violation  of 
the  right  of  the  proi>riotor.      W/ii'fe- 


mnrt  V,  Cuttrr,   1  flnll.,  4!l.1.--fhoiiT, 
.1.;  MiiHM.,  iMi.t. 

'I.  Tho  Hiibr*tiliitioii  in  pliii'o  of  iini< 
I'loiiiriit  ill  n  CniiipiiMltion  of  nillttor  of 
a  inoro  known  i'<piivalriil  is  tin  iiifrini>ii. 
iiii'iit,  but  tho  piitonloo  is  not  oblii;)>d 
to  onibriioo  oipii\iiloiit*«  in  hit  oliiiiii,  miil 
if  tho  Npooilloiiiinii  and  oliiini  oxprcMoly 
di'i'laro  that  niioIi  iMpiivalont  is  oiniii  Inl 
iVoni  tho  patmtoo's  invontioii,  thru  itH 
iiKo  Ih  not  an  infi'iii^;)*niont.  Itiftim  v. 
/'brr,  I  Curt., '2t».'l.--('lnriiK,  J.;  IMiism, 

:i.  WIh'io  tho  old  niolhod  of  inakiii<^ 
tViotion  inati'hoN  was,  to  nsr  a  rumpo. 
sitioii  of  phoi<phoriiM,  ohiorato  of  pola'^li, 
Miiiphiiret  of  antimony  mid  ghio,  and 
tho  invoiition  of  a  |>atontoo  '•otiNiHttil  in 
rojoctiii^x  till'  ohlor.  to  of  potash  ami 
siilphiirot  of  antimony,  and  Hiihsiiintin^ 
in  thoir  place  chalk  or  Honio  earthy  mat- 
tor,  and  his  claim  was  "the  iisiii^  n 
(oniposition  of  phosphorus  and  carlliy 
material  and  a  ^liitiiioiis  snbstaiu*', 
without  tho  iddition  of  chlorate  of 
potash  or  of  any  highly  coiubiisiih1i< 
material,^*  and  tho  dofoudant  iisod  a 
composition  consisting  of  phosphorus, 
sulphurct  of  antimony  and  ghu>,  omit- 
ting  only  the  chlorate  of  potash,  //</</, 
that  tho  composition  used  by  the  dc- 
fetulant  was  no|  an  infringement  of  tlic 
jilaintiirs  patent,  as  his  claim  expressly 
excluded  the  composition  tised  by  the 
defendant,     rind.,  :J02-n04. 

■1.  Where  a  |)atent  was  for  an  im- 
provement in  making  friction  matchos, 
and  the  invention  w.is  not  for  a  com- 
pomid  of  new  ingredients,  but  simjily 
and  only  n  m>w  combination  of  old 
materials  before  in  use  for  that  purpose, 
consisting  of  a  composition  formed  of 
phospliorus  with  the  earthy  materi:il 
and  glutinous  subst.inco  only,  without 
chlorate  of  potash  or  other  like  objeo 


y^^^^k 


CONCJIIKSS. 


197 


l.*OIIII.*H\  K  riiw»,it  iw   hhnvr I'tTBNIil 


iiiiniil»l)>  lii)|ri*i|iciil,  /A/'/,llitUiiiiy|ii<rMiin 
iiiij^lit  ii'4«<  luiy  one,  or  alt  tli<<  riiJih'riiilM 
t'iiriiiii*;{  tiitt  ruiii|Mmllii)ti,  proviih'tl  lie 
itooN  not  iiHit  lliuiii  ill  tliu  coinliiiiiiiinii 
|i;kl<'riti<<i,  iir  lliiit  itiiy  miii  iiii^lit  iih  > 
tlii'iii  ill  **oiiilMii:klii)ii  Willi  rlilitriitii  of 
liotii^li  UM  llii'y  WITH  rortiHM'ly  iim*'i|. 
//yr/m  V.  /'<li/i/,  '-•  lllulihr,  ft'iJJ,  fiJI. 
ruiiNiiNH,  .1.;  \  I.,  ina:i. 

r>,    lliil  11  iiiiTt^  coloniMo  <lilTi'r(Min>  iir 

|lli;{lll      VtU'ilktilMI      of      III))      t'lilllliillillinll 

woo'il  not  ttx(ttii|il  II  |M>rNoii  from  tin' 

clillfl,'  •  of  llllViliHi'liH'lil.      //*/«/.,  tt'2t. 

II.  All  ii>lViii;^'itiiii'iit  rnriHiHls  ill  iniikiii^' 
II  i-oiii|MMiii>l  HiiliHliititiiilly  ill  tlio  Kitiiit' 
iiioiK*  tiM  tlial  tor  wliifli  tlit*  |iut«Mil  liiis 
Ih'oii  '  '  '••iiiftj.  Attun  V.  Iliinti,\  II 
McLou.    .III.-  M<  Lma.n,  .f.;  Ohio,  iMrtri. 

7.  WIhtm  tlif  iiii^ri'tiiriilK  in  i\  (;oiii- 
|ioiiiiil  arc  till)  Maiiic,  aii<l  llio  rliaii^c  is 
iiM'i'fiy  ill  lliii  iiiodtt  orroiiiltiuiti;{  tlidiii, 
III-  tlu'i'f  in  II  Hiili^tiliilo  of  uiu)  iiii;n>ili- 
"iit  liaviii;^  lint  naiiin  i|ii  tiitirs  and  lo-n- 
(liM'tii;^  till!  haiin-  i'chiiIi,  tlieru  i.s  u..  in- 
triii;;i*iii«>iit.     Ihiil,^  \\\'>\. 

H.  Wln-ro  a  pati'iit,  in  ^raiitrd  for  a 
('oin|iositioii  of  Kfvcral  iiii^rcdiciilM,  il 
t'ovrrs  and  fmltraccs  kimwii  ciinivalfnls 
of  I'acli  of"  the  iii;^n'diriilM.  Mattltvinn 
\.S/c'itis,  MS. — .loNKrt,  J.;  Ala.,  1800. 

0.  All  «>i|iiivalt'iit  of  any  Hiiltstaiicit 
h  aiiotlicr  Hulistaiico  having  Niinilar 
j)ro|torli('s,  and  producing;  Hulistaiilially 
tilt'  Haiiu)  I'rtbct.  Wlu'tliL'r  ono  Hub- 
htaiice  is  an  t-qnivalcut  of  another  is  a 
([iicMtioii  for  tho  jury  from  the  evidence. 
Ihid. 


CONGRESS. 

1.  Tlio  power  of  Conj^ress,  under  the 
8th  Bcction  of  the  Constitution,  "  in  se- 
curing to  authurH  and  inventors  the  ex- 


rtiiNU t'  rlulit  to  llii'li'  ri><«| tivii  M  rillngi 

ainl  iliM-oxiii's"  it  liirtili'd  to  uiithori 
and  iiivt'iitori  only,  nnd  tlocn  not  vm- 
liritiut  intrmliiiiifn  who  am  not  thn 
uiillior>t  and  invintor'^.  /.initnjKtnn  v, 
\'iin  Inyin,  U  John.,  :.Hi),  MKl,  r.M'2.— 
Vaiks,  'riiouihoN,  und  Kk.mi,  JJ.  ; 
N.  v.,  iHli. 

'i.  Iliit  Hiu'h  t'laifo  ilooH  not  provnnt 
the  Ki'Vcral  nlali's  IVoi.i  oxfrcinin;^  the 
powi  r  of  f.('«'iiiinv,'  to  purMoiiN  inliodii''' 
ili^  iiNrfnl  invt'litioiiH  the  cxrliiHive  Ih>M> 
I'iitH  of  HiM-h  iiivmilonM  for  a  liniiti'd 
period.      ////«/.,  r.llO,  r.lKl,  TtH'i. 

;i.  TIki  powtr  of  CJon^rimM  is  only 
to  aMciTtain  and  delliie  the  ri^hlH  of 
property  in  the  invention  or  work;  it 
dot'H  not  extend  to  i'e;;iilaliii^  the  uhu 
of  it.  This  irt  exeliiHively  of  local  eoj^. 
\\\/M\iw.  Hiieli  property,  like  every 
other  HpeiaeH  of  property,  iiiiiHt  he  iiNed 
ainl  enjoyed  H'ithin  eaeliNtate  aecnirdin^ 
to  the  l:iws  oi"  eai'li  state.      ////(/.,  r>H|. 

■1.  ('(.n;^reMS  ;nay  renew  a  patent,  or 
decline  to  do  ho.  The  ^raiit  of  an  ex- 
cliisivu  privilege  to  an  inventor  for  u 
limited  time  does  not  imply  a  hiiidin^ 
and  irrevocalile  contract  with  the  peo- 
lile,  that  at  the  expiration  of  the  period 
the  invention  nIiiiII  liecotne  their  prop* 
erty.  Kminn  v,  /i'//o//,  I'et.,  C.  C,  3.17. 
WAHiiisfiToN,  J.;  I'a.,  1HU5. 

T).  IJiit  even  if  such  wuh  the  (;aso, 
there  iH  nothin<r  in  thii  Constitution  of 
the  United  StateH  which  forbids  Con- 
jjjress  to  pass  laws  violating  tin;  ol)iif.;a- 
tionsof  eontraets,  though  such  a  power 
is  deni(Ml  to  tho  stuteii  individually. 
J  hid.,  337. 

0.  Whether  Congress  c.in  decich;  the 
fait  that  an  indiviilual  is  i.n  inventor  or 
author,  without  leaving  the  (juestion  of 
invention,  «&c.,  open  to  investigation, 
the  courts  will  never  presume  Congress 
to  have  decided  that  (juestion  in  a  gen- 


^^^^ 


W>^ 


'•^C, 


1^. 


•^"■mS 


W^ 


J  wt 


;^ 


^wwwt 


'^^1 


L  k  il 


9m^ 


^p^i 


■^ 


^^•:kW| 


•W^ 


^4 


r.l 


W\ 


V)*.^' 


>*- 


1U8 


CONC.llKSS. 


•-y^ 


llr 


R!  !;■* 


Hi 
11.11 


LKaiHLATIVB   I'OWKU  OK,    IN  BKSPIifl'  TO   fATENTS. 


eral    act,  tlio  V)ril8  of  w!iii;h  do  not   right  fo  tnodity,  at  thoir  iik-asiiri',  tlio 
rt-.idi'r  siu'h  a  ('('nsiiiu'tioii  unavuidabU'.   laws  ri-spvcliiig  j)atv'iits,  so  Inat  tlu-y  do 


J:,'cinis    V.  J'Aitoit,    3    Wheat.,    51. J. 
Maks.'.ux,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  <^t.,  1818. 

7.  A  I'l-iviito  ai't  of  C'oiigf  H8  author- 
iziiii;  tho  issue  of  a  ])ati.'nt  to  iv\  iiui-ii- 
tor  is  to  ho  oo'-sidurt'd  an  oiigiafiod  on 
tho  gcnori!'  acts  for  the  promotion  of 
the  usefid  arts,  and  sucii  :;  patent  is 
issued  in  pursnanee  of  both.  Jf)iil,,5l8. 

8.  Tho  i»o\ver  of  Coti^ress  as  to 
grantitiLj  patents  is  general,  and  it  rests 
in  tho  Houiul  discretion  of  Congress  to 
sav  wlien  and  for  what  length  of  time 
and  iindi'r  what  eircmnstances  a  patent 
for  an  invention  shall  he  granted.  There 
is  no  restriction  which  limits  the  power 
of  Congress  to  cases  where  tlio  inven- 
tion has  not  been  known  or  used  by  tlie 
public.     All  that  is  reipiired  is,  that  the 

)atentee  should  be  the  inventor.  Jild/i- 
chard  v.  /Spnttpie,  3  Sumn.,  541. — Sto- 
ry, J.;  Mass.,  18:19. 

9.  Therefore  the  act  of  Congress  (act 
of  1839,  eh.  It),  granting  a  patent  to 
Thomas  ]»lanchard,  is  not  nneonstitu- 
tional  because  it  operates  retrospective- 
ly to  give  a  patent  for  an  invention, 
■which,  though  made  by  ♦lie  patentee, 
was  ii.  public  use  and  enjoyed  by  the 
community  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  tho  act.     Ibid,  541. 

10.  An  .•'ict  of  Congress  passed  in 
general  terms  ought  to  be  so  const  rned, 
if  it  nnvy,  as  to  be  deemed  a  just  exer- 
cise of  constitutional  authority,  and  not 
only  so,  but  it  ought  to  be  construed 
not  to  opemto  retrospectively,  or  ex 
post  facto,  unless  liiat  construction  is 
unavoidable.     Ibid.,  542. 

11.  The  power  of  Congress  to  legis- 
late upon  the  subject  of  patents  is  plen- 
ary by  the  terms  of  the  Constitution, 
and  as  there  are  no  restraints  on  its  ex- 
ercise, there  can  be  no  limitation  of  their 


not  takeaway  tlio  rights  of  properly  in 
existing  patents.  JlriUunt  v.  Jui/ii/n. 
la»<f,  1  How.,  200. — JULmviN,  J. ;  Siip. 
C(.,  184;i. 

I'J.  It  is  no  objection  to  the  validity 
of  the  laws  resj)eeting patents,  thiit  siuii 
laws  are  retrospective  in  their  operation. 
Ibid.,  200. 

1  '.\.  A  reservation  in  favor  of  assignees 
in  an  act  of  Congress  extending  a  patent, 
will  not  nnikc  tho  act  unconstitutional, 
on  the  ground  that  Congress  is  only 
anthori/.eil  to  confer  jirivilegos  on  inren- 
tors.  The  ))owor  of  Congress  to  ro- 
ser\  0  rights  air  ivileges  to  assignees, 
is  incidental  to  .  j  general  power  cou- 
f'M'red  to  iiromote  tho  progress  of  tho 
useful  arts.  lildiic/ianrn  Giin-jStock 
Co.  V.  M'(tnicr,  I  IMatchf.,  271,  270.— 
Nki-son,  J.;  Ct.,  1840. 

14.  Congress  nuiy,  by  special  net, 
exteml  a  jmtent  even  after  the  i  .vpiratioii 
of  the  origin:.!  patent.     Ibid., '274,  270. 

15.  Congress  has  tho  constitutional 
right  to  confer  a  new  and  further  term 
on  tho  patentee,  and  that  even  after  the 
expiration  of  the  iirst.  lilanchanl  v. 
Ilaynis,  0  West.  Law  Jour.  83. — 
WooimuiiY,  J.;  N.  II.,  1848. 

10.  Congress  has  the  constitutional 
power  to  grant  an  extension  of  a  pat- 
ent after  it  has  been  once  extendetl  un- 
der §  1 8  of  the  act  of  1 830.  Bloomer  v. 
StoUey,  5  AleLean,  100-102. — McLkan, 
J,  ;  Ohio,  1850. 

17.  Tho  power  of  Congress  was  not 
exhausted  in  this  respect  by  the  act  of 
1830.  A  legislative  act  docs  not  l)ind 
a  s'ibsequent  legishiture.     Ibid.,  101. 

18.  Congress  may  exercise  its  consti- 
tutional power  as  to  granting  rights  to 
inventors  by  special  grants,  or  other- 
wise by  a  general  sj-stem.     Ibid.,  101. 


CONSIl)Kl{ATK)N  ON  SALK  OK  I'ATKNTS. 


109 


>VIIHN  MAY   IIH  lUl'UACUieU,   OH  UKOOVKIIKU  UACK. 


10.  Tlicro  is  no  iiukIo  by  wliu-h  a  li'jj- 
isliitivo  JU't  r:ui  \h>.  iniulo  invpoalublo, 
oxci'j.l  it  iisHUino  lliu  roriii  uiiil  substance 
of  ii  I'untnift.  IJut,  tlu)nj4li  no  stato  can 
impair  tho  obligations  of  a  coutnu't, 
this  inhibition  dot's  not  apply  to  the 
gcni'ial  government.     Ibid.,  101,  105. 

'JO.  A  special  act  in  relation  to  any 
particular  patent,  is  to  bo  considereil  as 
I'ligraftcil  upon  the  general  acts  relating 
to  i)atents ;  they  are  statutes  in  pari 
initUria,  anil  all  relate  to  the  same  sub- 
ject, aiul  nr.ist  bo  construed  together. 
JHooiiicr  V.  McQi<ewa/i,  14  How.,  648, 
650.— Tanky,  Cii.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1H5'_>. 

21.  Under  the  fifth  anu>ndment  of  tiie 
constitution,  declaring  that  no  person 
shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  and 
property  without  duo  process  of  law. 
Congress  would  have  no  right  to  pass 
nu  act  depriving  purchasers  of  a  pat- 
ented article  of  the  right  to  use  such 
article.  8u(.'h  an  act  could  not  bo  re- 
garded as  duo  process  of  law.  IbhI., 
56;J. 

2'2.  Under  tho  authority  conferred 
upon  Congress,  by  .article  first,  §  8th  of 
the  constitution,  to  promote  tho  jtrogress 
of  pcienco  and  tho  useful  arts,  by  secu- 
rhig  to  inventors  tlio  excliLsivo  right  to 
their  inventions,  it  does  not  follow  that 
Congress  may  auihorize  an  inventor  to 
recall  rights  which  ho  has  granted  to 
others ;  or  reinvest  him  with  rights  of 
property,  which  ho  liad  before  convoyed 
for  a  valuable  consideration.  Ibid., 
653. 


CONSIDERATION^  ON  SALE  OF 
PATENTS. 

1.  A  promissory  note  given  for  an  in- 
terest iu  a  patent-right,  which  was  not 


valid,  and  had  been  fraudulently  ob- 
tained,  the  patentee  knowing  at  the  tiino 
of  his  application  that  he  was  not  tho 
true  inventor,  is  void  as  being  without 
consideration,  and  oven  though  certain 
things  had  been  furnished  by  the  as- 
signor, and  he  had  given  instruction 
in  the  art  described  in  the  patent.  JUisa 
V.  Neijim^H  Mass.,  51. — SKiHiwicK,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1811. 

'J,  Where  the  title  to  a  patent  passes, 
tho  consideration  mont>y,  if  paid,  cannot 
bo  recovered  back,  unless  the  contract 
lias  been  rescinded,  or  was  accompanied 
by  fraud,  or  with  an  express  warran- 
ty, not  fullilled.  Case  v.  J/orei/,  1  N. 
IIan>p.,  350. — Woodhuuy,  J.;  N.  II., 
1818. 

3.  Though  tho  title  to  a  patent  fails, 
tho  purchaser  caimot  recover  back  tho 
consideration  paid,  if  any  benefits  havo 
been  derived  from  the  use  of  tho  pat- 
ent, providcvl  such  benefits  were  ecjuiv- 
aleiit,  and  the  p  irchaser  Avas  not  liable 
for  them  to  any  prior  patentee.  Hold- 
en  v.  Curtis,  '2  N.  llainp.,  05. — \Vood- 
nuuY,  J.;  N.  II.,  1819. 

4.  It  seems  a  party  would  not  bo 
bound  by  tho  j)urchaso  of  a  patent- 
right,  whicli  he  had  supposed  to  bo 
valid,  nhen  in  fact  it  was  invalid ;  but 
such  misconception  cannot  bo  taken  ad- 
vantag  J  of  on  a  plea  of  want  of  consid- 
eration cou{)lod  with  fraud,  but  tho 
ecpiity  should  bo  spread  ui)on  the  record. 
JMlas  wHays,  5  Serg.  &  I{awle,439- 
442.— Giusox,  J. ;  Pa.,  1819. 

5.  If  a  patentee  include  in  his  j)at- 
ent,  along  with  his  own  invention,  tho 
invention  of  another  ]»erson  previously 
patented,  and  sell  the  whole  to  a  persoa 
ignorant  of  these  facts  and  who  supposed 
he  was  buying  an  exclusive  right  to  tho 
whole,  the  sale  is  a  fraud  upon  such 
person,  anil  the  vendor  cannot  recover 


>t^M{ 


^1 


"^^w.w 


4 


Wiiwri 


Lii  i 


J 


w 


200 


CONSIDKUATIOX  ON  SALE  OF  PATENTS. 


r 


WIIKN  IIAY   lilt!   IMI'KACIIKD,   OH   KKCOVKUKI)   HACK. 


J-        J 


If!  '*«H 

i 


!V  note  givi'ii  for  the  consideration  of  the 
pureliHse.  Turner  v.  Johm'on^  2  (/ra., 
C.  C,  287.— CitANcii,  J.;  D.  C,  1822. 

0.  If  a  party  sell  an  interest  in  apat- 
cnt-rij^lit,  making  representations  that 
are  ecpiivalent  to  a  Avarranty  that  tlie 
invention  is  of  vahie,  but  the  title  is 
passed  by  an  ordinary  bill  of  sale  or  as- 
sij^nincnt,  which  contains  no  words  of 
<;uariiiity,  the  purchaser  cannot  go  be- 
liiiul  such  assignment,  and  j)rove  repre- 
sentations and  assertions  previous  to  the 
execution  of  the  assigmnent,  and  thus 
avoid  payment ;  the  presumption  of  law 
being  that  the  writing  contains  the 
whole  contract.  Van,  Ostraiidv.  Itckl, 
1  Wend.,  432.— Savagk,  Ch.  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1828. 

7.  It  may  be  made  a  defence  to  an  ac- 
tion on  a  note  given  in  consideration  of 
the  sale  of  a  i)atent,  that  the  invention, 
if  not  usi'less,  is  of  far  less  value  than 
it  wtls  represented  to  be  by  the  ven- 
dor at  the  time  of  sale,  liurnham  v. 
Brcicstcr,  1  Verm.,  90. — IIutciiinson, 
J.;  Vt.,  1828. 

8.  In  an  action  on  a  promissory  note, 
given  for  the  pnrch.ase  of  a  patent-right, 
it  is  not  a  good  defence  under  the  i)lea 
of  non  assuwjysit,  that  the  invention 
was  of  less  value  than  it  had  been  rep- 
resented, or  that  the  vendor  had  falsely 
represented  that  another  party  had  of- 
fered large  sums  for  the  right  to  use 
the  patent.  WiUiivns  v.  Jlicks,  2  Verm., 
40,  42.— Paddock,  J.;  Vt.,  1829. 

9.  An  assignee  of  a  patent  sold  the 
same,  and  at  the  time  evhibited  a  ma- 
chine which  he  suppose  was  made  ac- 
cording to  such  patent  lut  which  was 
afterward  found  to  be  different  from 
that  patented  and  described  in  the  spe- 
cification. Held,  as  the  whole  transac- 
tion was  one  founded  on  a  mistake,  that 
the  deed  of  assignment,  the  notes  given. 


an<l  the  ■tgreemcnt  made  between  the 
parties,  should  bo  delivered  up  and  can- 
celled ;  and  that  the  jjurchaser  was  not 
entitled  to  recover  any  damage  which 
he  had  sustained  in  conseipiencte  of  the 
purchase ;  but  if  the  vendor  had  re- 
(Reived  any  thing  under  the  ;igri'eiiu'iit, 
he  might  be  called  u[)on  to  refinul  that 
so  received.  Jixmdl  v.  Jewett,  2  Paige, 
140,  147.— W^VLWoimi,  Chan.;  N.  Y., 
1830. 

1 0.  Where  a  party  sold  and  conveyed 
certain  machines,  a  clapboard  and  shin- 
gle machine,  and  also  the  "])atent-right" 
for  a  certain  territory.  Held,  that  such 
agreement  must  be  construed  to  mean 
a  conveyance  of  the  patents  for  both 
such  machines,  and  that  as  such  party 
did  not  own  any  patent  for  the  clap- 
board machine,  that  nothhig])assed  hy 
the  conveyance,  and  that  the  vender 
w.as  liable  to  refund  the  consideration 
paid.  Judkins  v.  Earl,  1  Greenl.,  13, 
— Pauuis,  J.;  3Ie.,  1830. 

11.  In  an  action  to  recover  on  certain 
notes  given  in  consideration  for  a  pat- 
ented machine,  Avhich  was  shown  to  he 
worthless,  and  an  infringement  uj)on  a 
patent-right  granted  to  another.  JIdd, 
that  no  recovery  could  be  had  on  such 
notes,  as  there  was  no  good  considera- 
tion therefor.  Peck  v.  Far)'i)ujUm,  9 
Wend.,  44.— Savage,  Ch.  J.;  N.  Y., 
1832. 

12.  A  promissory  note  given  for  the 
purchase  of  an  interest  in  a  patent,  is 
without  consideration  if  the  patent  is 
void,  and  notwithstanding  the  seller 
covenanted  that  he  had  good  right  to 
sell  and  convey,  and  th.at  he  would  war- 
rant the  same  against  all  parties,  such 
covenant  will  not  constitute  a  valid  con- 
sideration. Dickinson  v.  Hall,  14  Pick., 
220.— Shaw,  Ch.  J.;  Mass.,  1833. 

13.  Nor  will  it  make  any  diflercnce 


^..•t  •-  *v 


n3 


CONSIDKllATION  OX  SALK  OF  I'ATKXTS.  201 


WII|!:N   may   IIK   IMrKACIIBU,   on   IIKCOVKUKI)   uaok. 


that  tlio  Hcllcr,  ut  tho  time  of  salo,  Itc- 
licvoJ  that  tlio  jKiteiit  was  valid.    Jbicl.y 

14.  A  useless  patent-right  is  no  con- 
siiloifttioii  for  a  proiniso  to  pay.  Mtllis 
V.  Griffith,  Wright,  303.— Wiugiit,  J. ; 
Oliio,  18!);«. 

15.  Hut  it  is  no  defence  to  a  note 
given  for  tho  pnrchase  of  a  patent,  that 
the  ptuThaser  has  not  realized  as  niueh 
therefrom  as  he  expected.     Ibid.,  noo. 

10.  The  Tuakcr  of  a  negotiable  note, 
appearing  on  its  face  to  have  been  given 
in  consideration  of  a  transfer  of  a  pat- 
ent-right, which  proved  to  be  of  no 
value,  cannot  set  np  the  defence  of  a 
want  of  consideration  to  an  action  by  a 
honafide  indorsor.  Goddard  v.  Ly- 
mm,  U  Pick.,  270. — Wildk,  J. ;  Mass., 
1833. 

17.  And  the  fact  that  it  was  indorsed 
"  at  the  risk  and  costs"  of  the  indorsees 
makos  no  difference  in  this  respect. 
Such  indorsement  will  bo  considered  as 
having  refisrence  to  the  j)0!ssiblo  insol- 
vency of  tho  maker,  and  will  not  au- 
thorize a  jury  to  infer  that  the  indorsee 
had  any  prior  knowledge  that  tho  pat- 
ent-right was  void,  or  that  there  was 
any  reason  to  suspect  such  fact.  Ibid., 
270,271. 

18.  Where  a  note  was  given  in  pay- 
ment for  the  exclusive  right  to  use  a 
patent  within  a  certain  district,  it  is  a 
good  defence  to  an  action  on  such  note, 
on  the  ground  of  failure  of  considera- 
tion, that  the  patent  was  void,  by  reason 
of  non-compliance  with  the  provisions 
of  the  acts  of  Congress  authorizing  the 
Ijranting  of  patents.  Sari  v.  Page,  6 
N.  Ilamp.,  480. — Upham,  J.;  N.  II., 
1834. 

19.  To  enable  a  vendor  of  a  patent- 
right  to  recover  the  agreed  price,  he 
must  have  a  title  in  himself,  and  assign 


the  right  or  tender  it,  before  ho  can  sue 
for  it.  IJdmtnh  v.  Uit'/i(irdn,  Wright, 
597.— Lank,  J. ;  Ohio,  1H34. 

20.  In  an  action  to  recover  on  a  note 
given  in  purch.asc  for  an  alleged  patent- 
right.  Held,  the  thing  patented  not  be- 
ing new,  and  tl»e  specificiation  also  not 
clearly  distinguishing  what  was  new, 
that  the  patent  was  void,  and  that  noth- 
ing passed  to  tlio  purchaser,  and  there- 
fore that  there  was  no  consideration  for 
the  note.  Cross  v.  Huntley,  13  Wend., 
380.— Nei.sov,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1835. 

21.  A  plea,  that  the  consideration  of 
certain  notes  was  tho  sale  and  convey- 
ance of  a  certain  patent-right,  wliich 
the  payee  represented  and  warranted 
ho  was  the  true  and  lawful  owner  there- 
of, when  in  fact  ho  was  not,  sets  up  a 
good  defence  to  a  suit  to  recover  such 
notes.  Kernodle  v.  Grant,  4  lilackf., 
01.— Stkpiiens,  J.;  Ind.,  1835. 

22.  There  is  no  implied  warranty  in 
the  sale  of  a  patent.  The  vendor,  sell- 
ing in  good  faith,  is  not  responsible  for 
the  goodness  of  his  title,  beyond  tho 
extent  of  his  covenants.  Iliatt  v.  Two- 
mey,  1  Dev.  &  Bat.  Eq.,  317. — Daxiel, 
J.;  N".  C,  1830. 

23.  Under  the  act  of  1793  an  assign- 
ment of  a  patent  is  not  valid,  and  con- 
veys no  title  until  it  has  been  recorded. 
And  a  note  given  to  an  assignee,  whose 
assignment  has  not  been  so  recorded,  is 
without  consideration  and  void.  Hiff- 
ffi?is  v.  Strong,  4  Blackf.,  183. — Dewry, 
J.;  Ind.,  1830. 

24.  It  is  a  good  defence  to  an  action 
brought  to  recover  an  amount  agreed 
to  be  paid  for  an  interest  in  a  patent, 
that  the  patent  is  void  by  reason  of  its 
not  stating  clearly  the  character  and  ex- 
tent of  the  patentee's  invention,.  Davis 
V.  Bell,  8  N.  Harap.,  503. — Ricwabdsok, 
Ch.  J.;  N.  H.,  1837. 


^tfhbton 


'V^C 


7^^ 


1\^£ 


*%C>; 


wu 


-v;?^ 


■'/v. 


;^'W( 


w 


i'ilBW^i 


'Ww'^ 


^i 


■M  «(Ff  jC^!r**^  ■  »^r 


•i^^. 


.®i*».» 


^i*v:< 


'^cn. 


«WV' 


1}^ 


wwWk 


1^1 


flT 


^90^'%: 


WC'^^: '"■ 


"A 


202 


rONSIDKKATION  ON  SALK  OK  I'ATKNTS. 


WIIKN   MAV   UK  IMI'KAUIIKO,  Oil  UKUOVKKKU  HACK, 


2^K  Wlu'ic  iiuh's  liiitl  boon  j^ivi'H  for 
tlio  imicliasi'  «»l'  II  patoiit-ri^lit,  Miitl 
li:iil  bi'CM  piiiil  :init'r  tlic  piiivhascr  ii:i(l 
full  know  lodtxc  or  nu'iiiis  of  kiio\vIt'fj;t' 
of  all  tlu'  farts  in  ivlatinii  to  tlio  tratis- 
nctioii,  J/i/tf,  tlint  hiu-Ii  payiiu-iit.  was 
Volimtarv,  and  that  tluTi'  rould  not  he 
H  iTcovrry  hack  of  the  sum  paiil ;  al- 
1li«)ugli  tilt'  i»ui'cliasor  iniijlit  liavo  avoUl- 
vi\  |>ayiiu'Ml  of  tl\i' notes  for  want  of  oon- 
Kith-ralion,  aSVi /*<//.«»  v.  Ilnuf^  9  \'rrui., 
177.— Wiii-iAMs,  Ch.  .1.;  Vl.,  lH:t7. 

20.  In  an  action  of  assuniiisit  to  ro- 
covcr  ctMtain  notos  which  woro  the con- 
nideration  of  tJu'  sale  of  a  pati'iit-riirht, 
J/tfif,  as  the  specification  did  not  partic- 
ularly describe  the  whole  imiirovenient 
clainu'd,  Imt  only  a  jiartjthat  the  jiatent 
■was  voiil,  not  pro  tanto  as  to  the  part 
not  dcscrilu'd,  but  hi  toto,  and  formed 
no  consideration  for  the  notes,  and  there- 
l\>re  no  recovery  could  be  had.  Jlmd 
V.  Stivois,  19  Wend.,  4i;{. — Cowkn, 
J. ;  N.  Y.,  isns. 

27.  A  sold  to  H  the  ri2;ht  to  use  and 
vend  a  certain  machine  for  two  years, 
and  took  his  note  jmyablc  at  the  end  of 
that  time.  It  was  ajjfreed  that  if  li 
coidd  not  make  the  machine  jirolitable, 
lio  should  return  it  at  the  entl  of  the  two 
years,  with  any  avails  he  might  have  re- 
ceived, and  <;ive  up  the  assignment,  and 
A  should  give  up  his  note.  1>  made  a 
machine,  and  did  not  tind  it  profit  able, 
and  sold  it  to  a  third  party,  but  never 
otFered  to  return  it,  or  gave  notice  of 
his  want  of  success,  or  ottered  to  siu-- 
render  the  assigmnent.  Jftld,  in  an  ac- 
tion on  the  note,  that  the  question  of 
consideration  was  one  for  the  court,  .and 
that  B  not  having  complied  with  the 
t4?rms  of  his  agreement,  could  not  .avoid 
the  note.  Pottle  v.  Thotna^^  12  Conn., 
665,  .509,  572,  575. — Williams,  Ch.  J. ; 
Ct.,  1838. 


2H.  Tn  :ty  action  of  debt  on  a  bond, 
Ililtf,  that  it  was  adinissil)le  with  !i  p|(>;i 
of  in>n  cut j'di'finn  to  show  that  it  wiis 
without  coiisiderfttion,  aH  being  given 
for  the  assigmnent  of  a  right  to  use  and 
sell  a  certain  pjilont-right,  when  the 
vender  had  no  such  patent-right,  and 
had  no  jtowcr  to  sell  it.  McDoirtll  v. 
MvnJit/i^  \  Wharton,  JU-l. — CJuiso.v, 
Oh.  J.;  Pa.,  1H30. 

29.  If  .an  improvement  is  now  .ind 
valuable  at  the  time  of  s.ale,  the  coiisiil- 
eration  of  a  note  given  for  the  same 
camiot  1)0  impeached  by  showing  tli.'il 
subsequent  improvements  liave  render- 
ed such  invention  useless.  The  jiur- 
chaser  takes  tlie  risk  of  any  new  dis- 
covory  destroying  its  value.  Jfanium 
V.  Jlird,  22  Wend.,  116.— Uko^son,  J.; 
X.  v.,  iH;t9. 

ao.  Helief  in  equity  will  bo  aflbrded 
.against  the  payment  of  notes  given  for 
the  purchase  of  a  patent,  which  is  void; 
and  money  paid  tluTCon  m.iy  be  rv- 
covered  back.  Dorst  v.  Jh'ockinn/,  11 
Ohio,  471. — lU'cnAKi),  J.;  Ohio,  1S4'2. 

IM.  A  note  given  for  a  patcTit-right 
for  a  machine  that  is  not  new  or  useful, 
is  without  consideration,  and  void.  Jhin- 
bar  V.  Marden,  13  N.  Ilamp.,  317.— 
Woods,  J.;  N.  II.,  1842. 

32.  In  an  action  on  a  note  given  for 
a  patent-right,  tlic  plaintifV  cannot  re 
cover  if  the  invention  was  not  new  o; 
useful,  or  if  the  patent  conveyed  no 
rijjht  and  was  of  no  value,  .althouuli 
both  parties  acted  in  good  faith  in  gir- 
ing  .and  receiving  tho  note.  Gcvjcr  v. 
Cook,  3  Watts  &,  Serg.,  270.— Slr- 
CKANT,  J. ;  Ta.,  1842. 

33.  And  the  defendant  m.ay  shnv 
these  facts  thougli  the  note  is  a  scaled 
note,  and  has  been  given  for  a  balance 
due  on  a  former  note.     Ibid.,  270. 

34.  It  is  a  good  defence  to  an  acaon 


CONSIDKIIATION  ON  SALK  OK  I'ATKNTS. 


203 


WIIF.M  UkX  VK  lUI'RAOIIRD,   OR   HICOVKHKn   UACK. 


to  rcfoviT  on  nott'H  j^ivoii  on  tho  Half 
mill  convoyiUH'o  of  ii  icitcnf,  and  as  to 
wliifli  •'"'  Hi'llt'i"  <'laimt'<l  lo  ho  the  in- 
vi'iiloi"  and  owner,  tiTat  siuih  N('ll(!r  waw 
M»t  tlu'  I'll"''!  iii>'l  triu;  inventor.  MuUi- 
ken  V.  L<itc/nm,  7  IMackf.,  138. — Sul- 
livan, .1.;  IikI.,  IHtl. 

;),').  In  an  action  for  tho  ]>rico  of  a 
jiHtcnl  ri^^lit  woltl  williout  warranty  or 
liaiid,  iIh-  plaintilVis  ontitlod  to  rccovor 
if  tho  jiatont  ho  of  any  vahio.  Vainj/ian 
T.  l'ort<r.  111  Vorni.,  ao7,  iiVO.— Uki.- 
FiKi.n,  J.;  Vt.,  1844. 

.'to.  Whoro  an  action  is  on  a  j(..»niiso 
to  i»ay  a  certain  Hnni  for  th(!  aHsif^ninent 
of  a  jialent,  and  suiih  assij^innent  was 
tho  consideration    of  llie  promise,   tiu^ 
validity  of  tlio  patent  may  ho  imjteach- 
C(i,  a8  a  want  of  consi(U'ration  in  de- 
fonco  of  tho  claim  ;  hnt  Kudi  a  defence 
cannot  ho  resorted  to  when  tho  iiction 
is  on   a    sealed    inslrnment,   or    wlien 
aiiotlicr  implied  covenant  of  tho  plain- 
tiff was   tlio   real   consideration,   upon 
which  implied  covenant  tho  defendant 
would  have  a  remedy  if  he  has  sustain- 
ed any  damage,  or  wlien  tho  defend.'ints 
have  received  tho  proceeds  from  tlie 
articles  sold,  to  recover  tlio  agreed  pro- 
portion of  which  tho  action  is  brought. 
]Yildir  V.  Adams,   2  Wood.  &  Min., 
331, 3;i2. — WoounuKY,  J. ;  Mass.,  184G. 
37.  A  patentee  assigned  liis  patent 
and  received  in  payment  certain  bonds, 
aud  gave  a  covenant  by  wldch  ho  guar- 
anteed  that  he   had   good   right   and 
title  to  his  letters  patent,  .and  that  if 
any  one  should  establish  a  lawful  right 
to  the  invention  then  the  said  bonds 
should  be  null  and  void.     Held,  in  a 
suit  on  the  bonds,  th.at  the  obligors  could 
not  set  up  the  validity  of  the  patent 
until  that  question  had  been  settled  else- 
where.    Hall  V.  Murn/,  10  Penn.,  113. 
RoGEBs,  J. ;  Pa.,  1848. 


3H.  It  iH  not  a  good  ditfencu  to  :in 
action  on  i>romiHsory  notes  given  for 
tiie  purchase  of  a  patent,  that  tho  con- 
sideration exceeds  the  valin;  of  tho  ar- 
ticle. The  consideration  may  indotinitely 
exceed  tho  value  of  tho  thing  for  which 
it  is  promised,  and  still  the  bargain 
Ht.and.  JIardeati/  v.  /Smith,  3  Ind.,  41. 
— Pkickins,  J.;  Ind.,  iHril. 

39.  If  tho  patent,  however,  wan  rep- 
resent<Ml  of  greater  value  than  it  is,  this 
m.ay  perhaps  be  set  up  in  mitigation  of 
damages.     J/ud.,4l. 

40.  Where,  on  tho  sale  of  an  interest 
in  letters  patent,  the  purchaser  had  tho 
privilege'  after  tho  trial  of  the  improve- 
ment patentofl  for  a  speciliod  time,  if  it 
proved  useless  or  of  no  value  to  him,  to 
reassign  such  interest  and  receive  back 
tho  consid(M-ation ;  and  after  tho  expi- 
ration of  tlio  time  so  si»ecitied  a  reas- 
signment was  made  and  accepted  by 
the  vendees,  J/eld,  that  such  acceptance 
was  a  waiver  of  the  condition  rerpiir- 
iiig  a  trial  of  tho  patent,  and  entitled 
tho  purchaser  to  a  return  of  the  consid- 
eration. YoHiKj  V.  Hunter,  2  Sold,, 
208.— Watson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

41.  In  an  action  on  a  bond  given  on 
tho  purchase  of  a  patent,  in  which  bond 
tho  party  does  not  admit  the  existence 
of  tho  jiatent,  or  of  the  right  of  the 
party  to  sell  it,  which  would  estop  liim 
to  deny  those  facts,  it  may  bo  shown 
that  there  was  no  such  patent,  or  that 
it  was  invalid,  or  that  the  party  had  no 
right  to  sell  it.  Nye  v.  liaymond,  10 
111.,  154.— Catox,  J.;  111.,  1854. 

42.  And  where  tho  bond  was  given 
for  the  patent  and  other  property,  and 
does  not  show  at  what  sum  the  patent 
was  estimated,  the  contract  is  not  in- 
divisible, and  partial  failure  of  consid- 
eration may  be  shown.    Ibid.,  155. 

43.  If  the  assignee  of  a  patent  has 


W^'  ^;^'V4^Q 


mS^ 


""'■  h- 


-3  '*^!»' *<ii 


i•^^vyLl 


i  L 


ypp^w^l^C'' 


'■S^Mw-^%^: 


w* 


lm% 


204 


CONSIDKItATION  ON  SALK  OF  TATKNTS. 


^*%. 


i$^ 


''**W 


WIIKN   MAY   DS  lUI'EACUKD,    OR  tlECUVKUKI)  BACK. 


.(/ 


•lorivod  iKlvHiitaj^c's  from  it,  .-uid  then 
Ht't'ks  to  li:ivo  the  contract  of  assijrii- 
mc'iit  rt'SciiKk'il  for  fraud,  he  hIiouUI  uv  or 
that  till!  profits  reci'ivcJ  by  liim  wore 
BO  rect'ivod  prior  to  his  discovery  of  the 
fraud,  and  ho  should  return  or  otPir  to 
return  tho  consideration  receive  1  by 
him.  Uiltniinds  v.  Mi/crs^  1(J  111.,  212. 
— ScATES,  J. ;  111.,  1854. 

44.  The  i)atent  was  for  a  "  design  and 
configuration  of  ornaments,  forming  an 
oriiament.'il  design  for  a  Ilorological 
cradle,"  and  the  deed  of  sale  was  for 
a  Horological  cradle,  Jfeld,  that  the 
phraseology  did  not  import  that  there 
was  machinery  about  it,  and  did  not 
imply  that  the  principle,  machinery,  or 
mode  of  operatit)n  was  the  subject  of 
the  patent  Myers  v.  Turner,  17  111., 
181,  182.— Caton,  J,;  111.,  1855. 

45.  In  an  action  brought  upon  a 
promissory  note  given  for  the  purchase 
of  a  patent,  the  purchaser  is  precluded 
from  setting  lip  the  want  of  value  in  the 
inventi(m  if  lie  has  sohl  the  right  trans- 
ferred to  him  to  another  for  value. 
Tlioinas  V.  Quintanl,  5  Duer.,  82. — 
IIoFFMAX,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

40.  \\y  parting  Avith  the  patent  he 
has  disabled  himself  from  placing  the 
plaintiff,  by  restoring  tho  thing  trans- 
ferred, in  the  same  situation  he  was  in 
at  tiie  formation  of  the  contract.  Ibid., 
82. 

47.  The  assignment  of  an  interest  in 
a  25atont  granted  for  a  "design  for  a 
Ilorological  cradle"  is  a  sufficient  con- 
sideration to  enable  a  party  to  recover 
on  notes  given  therefor,  although  the 
invention  may  be  practically  of  little  or 
no  value.  Mi/ers  v.  2\irner,  17  111., 
181.  inidrtth  V.  Turner,  17  111.,  184. 
— Catox,  J. ;  111.,  1855. 

48.  Where  the  patent  assigned  is  re- 
ferred to  by  date,  it  may  be  presumed 


the  purch.'iscr  examined  it  for  hlmsi'lf. 
Tho  maxim  cuoeitt  emj)tor  would  apply. 
I /ml.,  181,  1H3. 

49.  In  a  suit  on  a  note  given  for  tho 
conveyance  of  a  patent-right,  proof 
that  such  patent  was  void  for  being  an 
infringement  of  r.  prior  patent  is  not 
admissible,  without  that  t'lU'.i  having 
been  determined  by  a  court  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction.  £lmcr  v.  I^itmel, 
40  Maine,  434. — Hick,  J.;  Me.,  1855. 

50.  A  note  given  for  a  patent  that  is 
void  by  reason  of  its  being  useless,  is 
without  consideration.  JoUiffe  v.  Col- 
lins, 21  Mo.,  343.— Suorr,  J.;  Ho., 
1855. 

51.  "Where  tho  consideration  of  a 
bond  was  tho  sale  of  a  patent-right  to 
make,  use,  and  vend  a  certain  mediciiic, 
represented  to  be  patented,  and  no  put- 
ent  had  been  ever  issued  for  such  mod- 
icinc,  Held,  that  tho  plea  of  no  consiil- 
oration  was  sustained  by  siu^h  proof, 
and  tliat  there  coidd  be  no  recovery  on 
the  bond.  Brown  v.  Wright,  17  Ark., 
34.— IIanlv,  J. ;  Ark.,  1850. 

52.  II.  i)urchased  of  B.  the  right  to 
construct  and  uso  an  alleged  patented 
machine,  and  covenanted  "to  receive 
the  said  right  as  good  and  available  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  and  tliat  tho 
same  and  the  transfer  shall  not  be  li.ible 
to  any  objection  for  any  supposed  de- 
fect in,  or  objection  to  the  said  letters 
patent,  if  such  supposed  defect  or  ol)- 

jection  should  at  any  time  arise."  Udd^ 
that  the  vendor  in  an  action  for  the 
price  was  estopped  from  alleging  the  in. 
validity  of  the  patent.  TTiehier  v.  Bat- 
tin,  27  Penn.,  617,  519,  521,  524.- 
WoODWARD,  J.,  Pa.,  1850. 

53.  And  such  estoppel  applies  as 
well  to  the  objection  that  the  reissued 
patent  was  not  for  the  same  invention 
as  the  original,  as  to  that  against  the 


'*'«, 


It  to 

iited 
iceivo 
)le  to 
It  tlic 

liable 

l1  do- 

CttCl'S 

or  ol)- 
Ildd, 
i)V  the 
Lhe  in. 
.  Bat- 
24.- 

tcs  as 
lissued 
[ention 
1st  the 


CONST! )EnATION  ON  SALK  OV  P ATIATS. 


20S 


WIIKN    MAY    UK   IMPK.ACIIBI),   OK   RliCDVEUKI)    IIAUK. 


originality   of   tlio    invention.      Ibid., 

624. 

54.  In  ftn  .iction  on  :i  noto  given  !>s 

conHiiliTation  lor  u  piitent,  tiio  plaint ilV 

c;jntu)t    rerovor,    if   the   inv(Mition    for 

wliii'li  [latent  was  granted  was  not  new 

anil  usefnl,  or  if  tlio  patent  an<l  wfteeiti- 

cation  do  not  deHcribe  the  invention  ho 

that  it  <'an  l)e  known  in  what  the  iin- 

provoineiit  eonsists.  Me Clnrc  v.  Jeffrey, 

8  Iiul,  «2,  8n.— Davison,  J.; In<l.,  1850. 

65.  In  contracts  in   tho   Hale  of   in- 

tercstH  in  a  patent  wliure  there   is  no 

fraiitl,    the    purchaser     must    depend, 

where  they  prove  of  no  value,  upon  his 

covenants.     If  both  parties  arc  eq\ially 

innocent,  and  there   is  no  Avarrunt  of 

title,  tho    loss  must  fall  wherever  the 

bargain  leaves  it.      Cannier  v.  l^dton, 

2  Jones,  Eq.,  501. — Nash,  Ch.  J.;  N. 

C,  1850. 

50.  The  defendant  sold  an  interest  in 
a  certain   i)atent  to  the   plaintiif,  who 
gave  his  bonds  for  the  payment  of  the 
consideration.     The  plaintiff  afterward 
found  out  the  same  invention  had  been 
patented  previously  to  another,  and  filed 
iiis  hill  praying  for  an  injunction  to  stay 
the  collection  of  such  bonds  and  for  their 
surrender  to  be  cancelled.     The  court 
refused  to  interfere,  biit  left  the  plain- 
tiffs to  their  remedy  at  law.   Ibid.,  502. 
57.  An  assignment  contained  a  war- 
ranty that  the  invention  was  original, 
and  that  no  other  invention  had  been 
patented  in  the  United  States  on  the 
same  principle.    In  an  action  of  coven- 
ant in  which  breaches  were  assigned 
in  the  terms  of  tho  warranty.  Held, 
that  the  patent  was  not  conclusive  that 
tlic  invention  was  original  and  upon  a 
new  principle,  and  that  upon  proof  of 
the  breaches  assigned  the  plaintiff  could 
recover.     Wright  v.  Wilson,   1 1  Rich. 
Law,  152.— O'Neall,  J.;  S.C,  1857. 


88.  To  enable  a  vendor  of  a  maehino 
and  of  the  right  to  use  a  patented  ar- 
ticle therewith,  to  recover  tho  price 
agreed  to  be  paid,  it  is  not  necessary 
for  him  to  produce  evidence  of  his 
right  under  the  patent,  uidess  tho  ven- 
d«'0  hiiM  been  Interrupted  in  tho  use  of 
the  patented  article  by  one  whose  right 
is  prima  facie  violated  by  its  use. 
liuss  \.  Putney,  11  Mo.  Law  Hep.,  087. 
N.  II.,  1858. 

59.  Where  the   plaintiff  covenanted 
to  improve  machinery  for  mamifacturing 
gas  and  to  obtain  a  patent  therefor  and 
assign   defendant  the   one-half  for  an 
agreed  sum,  and  a  patent  having  been 
obtained    or    assigned    on    an    action 
brought  to  recover  the  agreed   price, 
Held,  that  the    defendant  could  show 
that  the  invention  was  worthless  and 
had  never  beou   reduced  to   practice, 
and  had  beeti  tried  and  abandoned  as 
worthless  before  the  patent  was  obtain- 
ed, and  tl'.at  tlie  patent  was  not  for  im- 
proved machinery,  and  that  the  plaintiff 
had  not  performed  the  conditions  on  his 
part.    McDougall  v.  Fogg,  2  Bosw., 
387,    391.— PxEUUEPONT,   J.;     N.   Y., 
1858. 

00.  A  party  who  seeks  to  recover 
upon  a  contract  containing  mutual  and 
dependent  covenants  must  show  that  he 
has  performed  his  part  of  the  agree- 
mcut.     Ibid.,  390. 

01.  Defendant  sold  to  plaintiff  tho 
right  to  make  a  certain  horse-shoe,  al- 
leged to  be  secured  by  letters  patent. 
In  an  action  to  recover  back  the  money 
paid,  the  jury  found  that  the  shoe  was 
worthless  and  was  not  covered  by  the 
patent.  Held,  that  the  contract  was 
void  ah  initio  for  want  of  consideration, 
and  that  the  money  paid  could  be  re- 
covered back,  and  that  the  rules  as  to 
offer  of  rescission,  notice,  demand  and 


\  _ 

•9 


w-^-t^ 


'5i 


•'VA 


?^: 


■V, 


'^Wm 


fWW^.w^^. 


200 


CONSI'IUACV.— COPIKS  OF  I'ATKNT  I'AI'KKS. 


AOAINflT  PATKNT.    OOPIRS,   WHO  UXX  IIAVB|   DOW  FAR  IVIDIXCI. 


im 


f       '*»* 


K 


< » 


ku., . 


2^' 


Avaivor  <li(t  not  apply.  /»<<*«  v.  liif/utrd- 
son,  1 1  Mo.  Law  IN'p.,  070. — IIintino 
TON,  J. ;  3IUHH.,  165U. 


CONSPIUACY  AGAINST  PAT- 
ENT. 

1 .  What  would  bo  the  U';j;al  ofToct  of 
an  actual  ('oiiiltiiiation  to  resist  a  ]iat- 
out  is  a  tjucHtioit  of  much  iiiiportaiicu. 

"WiKxltoorth  V.  Sherman^  U  Slory,  172. 
— Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

2.  It  would  seeni  that  a  combination 
of  a  inunbor  of  persons  to  resist  a  pat- 
ent approaches  very  near,  if  it  does  not 
actu:illy  reach,  a  criminal  conspiracy. 
J  bid.,  173. 

3.  In  m!<ny  oases,  it  is  lawful  for  in- 
dividuals to  do  what  cannot  lawfully  bu 
done  b\  a  combination.     Ibid,.,  173. 

4.  An  individual  i)atenteo  may  suc- 
cessfully resist  an  individual  when  it 
may  be  much  more  ditJicult  to  resist  the 
combined  force  of  a  great  number  of 
persons  united  to  oppose  his  patent. 
Ibid..,  173. 


CONSTRUCTION  OF  PATENT. 
See  Patkjjt,  P. 


CONTRACTS  AS  TO  PATENTS. 
See  AaB£EM£NTS. 


COPIES  OF  PAPERS  IN  PATENT 
OFFICE. 

1.  The  officer  intrusted  to  give  copies 


of  papers  or  drawin^js  in  patent  caKos  has 
no  concern  with  the  |)iirporie  for  whicji 
asked.  The  policy  of  the  law  rutin  r 
re<piires  thati  forbids  tliat  copies  uliould 
be  ^iven  when  applied  for.  Amm..,  \ 
Opin.,  171. — PiNCKNKY,  Atty.  (Jen., 
1H12. 

2.  Under  g  11  of  the  act  of  170,1,  a 
defendant  in  a  patctit  suit  has  a  ri^ht  to 
ft  copy  of  the  plaint  ifl^s  sju'ci  Ileal  ion, 
from  the  St.ate  Department,  upon  (lio 
payment  of  the  le^al  fe(!S,  and  use  it  the 
same  way  as  any  evidence,  and  no  con- 
ditions can  be  imposed  upon  the  h»o 
of  such  copy.  Anon.,  1  Ojiin.,  370.— 
VViKT,  Atty.  (Jen.,  1H20. 

3.  Under  g  11  of  the  act  of  170.1, 
uU  persons  iiidiscriminately  cannot  do- 
mand  cojties  of  papers  respectinj,'  pat- 
ents granted  to  others.  By  g  0  a  de- 
fendant must  be  considered  as  Iiavin<» 
a  right  to  demand  such  copii's,  hut  as 
to  others,  it  rests  in  the  discretion  of 
the  department  whether  copies  shall  he 
furnislied  i)r  refused.  Anon.,  1  (Jpin,, 
718.— WiKT,  Atty.  Gen.,  1825. 

4.  Hut  no  copies  can  be  furnislied  at 
less  than  the  statutory  fee,  per  folio. 
Ibid.,  718. 

6.  Cojdes  of  papers  cannot  be  taken 
from  the  Patent  Office  by  thiid  ]iaiti»'s. 
They  must  be  made  by  the  proper  offi- 
cer, and  the  fees  paid  therefor.    Anon,, 

2  Opin.,  450. — Taney,  Atty.  (xen.,  1831. 

0.  An  exemplification  of  a  specifica- 
tion of  a  patent  is  made  evidence  hy  § 

3  of  the  act  of  1793.  The  cxeinplijica- 
(ion  of  the  patent  itself  stands  upon  the 
common  law,  as  being  an  exemplification 
of  a  record  of  a  j)ublic  dociunent,  and 
is  always  to  be  received  as  evidence. 
Peck  V.  Farrington,  9  Wend.,  44.— 
Savage,  Ch.  J.;  N.  Y.,  1832. 

7.  A  certified  copy  of  a  patent,  sur- 
rendered and  cancelled,  is  admissible  in 


c 


fOriKS  OK  I'ATKNT  I'Al'KKH. 


207 


WHO   MAY   li.\VI;    UOW   rAR  KVIDRXCI. 


i'vidcncc,  to  nIiow  thut  lUi  iiiipnivuiiit'iit 
Hlll)^«t><|ll(■rltly  patciiti'il,  Ih  not  original, 
tlioiij^li  it  tlo«>s  not  HjK'ril'y  wlifn  it  whm 
(•iiiictllcti,  or  liow,  or  ft)r  what  ilffcct. 
J)cl(i»i>  V.  Scott,  (iilpiu,  400. — lloi'KO- 
Ho.v,  J.;  Ta.,  1834. 

8.  A  former  and  dt'tVctivj^  certified 
(•((|»y  of  a  patent  may  I»e  corrc'cted  Ity 
iiiiotlier  full  ami  eorreeted  certified  copy, 
ami  the  di'fective  one  (lannot  alVect  tiie 
Olio  that  is  complete,  lirooka  v.  liich- 
iicll,  3  McLean,  434. — M»;Lkan,  J.; 
Ohio,   IH44. 

0.  A  transcript  as  to  a  n^newal  of  n 
patent  need  not  Bet  forth  all  tiic  wtcps 
of  proceedings  connected  therewith. 
niif.,  4:tr). 

10.  It  will  1)0  Hufficient,  if  it  apjjcar 
that  the  Huliject  was  hefori  the  proper 
trihiuial,  and  that  a  decision  was  made 
in  favor  of  a  renewal,     /fnil,,  435. 

U.  Certified  copies  of  assigiintenis 
of  patents  on  record  are  competent 
evidence  of  the  originals,  and  tho  pro- 
duct ion  of  tho  originals  cannot  bo  com- 
pelled.    Ibid.,  43(5. 

12.  Papers  or  drawings  on  file  in  the 
Patent  Ofiico  are  public  records,  and 
certified  copies  of  them  must  be  re- 
ceived in  evidence  when  offered.  If 
they  are  discordant,  ono  may  destroy 
the  effect  of  another  ;  but  they  need 
not  concur  in  every  j)articular.  Kmer- 
son  V.  Ifogff,  2  Blatchf.,  12. — Bktts, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

13.  If  co{)ics  of  a  patent  aro  errone- 
ous, the  Commissioner  of  Patents  has 
the  power  and  ought  to  make  them 
conform  to  the  patent  itself  and  to  the 
record.  Woodworth  v.  Hall,  1  Wood. 
Sc  Min.,  200. — Woodijukv,  J. ;  Mass., 
184G. 

14.  Certified  copies  of  papers  in  the 
Patent  Office  must  be  received  as  prima 
fade  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of 


the  originals  on  file,  and  alisoliito  ovU 
dence  <»f  the  correctnesH  of  the  copioN 
frtxn  tho  record.  I^nrker  \,  //iiirorf/i^i 
.McLean,  371.— M.  F.r.AN,  J. ;  III.,  JHlH. 

1.').  The  Commissioner  of  Patents, 
having  in  his  care  and  custody  tlie  rec- 
ords 118  to  patents,  it  iK  his  duty  to 
give  autheiiticatod  copies  to  any  person 
demanding  the  same,  on  payment  of  tho 
legal  fees;  and  for  his  refusal,  an  aclimi 
will  lit!  jainst  him.  Hoj/ifi  n  v.  liiirkc, 
14  1I«)W.,  683.— (iuiKK,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1852., 

10.  Hut  a  d(>mand  accotn))anied  by 
rudeness  ami  insult,  Ih  not  n  legal  de- 
mand.    Ilnd.,  5H3. 

17.  A  subsecpieiit  and  proper  demand 
cannot  however  bo  refused  on  account 
of  prior  misconduct,  or  to  enforce  an 
ajtology.     Ibid.,  583. 

18.  A  certifie(l  copy  from  tho  Patent 
()ffic(!  of  ;in  assignment  recordiMl  there- 
in will  l»o  received  as  jtri)aii  faric  evi- 
dence of  tho  genuinencKS  of  tho  original 
assignment,  and  the  production  of  tho 
original  may  be  dispensed  with.  Parker 
V.  Jiifjkr,  MS,— Gkikk,  J.;  Pa.,  1857. 

19.  A  certified  coj)y  of  an  assignment 
of  a  patent,  from  tlio  Patent  Oftico  of 
the  United  States,  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  tho  genuineness  of  tho  origi- 
nal. Xee  V.  Jilaiidy,  MS. — McLean, 
Leavitt,  JJ.  ;  Ohio,  1800. 


COPYRIGHT. 

A.  O.v  WHAT  FOUNDED ;  Nature  OF  Prop- 
erty IN  ;   WHAT  INCLUDES 203 

B.  Subject  Matter  of 209 

C    Who  entitled  to  take  and  hold.  .  210 

D.  How  acquired;  Right  to;  how  lost,  212 

E.  Second  Term  OP ;  to  whom  meloxos,  214 

F.  Abandonment  ok 215 

O.    Actions  respectino 215 

II.     AfiUEEMENTS  AS  TO 2 "6 


'^^H 


'»;< 


.softie 


^■v* 


'  \0* 


*i**'  %^x^ 


^1. 


Bew. 


&-■••• 


Vww 


M^^'f?^: 


308 


COl'VUlCiHT,  A. 


OM  WHAT  rOUNt)lt)|'  VATVHIOr  FUOfKUTr  IN. 


™f 


5;..,  I 


I.      Ahhkinhknt  ami  TuANirKM  ur 315 

J«        AlTllllM,  Willi    IK 31& 

l£»    litlllK,   Mil  AT  m 315 

I«,  COVIITH,  ill  ItlNIHCTKINH    IN  CAHKHor.  .  2  I  Tl 

HI,     I.N.It-NI'HllNM    IM   IlKHI-KUT  TO 3ir> 

Ufa       I'rill.ll'ATIIIN,    YQl\t    IN 315 

O,      TllANNI.ATHIN,    ClII'YIIIUIIT  IN 315 

I*.    Violation  or 315 

A.    <>N     WHAT     KOirMllKli;   NaTUUK   OK 

I'uoi'KUTV  in;   what  incluokh. 

1.  ('ii|>yri;xl't  w;»h  ioniu'riy  ooiisitU'r- 
cmI  to  1m>  tiitinilfil  or.  cotiiiiioii  l:i\v,  hut 
oaii  iwiu'  only  lie  viewed  as  part  of  our 
Htatutt!  law.  (Jlotfton  v.  S(onc,  2  I'uiiii', 
883.— Thompson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1828. 

2.  Till!  jirivilc^t!  of  nil  author  to  an 
oxclusiv*'  Hiih!  of  his  works  for  a  limited 
iiuiiiher  of  years,  although  a  nioiioiioly, 
IM  not  NO  ill  the  odioiiH  meaning  of  the 
term;  hut  is  luit  a  proper  reward  for 
his  lahiir  provided  liy  law,  and  to  whieh 
ho  is  as  inueh  entitled  as  to  the  exelu- 
Hivo  enjoyment  of  any  other  kind  of 
property.  Jilnnt  v.  Patten^  2  I'aino, 
395._Tii<>Miw)V,  J. ;  N.  v.,  18!?8. 

;{.  In  the  United  States,  an  author 
cjin  have  no  exelusivo  property  or  copy- 
right in  his  puhlished  production  except 
under  the  laws  of  Congross.  Wheaton 
V.  J*eUra,  H  I'et.,  002.— McLean,  J.; 
Sup.  C(.,  18;U. 

4.  The  author  of  a  literary  composi- 
tion 1ms,  at  common  law,  no  exclusive 
right  to  print  and  pul)lish  it.  Dudley 
\.  Jfii/hew,  3  Corns.,  12. — Stuono,  J. ; 
N.  v.,   1849. 

5.  Copyright  is  an  exclusive  right  to 
the  multiplication  of  copies  for  the  hen- 
etit  of  the  author  or  his  assigns,  discon- 
nected from  the  plate,  or  any  other 
phy/^ical  existence.  Stephens  v.  Cad>/, 
14  How.,  530. — Nelson,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1852. 

6.  Before  publicition,  .in  author  has 
the  exclusive  imssession  of  the   ideas 


contained  in  his  hook,  and  the  coinhitia. 
tion  of  wordri  to  represent  tlietii.  Itm 
when  lie  has  pulilishetl  his  hook,  iiiii| 
given  his  thoughts,  NenlitiKnls,  kiiowl 
edge  or  inforiiuUioii  to  the  world,  lu'  tan 
have  no  Uinger  iin  uxctuNivu  poNsosnioii 
ill  them.  Stotee  v.  '/'/lonum,  2  Aiiut. 
Law  Keg.,  228.— (JiiiKK,  J.;  I'a.,  IHVI. 

7.  When  an  author  Iiiin  Hold  his  work, 
the  only  property  which  ho  reserves  tn 
himself,  or  which  the  law  gives  to  liim, 
is  the  exclusive  right  to  multiply  tin- 
copies  of  that  ]i:irticular  <-oinhinatioii  of 
cliaracterH  which  exhlhits  to  the  eyes  of 
another  the  ideaH  intended  to  be  con* 
veyed.  This  is  what  the  law  terms  copy 
or  copyright.      Iffid.,  228. 

8.  Tln're  is  no  diHereiKU',  ns  respci'ts 
the  character  and  tpiality  of  the  right, 
between  the  right  and  property  of  an 
author  at  common  law,  and  under  the 
acts  of  Congress  respecting  copyrights, 
or  what  is  an  infringement  of  tlitiii. 
Ibid..,  228,  229. 

9.  A  "  c<y>y"  of  ft  book  must  be  a 
transcrijit  of  the  lani/iuKje  in  which  the 
conceptions  of  thc>  author  are  clullu'il;  * 
of  something  [irinted  and  embodied  in 
a  tangible  shape.  The  same  conceptions 
clothed  in  another  language  cannot  con- 
stitute the  same  composition.  A  trans- 
lation in  no  just  sense  is  a  copy  or  tran 
script  of  a  book.     Ibid.,  229,  23 ) . 

10.  An  author's  exclusive  jiroperty 
in  a  literary  composition,  or  copyright, 
consists  only  in  a  right  to  multiply  copies 
of  his  book,  and  enjoy  the  jirofits  iliere- 
froin,  and  not  in  an  exclusive  right  to 
his  conceptions.     Ibid.,  229. 

11.  In  questions  of  infringement  of 
copyright,  the  inquiry  ii*  not  whether 
the  defendant  h.is  used  the  thoughts, 
conceptions,  information,  and  discov- 
eries proinulg.ited  by  the  original,  but 
whether  his  composition  may  be  con- 


¥] 
C 


COPVIUUIIT,  A,  II. 


809 


WHAT  IM. 


■UBiRtrr  MATTia  or. 


Hi(lon'<l  II  iiiur  iri>rk\  rr(|iilriiijj[  invuiition, 
learning,  iiixl  jiiti^int'iil,  or  only  tk  tiutro 
tntiiMcript  of  titv  wholu  or  pnrtH  of  the 
original,  witli  iiiuru  roluriiblo  variatioiiM. 

\'i,  T\w  cnHo  of  Miller  v.  Diylor,  4 
llurr,  'i311,  hiiK  llnully  Mt'ttlcd  tl»u  i[wn- 
tioii  OM  to  till)  iiiituru  of  ilio  |)i-o|u>rty 
wliicli  ixi  iiiillior  htiH  ill  his  works  ;  lunl 
it  in,  tli:it  after  imlilicatioii,  his  property 
coiiHists  ill  llio  "rlKlit  of  oopy,"  wliirli 
(ti^iiilli'H  "  tlio  »<''«'  right  of  printing, 
tiiililishing,  ftinl  celling  hin  lituniry  roiii- 
|)(i>iti()ii  or  hook  ;'*  not  that  ho  has  niicIi 
a  nropt'rty  in  IiIh  original  foiici'ptioiis 
that  hi>  aloiii)  0:111  uno  them  in  tho  coin- 
position  of  II  now  work,  or  clolho  them 
in  a  tlilVert'iit  dresu  by  translation.  //>/</., 

2;jo. 

1.1.  Tho  (liHtinction  taken  brtween 
works  which  are />«/'//'•» ^'i<n«  niitl  (hose 
which  aro  tho  Huhject  of  copyright,  has 
no  foundation  in  fact ;  if  tlie  ihu-triiie 
of  tho  estahlished  cases  bo  true,  ami  the 
author's  property  in  a  pnblishod  book 
consists  only  in  u  right  of  copy.  Jbiil., 
231. 

It.  Tho  words  coj^yriijht  ami  literary 
property  arts  not  synonymous.  Tho  lat- 
ter phrase  has  a  moro  general  significa- 
tion than  copyriyfU,  which  signitios  tho 
exclusive  right  of  an  autlior  ami  his  as- 
Rigns  to  print  his  literary  com[>osition, 
and  publish  and  republish  it  in  print. 
Keene  v.  W/ieatley,  0  Amcr.  Law  liog., 
44. — Cadwaix.vdkr,  J.;  Pa.,  1800. 

15.  Tho  ordinary  definition  of  litera- 
ry properly  as  tho  exclusive  right  to 
multiply  cojneg  is,  for  general  purposes, 
too  narrow,  because  the  circulation  of 
copies  is  not  the  only  specific  method 
in  which  the  subject  may  be  profitably 
nsed.    Ibid.y  63. 

10.  Literary    property   may  bo    de- 
scribed as  the  right  which  entitles  an 
14 


author  and  hiri  nsidgnH  to  all  the  usi*  niid 
profit  of  hiN  ctmipoHition,  to  which  no 
iiidepentlent  right  is,  thntiigh  any  actor 
(MiiiHsioii  on  his  or  their  part,  vvkled  in 
another  person.     Jltiil.^  OU. 

II,  Hir»ijK«T  MATrKR  or. 

Si'o  also  AiiRiiKiKMKxr;  CiiAnrs; 
C'oMi'ii.ATHiN  ;  DicnoNAUiKs;  Dkama- 
Tn;  ('oMrt)sirioNK;  KxtuiAviNtis;  Mai>h; 
Music;    I'lan;    Kkiouis;    llKviiiWtt; 

TllAiNKI.ATION. 

1.  Tho  objci't  of  tho  nets  of  Con- 
grcHH  securing  to  authors  tho  exclusivo 
right  to  their  writings,  wnn  the  promo- 
tion of  Hcii'iut*.  Clayton  v.  /Stone, 
2  i'aine,  'i\i'2. — Tuomi-hon,  J.^  N.  Y., 
1828. 

2.  Hut  tin*  torin  science  caiuiot  with 
!iny  propriety  bo  applied  to  a  work  of 
so  fluctuating  and  fugitive  a  <'luiraeter 
as  a  newspaper  or  price  current.  Such 
a  publication  is  not  a  book,  the  eofty- 
right  of  which  can  be  iwcured  under 
the  acts  of  CongresM.     Ibii/.,  .'IICJ,  'AQU. 

3.  A  work  may  be  tho  subject  of  u 
copyright,  if  tho  plan,  arraugomeut  and 
combination  of  its  materials  aro  u«w, 
though  tho  materials  may  1h>  dntwn 
from  many  sources,  but  aro  for  tht'  first 
time  brought  together  in  such  plan, 
arrangement,  and  combination.  Chray 
V.  limsell,  1  Story,  17. — Sto-bv,  J.; 
Mass.,  18;Jt>. 

4.  The  editor  of  an  edition  of  Ad.tiin'8 
Latin  Grammar  made  alterations  in,,  adod 
additions  to  such  work,  and  eollecte<l 
notes  from  various  sources ;  Held,  that 
as  the  collection  and  prei)aration  of  mich 
notes  required  labor  and  intellectual 
exertion,  and  the  plan  and  arrangement 
and  coinbin.ation  of  them  were  new,  that 
ho  was  to  be  deemed   the   author  of 


f 


4m 


i^  ,,-.i,3ra 


1^;  k  )i»i 


-•'-^C 


■•'•sjfS 


•N»% 


i^U^k 


:m^- 


rrnihiL 


JH-         -*^ 


'ilU;!!S 


L^Z^.;:-r 


•^^ 


:<^y»' 


(k 


% 


'^>,., 


"  'is 


fu 


"^ 


no 


(oi'vuKJirr,  IJ,  c. 


■VltJKCT  MATTB*  W 


WHO  MAT  TAKI» 


thorn  ill  llii'ir  form  iuhI  nrriui^tMtu'iit, 
mill  ciilitlot  to  ncitp}  ri^lit  accorilinj^ly. 
//><■</.,  17. 

0.  Any  iit'W  antl  ori;;iiiitl  plan,  ur- 
rungi'tni'tit,  or  cuinliiiiuliori  «4'  iiititt>riitlM 
will  ctitiiti'  till'  iiitllior  to  II  copyright, 
cvt'ii  tlii)ii<.;li  till'  iii.'ilci'ials  ari<  iioi  new. 
I'Jtiii I'rtiin  V.  Jiiu'lcfif  :i  {Stt»ry,  77H, — 
th'oKY,  .1.;  Mmm.,  1845. 

0.  Kvtry  author  of  a  hook  hiiM  n  ropy 
ri}.';ht  in  tlir  plan,  arr;iii;,'«'fiu'iit,  ami  ckiii- 
liiiialiiin  of  lii^<iiiati'ri;i!s,  iiinl  in  liisnuxli' 
of  illiistniliii;,'  IiIh  hiilijrrt,  if  it  hi'  now 
mill  ori;;iiial  in  its  HiiliNtance.  //>/(/., 
7«{). 

7.  Hi'  who  hy  his  own  Mkill,Jiiilt,'tin'iif, 
aii'l  lahoi*  wi'iti'H  a  now  work,  ami  iIoon 
not  nioroly  o<»py  that  of  anothor,  in  on- 
tith'il  to  a  copyright  Ihoroin,  if  tin' 
variations  ai\'  not  iiionly  I'ornial  aiwl 
Hhatlowy  from  oxisiin^  workM.  J/tiif.., 
781. 

H.  Ami  ho  wlio  ooiiHtriicts  ft  book  liy 
a  ni'W  pl.'iii  ami  arranp'tnciit  ami  ooni- 
hinatioii  of  ojil  matorials,  has  a  title  to 
a  copyii'^ht,  w  liioh  canmil  ho  ilispiacoil 
by  showing;  that  Homo  ]»art  of  his  plan, 
or  iiriiin^'onioiil,  or  ooinhination,  has 
hoi'U  m^fil  hoforc.     f/i!<f.,  7H1. 

0.  Ami  thou;^h  all  tlio  iiiatorials  of  a 
work,  or  sonio  parts  of  its  |ilan  ami 
arraiii^omont  Jiml  inoilos  (,f  illustration 
may  ho  found  Hoparaloly,  or  in  a  ililVor- 
cnt  form,  or  (liilorcnt  arraiiiijoniont  in 
othor  ilistiiict  works,  il'  the  plan,  ar- 
rangomonl,  or  conihinalion  of  tlioso  ma- 
terials in  anothor  work  is  new,  or  for  the 
first  limo  made,  the  author,  or  oompilor, 
or  framor  of  it,  will  ho  entitled  to  a 
oojiyri^rhl.     Ihid.,  7H'2. 

10.  There  can  be  no  copyripfht  of  a 
jilan  disMnet  from  tlic  work  itself,  any 
more  than  there  can  be  of  an  idea;  the 
words  in  wliioh  an  idea  is  exjtressod  are 
ft  siibjeet  of  property}  and  so  is  the 


olaHNifloation  of  flm  unhji'i't  ili«oiniii«<i), 
Sliiri/'n  /.'jirn.  V.  /fnlinnifn,  i  MoLt'nr, 
am.     .M.  I.nw,  ,f.  ;  Ohio,  |H|7. 

II.  A  person  oatinol  havoan  oxi'lii«i\Q 
ri^'ht  ur  o<>pyri^ht  in  a  lahol,  nn  It  i^ 
not  a  book  >nthin  the  proviMlonii  of  dm 
statute.  i'i>jlf\in  v.  /In/nfini,  i  M,-. 
Loan,  r»l7. —  .Ml  f. KAN,  .1.;  Ind.,  l«|o. 

<!.    Who  I  M  I  I  l.KI)  TO  TAKK  A.NIt  Uol.n, 

1.  .\  porxoii  who  i'lnployN  olhi'i-H  to 
dosi;;n  and  on^ravo  a  oonipiMitiun,  an 
an  historical  print,  and  who  dooM  not 
ilosi);rti  and  invent  hiiiisi'lf,  or  cuiiki'  it  to 
bo  doiio  from  his  invmtioii,  in  nut  in- 
tillt'd  to  a  oopyri;r|il  for  slirh  niiii|iiiH 
ition.  IthiiiH  V.  ]\'oo<fntj^\  t  \Va>Ii., 
r)'.]. — \Vakiiin(ito\,  .1. ;  Pa.,  Ih'.'I. 

'.'.  A  "resident"  nmler  the  eopyri'.'lil 
act  of  ih;i|,  to  bo  I'litilled  to  a  eopyri^jlit 
must  bo  ft  pormamiit  resident  of  tin 
country.  A  person  temporarily  rosiiliii;:f 
hero,  even  thoiij^h  he  has  declared  liin 
inlonlion  of  beeominij  a  citizen,  cntiiiui 
take  or  hold  a copyri^^hf .  i'lirii/  v.  t'ul- 
li>r,  fiO  Niles  Keg.,  20ii.— JIkitk,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  IH.'iO. 

n.  (/iiptain  INfarryatt,  a  fiubii'<'t  ef 
Groat  Ibitain,  and  an  ollicer  under  tliai 
government,  being  temporarily  in  tiii, 
ooimlry,  took  the  reipiiroil  oath  of  his 
int«'ntion  to  become  a  citizen,  and  tluii 
too',  out  a  copyright  for  one  el'  liis 
books,  and  assigned  the  same  to  the 
|i<aintilf,  J/efd,  that  he  was  not  a  "res- 
ident"  within  the  meaning  of  the  act 
of  18.T1,  so  as  to  be  entitled  to  a  copy- 
right for  his  book,     ffiid. 

4,  "NVhethor  an  author  who  gives  his 
work,  not  yet  protectoil  by  copyright, 
to  the  public,  by  printing  and  puhlish- 
ing  it  in  a  newspaper,  can  have  a  copy- 
right  in  the  s.anie  work  by  afterward 
publishiug  it  in  a  dilferenl  form,  as  i"; 


COPTRIOIIT,  C. 


•n 


WM  MAT  fAU, 


;i  vdIiiiiii*  or  liouk ;  t/utri/.  }[UUf  T. 
}h- Hlruy,  I  \\iWT.  iwiw  llfg.,  a04.— 
IIoiKiMMitM,  J. ;   I'll.,  IH.'IO. 

.'^.  \Vlit<llit<r  Mil  author  l>y  i1i<poNillii)f 
It  tilli'-pii^K  ill  tlui  I'lt^rk'n  ofllcr,  wlioii 
tlit>  work  it  Ih  iiili'iiili'il  fur  ix  not  print 
I'll,  nor  writlon,  nor  tlit*  inuniiNcript  prr- 
p.'iri'il  for  print iii){  uml  pnlilirutinii,  ul- 
llioii^h  tliii  iiot(<.<*  or  iiiiitci iikU  iVoiii 
vliit'h  lli«<  Work  or  ))ook  U  to  ix',  !iii<l 
iilh'rwanl  iicliially  U  roiiipoNi>il,  iiri> 
tlirii  in  thtt  lianiU  of  tli<>  author,  may 
liiivo  a  <'opyri^ht  of  tin*  work  at^t'rwanl 
prcpari-il  iiikI  foiiipoMctI,  Ity  attixiii^  it 
to  \\\v  titli'[»agu  HO   iJup(»HiU'>l;  'jioi'i/. 

(I.  Whi'thi'r  a  nofico  jiivoii  In  Notno 
of  lhi>  iicw^p.'iprrH  so  piililisliiii;^  Niich 
liiatttT  \\^:\l  till*  author  ha<l  Nccur«<il  a 
copyri^lit,  will  help  liiiii  \\n  to  liin  tith*; 
qiori/.      Ihid.,  205. 

7.  Tho  author  or  coinplN'r  of  a  iniiMir- 
ill  coiiipositioii,  iiiadi^  up  of  ililU'r«>iit 
parts  copictl  from  oliUtr  coinpoMitions 
without  mate-rial  (■haii){(>,  and  put  t(>- 
j,'i'lhfr  into  one  tnni'  with  only  hli;;ht  al- 
tciations  or  ailditioiis,  is  not,  cnlithd  to 
a  (opyrif^ht  for  hu<Ii  th>..  i'or.  Ji<v.4\, 
Canm,  8  Law  Ucp.,  ().  S.,  411.— 
Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  M(l.,  1845. 

8.  Out'  wlio  jj;<'ts  others  to  compilo  a 
work  or  fiijxrave  a  print  is  nut  enlitled 
to  a  I'opyright.  Vicrpont  v.  J'owlf,  'J 
Wood.  &  Alin.,  40. — Woonniiuv,  J.; 
Mass,,  1H40. 

0.  A  person  cannot  socMiro  n  copyrij^lit 
for  alterations  and  improvements  in  a 
nuisieal  composition  made  hy  others  for 
liiin  and  at  liiH  expense.  Atioill  v.  7'tr- 
rcH,  2  IMatehf.,  40.— Ukits,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1840. 

10.  Under  the  copyriglit  act  of  IH.Tl, 
tlie  lejjfal  assignee  of  the  author  may 
take  out  tlie  copyriglit,  and  it  will  make 
uo  dilForeuco    wlicther  he   holds  it  as 


truatvv  for  tlu*  hemtU  of  iin<>lhf>r,  or 
not.  AiVf/it  V.  tiittilil,  2  IMatehf.,  aoO. 
— Ni:ij»o>«,  J. }  N.  Y.,  iHS'i, 

II.  .\ii  artlHl  who  i<«  tMiiployi*d  hy 
the  I'niled  StateH  to  eiigraxe  a  chart, 
of  whieh  tho  original  nnuiiiNrript  wait 
th«i  pr<iperty  of  ami  furnished  l»y  thu 
government,  hax  no  pri'lfiiee  of  right 
of  copyright  in  tlie  engraved  plates  or 
implesfdoliH    therefrom.     ,'<iiln  it\s  CiinCy 

7  Opln.,  050. — CuMiilMi,  Alty.  (ieii.; 
ih:.ii. 

I'J.  Wher(>  an  artist  was  attached  to 
an  expedition  sent  out  hy  tlie  giiNorn- 
ment,  tut  a  ntaster*i<  mate,  and  as  such 
agreed  to  perform  such  dution  iisrihoiild 
lie  reipih'ed  of  liim,  Itut  his  chief  duly 
was  to  make  Mkilehi's  and  drawinu'-*  for 
the  government,  and  he  was  infoi'iicil 
that  all  tilt*  Hkdtches  and  thawing^  which 
should  he  in.'uh)  hy  any  one  were  to  bo 
ihe  »\(lu>-ive  property  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  that  no  one  could  appropriate 
them  to  his  own  use,  and  allerward  >uch 
artist  took  out  a  copyright  in  his  own 
name  for  the  skclehes  made  hy  liiin, 
III  if,  that  lu(  was  not  such  an  auth(»r 
and  proprietor  as  to  ho  eiililled  to  an  ex- 
eliisivo  right  in  the  sketches  so  made  liy 
him.  Jliiue  v.  Appklnus,  4  lilatchf',— 
Inokiiso'.i,,  .1.;   N.  v.,  IH.')?. 

IM.  Where  a  person,  employed  hy 
another  as  a  performer  and  slag»'-mana- 
ger,  agreed  to  write  ji  play,  whicli  wiw 
to  he  performed  in  his,  the  employer's, 
tlieatre  as  long  as  it  should  contiiiiie  to 
draw  goofl  audiences,  J/tld,  thai  tho 
person  writing  theilrama  was  the  \no\t- 
er  person  to  take  out  the  coi»yright, 
and  that  the  employer  ha<l  no  right  or 
interest  in  it,  except  the  privilege  of 
having  it  performed  at  his  theatre.  Jiofj' 
crt.H  V.  Mi/rrs,  l:t  Mo.  Law  Kep.,  400. 
— Si'u.vc.i  K,  .T. ;  ^lass.,  1800. 

11.  Uu  le;'  tJK'  act  of  1831,  uo  person 


*»'♦# 


t 


W«K,v.  ^s. 


'•%..! 


ife 


W<| 


Rftw»tt 


^\wl 


iwWtg^l 


^«ii^, 


I 


A. 


4 


212 


COPYRIGHT,  I). 


uow  AcguiuiD;  now  loht. 


can  obtain  a  fopyright,  except  aulliors 
who  are  citizens  or  residents  of  the 
l''niteil  States,  and  proprietors  under 
derivation^'  of  title  fr'  n  such  authors. 
ITeene  v.  W/uatlei/,  9  Anier.  Law  Keg., 
45. — Caowalladku,  J.;  Pa.,  1800. 

1 6.  The  assignee  of  a  work  composed 
l)y  a  non-resident  alien  rannot  take  a 
copyright  for  it.    Ibid. 

D.    How  ACQUIRED ;  Right  to  ;  now 

LOST. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  act  of  1790, 
whicii  reqiiire  tiie  author  to  publish  the 
title  of  his  book  in  a  newspaper,  and  to 
deliver  a  copy  of  the  work  itself  to  the 
secretary  of  state,  are  merely  directory, 
and  constitute  no  part  of  tlie  essenti:il 
roqtiisitcs  for  securing  the  cojjyright. 
Nichols  \.  Jiuffffles,  3  Day,  158;  Ct., 
1808. 

2.  The  publication  in  the  newspaper 
is  intended  as  legal  notice  of  tlie  rights 
secured  to  the  autlior,  but  is  not  neces- 
sary where  actunl  notice  is  brought 
home  to  the  party.     If>id.,  158. 

3.  The  copy  to  be  delivered  to  the 
secretary  of  state,  appears  to  be  de- 
signed for  public  purposes,  and  lias  no 
connection  with  the  copyright.  Ibid., 
158. 

4.  Under  the  copyright  act  of  1790, 
a  copy  of  a  book  may  be  deposited 
with  the  department  of  state  after  the 
expiration  of  six  months  from  the  time 
of  its  publication,  if  not  done  before, 
and  will  avail  from  the  time  of  its  being 
depo  ited.  DabolVa  Case,  1  Opin.,  532. 
Wirt,  Atty.  Gen.,  1822. 

5.  Under  §  S  of  the  act  of  1790,  a 
proprietor  can  acquire  no  title  to  a 
copyright  for  the  term  of  the  first  four- 
teen years,  unless  he  shall  deposit  in  the 
clerk's  office  a  printed  copy  of  the  title 


of  ti>e  book.     IJwcr  v.  Ct>xe,  4  Wash., 
490. — Wa8H!N(iton,  J. ;  Pa.,  1S24. 

0.  Under  such  act  the  condition  upon 
whicli  the  proprietor  is  to  be  entitled 
to  the  benefit  of  the  act,  cannot  b«'  ex- 
tended to  the  requisition  conlaiiit'd  in 
the  last  sentence  of  that  section,  to  pub- 
lish  a  copy  of  the  recoi  d  of  the  tille,  as 
prescribed  therein.     Ibid.,  490. 

7.  If  the  title  of  an  author  depended 
upon  the  act  of  1790,  it  would  bo  com- 
plete, provided  he  had  deposited  a 
printed  copy  of  the  title  of  i\\i\  book  in 
the  clerk's  office,  as  directed  by  §  ;i ; 
and  the  ])ublication  of  a  copy  of  the 
same  would  only  be  necessary  to  enable 
him  to  sue  for  the  forfeitures  created  by 
that  section.     Ibid.,  490. 

8.  l<".t  by  the  supplemental  act  of  1 802, 
no  person  can  be  entitled  to  the  benefit 
of  the  act  of  17C0,  unless  he  shall,  m 
addition  to  the  requisites  enjoined  by 
that  act,  cause  a  copy  of  the  record  ro 
quired  by  that  act  to  be  published,  to 
bo  inserted  in  the  title-page,  or  iu  the 
next  page.     Ibid.,  490. 

9.  The  person,  therefcre,  claiming  a 
copyright,  before  ho  can  be  entitled  to 
the  benefits  of  the  act  of  1790,  must 
perform  the  requisites  required  by  the 
act  of  1802  in  addition  to  those  pre- 
scribed in  §§  3  and  4  of  the  act  of 
1790,  and  must  perform  the  whole.  The 
act  admits  of  no  other  construction. 
Ibid.,  491. 

10.  The  meaning  of  the  act  is  as  ii*it 
read,  "the  proprietor,  before  he  shall 
be  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  the  act  of 
1790,  shall  cause  a  copy  of  the  record  of 
the  title  to  be  published,  and  shall  deliver 
a  copy  of  the  book  to  the  secretary  of 
state,  as  directed  by  §§  3  and  4  of  that 
act ;  and  shall  also  cause  a  copy  of  the 
said  record  to  be  inserted  at  full  length 
iu  the  title-page,"  &c.    Ibid.,  491. 


'^1 


COPYKIGIIT,  D. 


213 


now   AOQUIUEI);    HOW   U)BT. 


11.  Under  the  act  of  1700,  and  par- 
ticularly when  considored  in  connection 
M'ith  the  act  uf  1 802,  an  author  can  ob. 
tain  no  cxcluHivo  right  in  his  work  un. 
less  he  complies  with  tho  requirements 
of  §§  3  and  4  of  tho  act  of  1700,  by 
causing  a  copy  of  tho  record  of  his 
copyright  to  bo  printed  in  tho  news- 
papers, and  delivering  a  copy  of  his 
work  to  tho  scerotary  of  state.  W?ie(tt- 
on  V.  Fekrs,  8  Pet.,  064,  005.— Mu- 
Lkan,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1834. 

12.  Where  a  work  consists  of  a  num- 
ber of  volumes,  tho  insertion  of  the  rec- 
ord rin  the  page  next  following  the 
title-pago  of  tho  Jirst  volume  of  the 
work,  is  a  sufficient  compliance  with 
the  statute.  Dwiyht  v.  Appletotis,  1 
N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  108.— Tiiomi'son,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1843. 

13.  The  author  may  insert  tho  same 
record  in  another  edition  published  in 
a  different  number  of  volumes,  without 
impairing  the  copyright.     IdiiL,  100. 

14.  The  number  of  volumes  in  which 
it  was  stated  tho  work  would  be  pub- 
lished, made  no  part  of  its  title,  and 
may  be  rejected  as  surplusage.  Ibid.^ 
100. 

15.  The  delivery  to  the  secretary  of 
state  of  the  first  volume  of  the  work 
within  six  months  after  its  publication, 
and  of  the  rest  of  tho  volumes  before 
the  offence  complained  of  is  committed, 
or  the  action  brought,  is  a  sufficient 
compliance  with  tho  law.    Ibid.,  100. 

16.  This  case  distinguished  from 
Wneaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.,  501,  as 
in  that  case  it  did  not  appear  that  the 
volumes  had  been  delivered  to  the  sec- 
retary of  state,  at  any  time.    Ibid.,  100. 

17.  The  act  of  Congress  of  1831,  re- 
specting copyrights,  embodies  the  pro- 
visions of  the  acts  of  1700  and  1802 
on  the  subject,  and  imposes  on  persons 


claiming  the  privilege  of  copyright  tho 
sano  duties  and  liabilities  which  attend* 
ed  tho  right  under  tiio  prior  statutes. 
linker  v.  Taylor,  2  lilatclif.,  83.— 
IJkits,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

18.  Under  such  act,  depositing  tho 
title-page  in  tho  proper  clerk's  office, 
publishing  a  notice  according  to  tho 
act,  and  delivering  a  copy  of  tho  book, 
are  conditions  the  iterformanco  of  which 
is  essential  to  the  title.     Ibid.,  84. 

10.  Whcro  tho  title-page  of  a  book 
was  deposited  in  1840,  and  tho  notice 
of  tho  entry,  inserted  in  the  book,  stated 
it  to  have  been  dt^posited  in  1847,  Held, 
that  tho  error  created  a  fatal  defect  in 
the  plaintiff's  title.     Ibid.,  84. 

20.  Even  .f  tho  error  arose  from  mis- 
take, it  will  mako  no  difference  as  to 
the  result.     Ibid..^  84. 

21.  Under  §  4  a  person  is  not  entitled 
to  any  benefit,  under  the  act,  unless  ho 
deposits  the  title-page  before  the  pub- 
lication of  his  work.     Iftid.,  86. 

22.  Tho  publication  of  a  work,  with- 
out having  secured  a  copyright,  is  a 
dedication  of  it  to  tho  public ;  that  hav- 
ing been  done,  any  one  may  republish 
it.  Bartlett  v.  Crittenden,  5  McLean, 
37. — McLean,  J. ;  Ohio,  1840. 

23.  By  tho  provisions  of  tho  copy- 
right act  of  1831,  there  are  three  pre- 
liminary steps  requisite  to  the  securing 
a  valid  copyright.  1.  The  deposit  of  a 
printed  copy  of  the  title  before  publica- 
tion with  the  clerk  of  the  district  court ; 
2.  Notice  to  the  public,  by  printing  in 
the  place  designated  the  fact  of  the  en- 
try, in  the  form  prescribed  by  tho  stat- 
ute ;  and  3.  The  deposit  with  the  clerk 
of  a  copy  of  the  book,  &c.,  or  musical 
composition,  within  three  months  from 
the  date  of  publication.  Jollie  v.  Jao 
ques,  1  Blatchf.,  620. — Nelson,  J;  N. 
Y.,  1850. 


^k^;i 


.«<ils 


iSBK^;^ 


'"^M 


-/i., 


'St\ 


.    Umt  ; 


43^ 


*J?&  Z^' 


'W't 


^M^^¥. 


wv 


,W>—'«N/W" 


%^-\ 


^f0^^Ww^:' 


:a.^ 


214 


roPYUKlIIT,  D,  E. 


j" 


n-t 


tli 


M 


^\ 


'*««( 


II 


now  AcynuKD;  Jiow  lost. 


BK(;fNM)   TKIIM    OF;    TO    WHOM    DKLONOH. 


24.  §  10  of  tho  act  of  1840,  CHtablirtli- 
in^  the  Smitlisonian  IiiBtitution,  re(|uirecl 
that  uuthors  HlK)iild  withui  tlirec  inontlm 
from  imhlioatioii  deliver  one  copy  of 
tlieu"  books,  «fec.,  to  the  librarian  of  that 
institution,  and  to  the  Congress  libra- 
ry ;  but  such  delivery  is  not  a  pre-rc- 
quisite  to  a  title  to  tho  copyright.  Ibid., 
(Jl'O,  022. 

2").  The  ])rovision  of  the  above  act  as 
1()  t  lie  delivery  of  a  coi)y  of  a  book  to  the 
lihrariiin  of  the  Smithsonian  Institution 
and  cf  Congress,  is  now  re])C!Ued  by  §  0 
(,1"  I  hi!  iu-t  of  1H50,  ehaj).  22.     [En.] 

20.  Tntil  all  the  things  required  by 
§4,  5,  of  the  act  of  1831  are  done,  the 
copyright  is  not  secured ;  but  by  taking 
the  incipient  step,  a  right  is  acquired, 
wiiich  chancery  will  i)rotoct,  until  the 
other  acts  may  be  done.  Pulte  v.  Der- 
by, 6  31cLeau,  332. — McLkax,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1852. 

27.  Tho  publication  of  an  official  re- 
port imder  the  direction  of  Congress, 
and  for  the  benefit  of  the  public,  is  a 
dedication  of  it,  and  of  what  is  contain- 
ed in  it,  to  the  public,  and  any  one  may 
ropiiiit  it.  Heine  v.  Appletons,  4  Blatchf, 
— Ingeksoll,  J.;  N.  Y.,  ISoT. 

28.  The  provisions  of  §  5  of  the  copy- 
right act  of  1831,  as  to  the  dejiosit  of 
the  title-page  of  the  book  to  be  copy- 
righted before  publication,  and  the  de- 
posit of  a  printed  volume  of  the  book 
within  three  months  after  publication, 
must  be  complied  with,  in  order  to  en- 
able a  party  to  avail  himself  of  the  pro- 
visions secured  by  that  act.  Struve  v. 
Schwtdltr,  4  Blatchf. — Nblson,  J. ;  N.Y., 
1857. 

29.  Where  neither  of  these  steps  had 
been  taken  until  nearly  two  years  after 
the  work  had  been  published.  Held,  that 
the  author  could  not  have  an  injunction 
to  protect  his  alleged  copyright.  Ibid. 


30.  The  record  from  the  clerk's  ollioe, 
made  in  the  form  ))res('ribed  by  {J  4  of 
the  act  of  1831,  or  of  the  depositing  of 
a  title-page,  is/^r/may't/f/eevidt^iice  that 
a  i»rii'ted  title  was  deposited.  Jioherts 
V.  Mi/ern,  13  Mo.  Law  llep.,  398.— 
Spuaguk,  J.;  Mass.,  1800. 

31.  After  such  title-page  has  been  Jo- 
posited,  the  author  can  maintain  an  ac- 
tion for  an  infringement  or  violation  of 
his  right,  even  though  tho  work  may 
not  have  been  published,  or  the  printed 
copy  deposited.     Ibid.,  398. 

32.  Under  the  statute,  a  copy  of  the 
book  must  bo  deposited  within  three 
months  after  its  j^ublication ;  but  the 
acting  or  roprosenting  a  play  is  not  such 
a  publication  as  is  meant  by  the  statute. 
Ibid.,  308. 

33.  The  mere  adoption  of  the  meas- 
ures, as  depositing  a  title-i)age,  by  which 
a  copyright  may  be  secured,  has  no  such 
eftect,  unless  their  adoption  has  been 
followed  or  attended  by  an  actual  })uh- 
lication  in  i)rint.  Keeite  v.  Wheatley, 
9  Amer.  Law  Reg.,  44. — Cadwallauji:e, 
J.;  Pa.,  1800. 

E.  Renewed  ok  second  Term  op;  to 

"WHOM  BELONGS. 

1.  Where  A  employed  B  to  compile 
a  school  book,  and  agreed  to  p.ay  him 
$500,  and  B  conveyed  to  A  the  "  coin- 
right,"  Held,  that  only  the  usual  copy- 
right of  fourteen  years,  then  existing 
or  taken  out,  passed  under  the  contract. 
Pierpont  v.  Fowle,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  42, 
43. —  vVoODuuRY,  J. ;  Mfiss.,  1840. 

2.  Such  an  assignment  is  to  be  refer- 
red to  what  was  then  in  existence,  and 
not  to  any  future  contingency.  Ihid,, 
43,  45. 

3.  The  extension  of  a  copyright,  by 
the  coj^yright  acts  of  1790  aud  1831, 


it 


COPYHIGIIT,  F-P.— CORPORATIONS. 


21/ 


COUronATIONB,   RIUIIT8  AKD   UABILITIKB  OF,  AS  TO  PATENTS. 


is  given  to  the  uutlior  alone,  or  to  others 
only  who  purchase  it  from  him.  Ibid.^  44. 
4.  An  Jis.signmont  of  a  "copyright" 
Bhoiiltl  not  by  construction  bo  extended 
beyond  tlio  first  term,  unless  it  seems 
to  be  actually  so  meant  by  the  author, 
and  to  include  any  future  contingency. 

Ibid.,  44. 

6.  Otherwis-J,  if  the  contract  of  sale 
or  assigmnent  uses  language  looking 
beyond  the  existing  copyright,  such  as 
referring  to  uU  the  interest  in  the  nvat- 
ter,  or  to  the  ma7iuscrij>t  or  book  itself, 
or  using  some  other  expression  more 
conipr'jlu'nsive  than  the  word  "copy- 
right."    I/nd.,  45. 

0.  Tlie  taking  out  a  second  term  of  a 
copyright  is  not  like  the  strengthening 
of  a  defective  title,  but  rather  like  a 
new  interest  obtained  after  the  general 
interest  had  expired.     Ibid.,  46. 

7.  A  claim  under  a  renewal  term  ne- 
cessarily involves  the  validity  of  the 
risht  under  the  first  as  well  as  the  sec- 
end  term.  W/ieaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet., 
063.— McLean,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1834. 

F.  Abandonment  of. 
See  Abandonment,  A. 

G,  Actions  respecting. 
See  Actions,  A. 

H.    Agreements,  as  to. 
See  Agreements,  A. 

I.    Assignment  and  Transfer  of. 
See  Assignee,  A. ;  Assignment,  A,  C. 


J.    Author,  wuo  is. 
See  A'JTHOR. 

K.    Rook,  wuat  is. 
See  Bock. 

li.  Courts,  Jurisdiction  in  Cases  op. 
See  Courts,  A. 

M,    Injunctions,  in  Respect  to. 
See  Injunctions,  A. 

IfS,      PUBUCATION,   WHAT  IS. 

See  Publication. 

O.    Translation,  Copyright  in. 
Seo  Translation. 

P.     Violation  of. 
Seo  Infringement,  A. 


CORPORATIONS. 

1.  Though,  as  a  general  rule,  corpo 
rations  ure  not  liable  to  be  sued  in  ac 
tions  of  tort,  it  does  not  follow  that 
they  may  not  be  sued  in  actions  on  the 
case  for  injuries  done  to  the  rights  of 
others,  notwithstanding  the  plea  is,  not 
guilty.  ITneass  v.  Schuylkill  Hank,  4 
Wash.,  14. — Washington,  J.;  Pa., 
1820. 

2.  Therefore,  when  a  corporate  body, 
acting  in  its  corporate  character,  directs 
an  act  to  be  done  which  infringes  the 
rights  of  another,  as  the  using  of  bis 
hivention,  they  may  be  sued  in  an  ao- 


•'11 


llll<' 


I: 


u. 


:=!s#w--<; 


74>* 


^^m 


Vta*< , 


'h-^TTT^'^ 


m 


'  *rf*!'(! 


■•iWiW'w'^  ••■  w  ■-'■ 


^L 


vii^J- 


MW^^ 


::„._.,  ^i- 


.Mwwv 


210 


COItPOUATIONS. 


toi'^W 


•m^'s. 


'^ 


KI0HT8   ANU    LIADIUTIES  OK,  AH   TO    PATENT.". 


'«l;|i 


Bter.;; 


r:4     ' 
i'    '•tt 


^*Uf] 


fife?:; 


\m 


I   '    ***HI|: 


V':'...;.! 


Fl9f!^ 


y ,-, 


»'  Ik 


kv.  :■■■'<, I 


III? 


■Wii.i. 


tion  on  the  case  for  such  iiiA-ingcnicnt. 
Ibiil,  14. 

3.  A  corporation  chartered  under  the 
laws  of  a  state,  for  the  purpose  of  car- 
ryijig  on  manufactures  by  means  of  a 
particular  invention,  has,  independently 
of  any  general  act  giving  to  corpora- 
tions the  right  to  hold  personal  estate, 
power  to  ])urchase  the  patent  for  the 
invention,  for  the  working  of  Avhich  it 
was  chartered.  libotch,  Gun-Stock 
Turn.  lac.  v.  Warner,  1  iJlatchf.,  277. 
— Xki.son,  J.,  Ct.,  1840 

4.  JJy  the  common  law,  corporations 
have  a  right  to  j)in*chase  and  hold  prop- 
erty 80  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  carry 
into  execution  the  purposes  and  objects 
for  which  they  are  created.    Il)id.,  277. 

5.  A  corporate  body  created  by  the 
laws  of  one  state,  has  no  corpor.ite  ex- 
istence beyond  the  limits  of  the  territo- 
ry within  which  the  law  creating  it  can 
operate,  and  is  not  such  a  person  as  can 
be  considered  an  inhabitant  of  any  dis- 
trict, 60  as  to  be  served  with  process. 
Dat/  V.  Neioark  I.  R.  Co.,  1  Blatchf , 
C32.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

0.  Where,  therefore,  the  defendants 
were  a  corporation  created  by  the  laws 
of  New  Jersey,  but  had  a  store  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  and  a  process  of  at- 
tachment under  the  laws  of  '  w  York 
was  commenced  against  and  levied  upon 
its  property  in  New  York,  and  the  sum- 
mons was  also  served  upon  the  presi- 
dent of  the  company  Avho  was  casually 
in  New  York,  Held,  that  the  Circuit 
Court  had  no  jurisdiction  of  the  action. 
Ibid.,  033,  034. 

7.  Under  §  11  of  the  judiciary  act  of 
1789,  the  Circuit  Courts  have  no  juris- 
diction in  suits  instituted  against  foreign 
corporations,  even  in  cases  where  the 
state  practice,  if  adopted  by  them, 
would  authorize  the  institution  of  such 


suits  by  attachment  of  their  go  )dc  found 
within  their  jurisdiction.    Ibid.,  034. 

8.  The  directors  of  a  marufaeturiri'* 
corpoi-ation,  who  manage  and  superin- 
tend its  business,  and  under  whose  di- 
rection it  manufactures  and  sells  articles 
which  arc  an  infringement  of  a  patent 
and  its  agents  who  conduct  its  business 
of  selling  such  articles,  avo  responsible 
for  such  infringement,  and  will  be  re- 
strained by  injunction.  Goodyear  and 
N.  K.  Car- Spring  Co.  v,  Phdps,  3  lilatclif., 
92.— Xklson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1853. 

9.  A  railroad  corporation,  created  by 
ooo  state,  and  owning  a  road  within 
that  state,  is  liable  to  an  action  for  the 
use  of  a  patented  improvement  on  cars 
run  on  that  road,  though  another  cor- 
poration, created  by  another  state,  held 
the  stock,  furnished  and  worked  tlio 
road,  but  charged  to  the  first  corpora- 
tion the  expense  of  such  outlays,  and 
credited  it  with  the  earnings.  York tb 
3Id.  II.  li.  Co.  V.  Winans,  1 7  IIow.,  40. 
— Campbell,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

1 0.  A  corporation  is  liable  in  damages 
for  infringing  a  patent,  if  the  patented 
machines  are  procured  by  such  corpora- 
tion, and  are  used  by  those  employed 
or  paid  by  it.  Ransom  v.  Mayor,  t&c, 
of  New  York,  MS.— Hall,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

11.  A  corporation  acts  only  by  those 
Avho  are  in  its  employ.  Where  one  in 
the  employ  of  a  corporation,  in  the 
business  oC  his  employment,  does  an  act 
for  their  benefit,  and  which  they  adopt 
and  approve  and  take  advantage  of,  the 
corporation  will  be  deemed  to  have  au- 
thorized the  act,  and  will  be  bound  by 
it  as  if  expressly  authorized.  Poppen- 
heusen  v.  JY.  Y.  G.  P.  Comb  Co.,  4  Blatchf. 
— Inoersoll,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1858. 

12.  The  manufacture  of  articles  in 
violation  of  a  patent,  by  an  agent  of  a 


%t 


COSTS  IN  PATENT  SUITS. 


917 


WIIRK  COHTM   KKCOVERAIILK;    WIUT  TAXAIII.8. 


corporation,  luul  tho  sale  of  such  articles 
by  ami  lor  tlio  ])cii(>fit  of  Hiich  corpora- 
tion, makes  tlu'in  liable  for  tho  infringe- 
nu'nt.     Ibid. 

13.  The  fact  that  as  between  them- 
selves parties  aro  connected  together  as 
the  stockholders,  managers,  and  servants 
of  a  corporation,  will  not  exempt  them 
from  being  enjoined,  or  being  liable  to 
an  action  for  infringement.  Po^ipeti- 
heusen  v.  Falke^  MS.— Suipman,  J.; 
N.  y.,  1861. 


COSTS  IN  PATENT  SUITS. 

1.  At  common  law  a  plaintiff  was 
not  entitled  to  costs  in  any  case ;  and 
the  statute  of  Gloucester  giving  costs 
gave  them  only  in  cases  Avherc  damages 
were  recoverable  at  common  law. 
Kneass  v.  Schuykill  Hank,  4  Wash., 
107. — Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  182!. 

2.  It  is  the  act  of  Congress  alone 
which  gives  an  inventor  a  right  of 
property  in  the  subject  of  his  invention, 
consequently  an  action  for  an  infringe- 
ment of  a  patent  is  not  a  case  in  which 
damages  could  have  been  recovered  at 
common  law.    Ibid.,  107. 

3.  Under  §  20  of  the  judicary  act  of 
1789,  if  a  plaintiff  recovers  less  than 
five  hundred  dollars,  he  cannot  recover 
coe:^'«  ;  but  at  the  discretion  of  the  court 
may  be  adjudged  to  pay  them.  Ibid., 
107. 

4.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent  the  plaintiff  recovered  three 
cents  damages,  and  at  a  subsequent 
term  of  the  court  obtained  a  rule  upon 
the  defendants  to  show  cause  why  the 
costs  should  not  be  trebled.  The  de- 
fendants retorted  by  a  rule  on  the  plain- 
tiffs to  show  cause  why  the  judgment 


should  not  I'e  entered  without  costs. 
Tho  coiirt  discharged  tho  first  rule  and 
made  the  second  absolute.  Ibid,,  107. 
fi.  A  plaintiff  is  not  entitled  to  re- 
cover costs  for  an  infringement  of  a 
patent,  as  to  which  a  disclaimer  is  filed, 
unless  such  disclaimer  is  filed  before 
suit  brought,  even  if  he  proves  an  in- 
fringement of  a  part  of  tho  invention 
not  disclaimed.  Heed  v.  Cutter,  1 
Story,  000. — Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1841. 

6.  Though  tho  deposition  of  a  wit- 
ness residing  more  than  ono  hundred 
miles  from  tho  place  of  trial  has  been 
taken,  tho  witness  may  be  produced  on 
the  trial,  and  if  so  produced  full  costs 
of  his  personal  travel  and  attendance 
will  be  allow  I'll  in  the  costs.  Prouty  v. 
Eugyles,  2  Story,  200. — Story,  J. ; 
JNIass.,  1842. 

7.  Postage  paid  for  tho  transmission 
of  a  commission  to  take  testimony  should 
be  allowed  as  part  of  the  costs.  Ibid.y 
202. 

8.  Where  a  demurrer  could  have 
been  taken  to  a  bill  in  equity,  but  the 
defendants  instead  of  demurring  filed 
an  answer,  and  testimony  was  taken 
and  tho  bill  was  dismissed  upon  the 
merits,  because  the  plaintiff  did  not 
show  a  sufficient  title,  Held,  that  the 
defendants  were  not  entitled  to  costs. 
Brooks  v.  By  am,  2  Story,  553. — Story, 
J.;  Mass.,  1843. 

9.  Costs  in  equity  are  altogether  in 
the  discretion  of  the  court,  but  this  dis- 
cretion is  to  be  a  sound  one,  exercised 
on  principle,  and  with  a  reference  to 
the  general  rules  of  practice.  Ibid.y 
553,  554. 

10.  Where  a  bill  was  dismissed  on 
the  merits,  each  party  to  bear  his  own 
costs,  but  a  record  had  been  printed 
under  tho  order  of  the  court.  Held,  that 
the  costs  of  the  printing  such  record 


mm>. 


-■^^^ 


mm 


'■'■i^T 


'^'«»W;Lh.J  1 


^SmSSSU^^-'-^' 


m^^^^kt^'- 


'W*'-'V; 


218 


COSTS  IN  PATKNT  SIl'I'S. 


WIIKN    KK«'()VKU,VIII.K;    WIIAI    TA.XAIII.K, 


'j^ 


<: 


'*»*«K» 


^■\ 


R'"* 

Wf  -, 

m--,^ 

was  ti)  Itc  ('(iiiiilly  (Uvitlc'il  Itotwci-n  (!u> 
|»iUlU'H.      //'/■</.,  .">">4. 

II.  In  the  lii'Ml  ciiviiit  llio  plalntitl' 
ill  |»!i<{t'iit  casi's  is  tu»t  ri>«|iiirt>(l  to  ^ivi' 
hcfiirily  Tor  i-osts.  )K<>0(/(r(>;M  v. 
;S/unii<ni,  '.\  Story,  17!). — Stouy,  •!.; 
JMass.,  IMU. 

I'J.  WluTo  lU'itlior  tlio  liiwrt  of  :i 
frt.'ilo  nor  till'  Juts  of  Coiiifi't'ss  pniviilc 
for  tlie  allow, iiu'i'  oi'  any  partii'iilar  it  fin 
of  costs,  it  is  to  1)0  taxi'ii  only  wlu-n 
rclatini^  to  ilu'  (•oiii|iotoiil  ovidi-iicn  in 
tilt'  cast',  mill  coniu'ctotl  with  uliat  is 
a|i|ii"(>i>ri:itt'ly  a  matter  of  cost  ratlii-r 
than  (laiiiau;rs  aini  t'XjK'iisos  in  preparing 
a  I'aiiso.  J/iit/unr<ti/  \.  Jiotw/i,  '2  Wood. 
&>  Mill.,  71. — WooDnuitv,  J.J  ^Mass., 
181(1. 

lU.  If  a  I'aso  is  siispt'iuK'tl  or  j)ost- 
j)oiu'il  liy  MLjit'lMiiciit,  and  int  by  order 
of  foiMt,  e\ei']tt  to  I'arry  sucli  a^ri'i'iufiil 
into  olU'i'l,  till'  witiii'ssi'H  will  not  be  al- 
lowed anotliiT  travel  fee,  unless  sueli  is 
the  aj4;rei'nieiit,  but  tlu-ir  eoiiliiiued  al- 
teiidauee  until  di.-^eharjjed  will  bo  allow- 
ed.    Jhnf.,  72. 

14.  Ill  the  courts -if  the  United  States 
witnesses  are  eiitilK'd  to  (ravel  "from 
the  places  of  their  abode"  by  the  act 
of  Congress  (act  of  17!>i),  ch.  !>,  §  0, 
vol.  1  Stat,  at  Large,  p.  (i-O),  though 
beyond  the  line  of  the  state.      Ihhl.,  7;t. 

1.").  Cojties  of  assignments,  showing 
plaintilV's  interest,  and  produced  ami 
obtained  by  the  defendant,  are  taxable 
in  defendant's  costs,  as  they  are  compe- 
tent and  juoper  evidence,  and  the  j)lain- 
tilfis  not  bound  to  juodiiee  thei.i,  nor 
is  the  deleudunt  bound  to  ask  plainlilV's 
admission  to  such  assignment.  Il/ld., 
74. 

16.  But  a  copy  of  the  plaintilf's  pat- 
ent, procured  l»y  the  defendant,  is  not 
taxable,  as  the  ])laintilf  is  bound  by 
law  to  oiler  it  in  evideuce.     IbiiL,  74. 


17.  In  e«piity,  ait  a  general  rule,  comIk 
ari'  allowi'>l  to  the  prevailing  party. 
What  prevails  by  law  is  presumed  to  he 
moral,  and  eonscieiitioiiH,  and  eqiiitalilr. 
Ibit  if  peculiar  circiinistances,  of  -in 
eipiitabi,'  churacter,  exist  agiiinst  a 
party,  (hey  m;iy  be  withheld  ;  but  tlio 
iiuideii  to  show  (liesi)  peculiar  cir- 
cunistances  is  on  the  party  asserting 
them.  J/iirn/  v.  >?(  jvv/.v,  ;j  Wood.  A 
.Mill.,  .(2,  y;». —  Woonm  nv,  J.;   Alass., 

IS.  If  a  long  defence  is  juit  in  by  a 
respondent  and  fails,  and  the  bill  is  dis- 
misst  (1  on  othi'r  grounds,  he  will  not  ho 
;ilh>wed  costs.  And  if  the  action  wa« 
not  for  any  wrong  of  the  defendant, 
but  to  settle  the  title  of  the  plaiiililV, 
and  he  luis  a  decree,  he  will  have  no 
costs  as  against  the  defendant.  //>/</.,  ;):t. 

lit.  The  fact  that  a  bill  for  an  iiijmic- 
tioii  failed,  on  account  of  a  defect ivc 
si»ecilic.ilioii,  is  not  a  failure  for  any 
fiult  of  (he  ilcfendant;  nor  is  it  from 
the  want  of  form  in  the  bill  or  ]ilcad- 
iiigs,  and  hence  not  (o  be  visited  by 
large  costs  against  the  plaintilV.  Uut 
it  was  a  defect  in  the  plaintin".s  title. 
If>u/.,  ;)4. 

'JO.  Where  the  course  of  the  defend- 
ant w:is  not  Avholly  favorable  to  his 
claims  in  eiiuity,  only  ilisbursementsand 
the  usual  counsel  fee  were  allowed,  ami 
he  was  not  permitted  to  tax  the  travel 
and  atteiulance  of  witnesses,  who  were 
in  attendance  in  an  action  at  law,  at  the 
same  tcriii,  bi'twecn  (he  same  parties. 
nn(/.,  ;Hi,  37. 

21.  Where  a  patent  is  too  broad,  the 
jilaiiitiif  in  an  action  for  iiifringenient, 
though  he  may  recover  judgnieiit,  is 
not  entitled  to  costs  against  the  defciul- 
ant,  unless  a  disclaimer  shall  have  been 
filed  before  the  conunencement  of  tho 
suit.     But  the  question  of  damages,  aud 


COUNSKL  I'KKS. 


iiiiO 


WIIKTIIRH  Hlt'UVKIIAIII.K    \H   HAMAdCM. 


till'  |Mi\vci'  of  li.o  court  to  iiu'i'u.'iHo  tlio 
,i'nli('l,  rfinuin  the  Hiitiic  iiH  ircnsis  wcit 
iilliiwnl.  (iiiyon  V.  tirrnUy  I  IHahlii'., 
21:., -Mt).— Nki.son,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  1H47. 

2'J.  \Vlit'n»  11  |>iilctit  ('.ontuiiiN  Ht'vt'iul 
clitiiiis  lioil  '''*'  invention  uniltracfd  liy 
dill'  is  not  iifw,  or  is  iisi-K'hh,  IIu'  |i!ilt'ii 
tir  iiii'l''!'  >5>5  V  iiixl  <>  «•'"  ll>«'  act  of  ls;iV 
iiiav  Ntill  iiiiiiiitaiii  an  ad  ion  for  nii  in 
tViiiK^'iiit'nt,  altlioiif^h  lie  did  not,  lid'orc 
tlic  cDnniH'nci'nicnt  of  llio  suit,  niaUc  a 
(lisclainuT  <if  tiiat  part  of  the  invention 
(iiiincd  witlioiit  ri^lit ,  Init  \w  will  not 
bo  cntilli'd  lo  »'OHtH.  llnll  v.  Wilis,'* 
lllalclir.,  1!>H— Nki,kon,.I.;  N.  V.,  iHr.l. 

'.';).  If,  in  \\w  proi^rcsH  of  liic  trial,  it 
tiiniHoiit  that  adiHclainuM'  ou;^lil  to  Imvc 
iiccn  made  as  to  part  of  wliat  is  clairncil, 
the  |iluintilf  may  still  recover,  but  will 
not  he  cnlitled  lo  costn.      [hiil.,  \[)H, 

'1\,  Where  a  jud^^inent  is  «'nteri'd  up 
without  the  costs  having  lieon  taxed 
and  inserted  in  it,  it  is  proper  for  the 
court,  at  a  suhseipuuit  t(!rin,  to  have  the 
costs  taxed  and  entered  nnin'  f>r<>  'xiic 
asupart  of  the  original  Judgment.  Sizir 
\.  M'Dii/,  10  How.,  lo;}.— Tanhy,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  tn.,  185.3. 

2;').  ITnder  i^  5)  of  Dw  act  of  1R;j7,  in 
an  action  for  infringement,  the  plaintilf 
is  not  entitled  to  recover  costs  upon  a 
judgment  in  his  favor,  if  he  has  claimed 
anything  in  his  patent,  of  whicOi  he  was 
not  the  hrst  an<l  original  inventor,  tm- 
It'ss  before  suit  brought  he  has  disclaim- 
ed such  part ;  and  it  makes  no  difference, 
in  this  respect,  Avhether  the  infringe- 
ment alleged  was  in  respect  to  the  part 
clainuHl,  but  not  new,  or  of  some  other 
part  eiaiuicd  in  the  patent.  BeyDiour 
V.  McCormkh,  19  IIow.,  105. — Nkl- 
sox,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

2G.  Under  the  act  of  Feb.  20,  1853, 
(10  U.  S.  Stat.,  at  Large,  IG'2),  the  item 
cf  $2.50  allowed  as  costs  to  a  solicitor 


for  each  deposition  taken  mid  aibnitted 
in  evideiuHi  '  :  a  cause,  is  not  taxable 
in  an  ei|uity  suit,  except  for  the  drpimi- 
lion  wlieii  aili'iitted  on  a  linal  hearing. 
StiitipMoii   V.    /Irooi.f,    ;{     lllalclif.,   45H. 

—  Min-iH,  J.;  N.  Y.,  Iw50. 

'21.  The  wli(de  provision  of  that  stat,- 
ute,  covering  taxable  proceedings,  has 
direct  relation  to  those  whicli  are  final 
in  the  cause,  and  not  to  interlocutory 
or  incidental  ones,  however  neciessary 
they  nniy  l»e  in  its  progress.      /fniLiUl. 

'JH.  In  an  action  at  law  for  the  in- 
fringement of  a  ])alent,  the  expense  of 
models  of  the  <le|i'iidaiil\  inai-hines  can- 
not be  taxed  against  him.  J'arktr  v. 
y>V.v/»r,  MS.— (iKiKK,  J.;  J*a.,  1857. 


COUNSEL    UKKS    IN    I'ATKNT 

suns. 

1.  Counsel  fees  and  expenses  of  wit- 
nesses, beyond  tin;  taxable  costs,  are 
not  to  be  (ujnsidered  as  items  of  actual 
damage.  (So  held  on  the  authority  of 
Arviwihal  V.  Wistmffn,  :»    Dall.,  300.) 

Wliittemore\.  ijutttr,  1  (iail.,  4;U,  433. 
— St(.hiv,  J. ;  Mass.,  18i;{. 

2.  The  Jury  are  at  libtnty,  if  they  see 
tit,  to  allow  a  plaintiil'  as  part  of  his 
"  actual  damagcfs,"  any  expc-nditure  for 
counsel  fees,  or  other  charges,  which 
were  nectcssiirily  incurred  to  vindicate 
the  rights  derived  under  his  patent,  and 
which  are  not  taxable  in  the  bill  of 
costs.  Jiuston  Mcmnf.  Co.  v.  J^'ixke, 
2  Mas.,  122.— Stoky,  J. ;  ]\Iass.,  IH'JU. 
(So  held  after  a  fuller  .and  more  careful 
examination  of  the  case  of  Arcarnfjal  v. 

Wisenum,  and  overruling  the  decision 
in  Whitternore  v.  Cutter.)  [IJut  see 
2V)St  3,  5,  8-11. J 

3.  Li  an  action  of  infringement,  the 
Jury  nuiy  allow  the  plaintiffiu  damages, 


^r'^wr!*! 


i   LA 


t 

^1, 


h 


«i{ii 


220 


COURTS,  A. 


JVKiaMCTION   AH    TO  COPTBKIUTB  AMD  MAHVBCBITTS. 


Iiifl  nctiiiil  coHtH,  which  inchuie  ronHon- 
uble  cotiiiNcl  foi-H,  UH  wi>ll  iiH  liny  tuxabli* 
coMtH  \u'  had  paid  in  conaoquoitcu  of  thu 
violation  of  dufuiKlant.  Allen  v.  JJlunt, 
2  Wood.  &  Min.,  140. — WooDiiuitv,  J. ; 
MaHH.,  IHIO. 

4.  Thu  "actual  damages"  Hustainod 
indiide  all  noccHHary  and  proper  expen- 
HCH  in  j>rotcctiiig  one's  viohitod  rights. 
Tlioiigh  tiicy  Hliould  not  inchido  "  smart- 
money,"  tliey  may  well  embrace  every 
thing  really  suffered  by  the  wrong. 
Ibid.,  146,  147. 

6.  CounHel  fees,  and  other  expendi- 
tures, beyond  or  in  addition  to  those 
taxable,  cannot  bo  allowed  by  the  jury  as 
a  part  of  the  actual  damages  sustained 
by  a  plaintiff  in  an  actio ii  for  an  in- 
fringement of  a  patent.  Stimpaon  v. 
The  Jiailroads,  1  Wall,  Jr.,  100,  109.— 
GuiKK,  J. ;  Pa.,  1847. 

6.  In  no  case  is  the  degree  of  the 
defendant's  delinquency  to  be  measured 
by  the  expenses  of  the  plaintiff  in  pros- 
ecuting his  suit.    Ibid.,  170. 

7.  Where  the  circumstances  of  in- 
fi-ingcment  are  of  an  aggravated  char- 
acter, what  are  sometimes  called  vin- 
dictive damages,  which  would  include 
counsel  fees,  and  something  more  by 
way  of  example,  to  deter  others  from 
doing  the  same  thing,  may  be  given. 
Parker  v.  Corbin,  4  McLean,  463. — 
McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1848. 

8.  In  the  second  circuit  the  jury  are 
confined  to  the  actual  damages  sustained 
by  the  plaintiff,  and  cannot  include  as  a 
part  of  his  damages  his  expenses  and 
counsel  fees.  Blanch.  Gun-Stock Mantif. 
Co.  V.  Warner,  1  Blatchf.,  272  (note). 
— Nelson,  J.;  Ct.,  1846. 

9.  Expenses  and  counsel  fees  are  not 
to  be  included  in  the  verdict  as  actual 
damages.  Simpson  v.  Leipcr,  2  Whar. 
Dig.,  414.— Grier,  J.;  Pa.,  1848. 


10.  Tlio  jury  arc  to  give  compciiHa- 
tory  damages,  such  as  will  iniU-nuiity 
the  plaintiff  for  the  injuries  he  has  di- 
rectly HUHtain(>d,  but  tht>y  cannot  include 
the  expenses  of  litigation  in  tluir  ver- 
dict. I'arkcr  v.  Ilulmc,  7  West.  Law 
Jour.,  420.— Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  1840. 

1 1 .  Counsel  fees  are  not  a  proper  ele- 
ment for  theconsiderationof  thejiiry  in 
the  estinuUion  of  damages,  in  actions 
for  the  infringement  of  a  imtenl.  7lt«(! 
V.  Ifuntington,  23  How.,  8. — Cliffobi), 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1859. 


COUJITS,  JURISDICTION  OF. 

A,  In  RKsrEOT  to  CoPYRiaaTs  and  Man- 
CSCHU'TS 220 

B.  In  Respect  to  Paiknts. 

1.  Supreme  Court,   United  States. .  222 

2.  Circuit  Courts,  United  States. . .  223 

3.  District  Courts,  U.  S.,  under  acts 

of  1790  and  1793 227 

4.  State  Courts 228 

C3,    AuTuouiTY  or  Decisions  of,  in  other 

Courts 230 

A«    In  Respect  to  Copyrights  and 
Manuscripts. 

See  also  Actions,  A.;  Equity,  A.;  Ix- 
JUNCTIONS,  A.;  Letters  ;  Manuscku'ts. 

1.  At  common  law,  the  author  of  a 
manuscript  may  obtain  redress  against 
any  one  who  deprives  him  of  it,  or  who 
by  improperly  obtaining  a  copy  endea- 
vors to  realize  a  profit  from  its  publica- 
tion. Wheaton  v.  Peters,  8  Pet.,  657. 
— McLean,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1834. 

2.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  rights  of  an  assignee  of  such  manu- 
script would  be  protected  by  a  Court 
of  Chancery.     Ibid.,  661. 

3.  Where  a  wrong  has  been  commit- 


*'^''%| 


COUUTS,  A. 


Ml 


JURMOIOTION  AS  TO  OOPTRIUiiTI  AND  MAWMMPTt. 


ted  in  roHpPi't  to  ft  lilcriiry  work,  but 
tlio  liill  <Io('H  not  (iHk  nil  iiijiiiK-tioii  to 
tirotoct  tliv  ooininoii  luw  i-i;;lit  of  t)u> 
author,  or  tlio  violiition  of  any  copy- 
right Hocurod,  but  only  iiskM  nn  account, 
ri'drcsH  cannot  bo  Hoii^ht  in  n  court  of 
equity,  but  the  party  niUHt  proceed  at 
I.'tw  for  (luiiiam'H.  Monk  v.  Harihty  \\ 
KJw.  Ch.,  110,  ni.-->JcCouN,  V.  Ch.; 
N.Y.,  lH:n. 

4.  Under  tho  nets  of  IVOO  and  1810, 
KN  to  patents  and  copyrij^lits,  tho  own- 
ers of  copyrightM  and  i)atcnt8  do  not 
have  redress  or  relief  in  any  cases  wlieie 
thoy  could  not  before  have  had  relief 
in  soTiie  court  eitlier  of  ecpiity  or  law. 
Pio-jyont  V,  Fowle,  2  Wood.  «fc  Min., 
27.— Woyi>»tJUY,J. ;  Mass.,  1846. 

5.  These  acts  merely  enabled  tlieni  to 
prosecute  such  claims  in  tho  Circuit 
Court  of  tho  United  States  uu  they 
legally  had  done  before,  but  without 
going  to  tho  state  tribunals ;  the  public 
interest  required  a  uniform  construction 
to  be  placed  by  one  tribunal  on  all  im- 
portant questions,  qu(!stions  connected 
with  rights  so  held.     Ibid.^  27. 

0.  At  common  law,  independently  of 
the  statute,  tho  author  of  a  manuscript 
might  obtain  redress  against  one  who 
had  surreptitiously  gained  possession  of 
it.  Bartktt  v.  Crittenden,  4  McLean, 
301.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

7.  On  general  equitable  principles, 
relief  may  also  be  given,  under  like  cir- 
cumstances, by  a  court  of  chancery. 
lUd.,  301. 

8.  At  common  law,  an  author  may 
maintain  an  action  for  tho  damages 
which  he  might  sustain  by  his  manu- 
script being  surreptitiously  printed  by 
others.  Hoyt  v.  McKemiey  3  Barb. 
Ch.,  323.— Walwobth,  Chan.;  N.  Y., 
1848. 

9.  The  common  law  protects  the  right 


of  ail  author  to  his  inaniiscript  only. 
liartktt  V.  (Jrittrndcn,  ft  McLean,  38. 
— McLkan,  .1.;  Ohio,   IH41). 

10.  Hut  j}  0  of  tho  copyright  act  of 
1H31  also  protects  such  right.  I/jid., 
38. 

11.  In  ft  suit  under  tho  copyright 
acts,  the  plaint  it)' must  make  out  a  title 
to  8U0  under  his  copyright.  The  court 
cannot  interfere  to  prevent  the  use  of  a 
work  in  fraud  of  tho  ]daiiitifV,  upon 
principles  relating  to  the  good- will  of 
trades.  Jollic  v.  Jiujuca,  1  Blatchf.,  027. 
—Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

12.  A  suit  arising  out  of  an  agree- 
mcnt  as  to  tho  publication  of  a  manu- 
script, and  to  determino  the  rights  of 
the  parties  under  it,  is  not  a  suit  under 
tho  copyright  laws,  of  which  tho  Cir- 
cuit Court  has  jurisdiction  by  reason 
of  subject  matter.  Pulte  v.  Dcrhy,  5 
McLean,  330.— MoLkan,  J. ;  Ohio,  1852. 

13.  Tho  act  of  February  15,  1810,  so 
far  as  it  gave  cognizance  to  the  courts 
of  tho  United  States  in  cases  of  copy- 
rights, still  remains  in  force,  and  is  tho 
only  law  conferring  equitable  juris- 
diction on  these  courts  in  such  cases ; 
§  9  of  the  act  of  1831  protects  manu- 
scripts only.  Stephens  v.  Oladding,  1 7 
IIow.,  455. — CuitTis,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1854. 

14.  The  equity  jurisdiction  of  such 
courts,  as  to  copyrights,  docs  not  ex- 
tend to  tho  adjudication  of  forfeitures ; 
a  decree  therefore  cannot  bo  entered 
for  the  penalties  incurred  for  a  violation 
of  a  copyright.     Ibid.,  455. 

16.  The  jurisdiction  of  tho  federal 
courts,  under  tho  acts  of  Congress,  re- 
specting copyrights,  has  not  taken 
away  or  diminished  the  original  juris- 
diction, which  before  such  acts  tho  state 
courts  exercised,  except  where  the  ju- 
risdiction was  made  exclusive  in  express 


y^"'^- 

»••'«*.;:. 


•***»!• 


mi 


it»<w 


-' V.  ^Ui 


••^. 


r^^": 


'^-^i 


.wc;^' 


.'  I 


^^1 


ll 


i  i 


,Lu 


^*^»i;:'  '»';!!»»■#■ 


r"^*-*^! 


^Si 


-  A,.,;, 


COiniTS,  M.  1, 


^VHttMonoir  Af  to  Pktntn,   loraan  eonwi 


il 


'»*t, 


Ih'-  .if 


> 


fSi 


V 


'^::i 


> 


■"-ill 


tcriiH,  or  l»y  (Jii*  iH'ct'smiry  coimtnii'tloii 
of  till'  rfilt'i'iil  (■oiiHtitiitioii.  W'tnilmi/ \. 
Jmiif,  4  DiuT,  a«;i.— Dl'ku,  J.;   N.  V., 

man. 

Id.  Wlicro  fin  iwHlpfnrtUMit  of  ii  play 
;,'a\('  to  tlu<  iiNxigtuH'  the  t'XfliiHivt'  \\\i\\\ 
to  n'proMciit  tint  Niiiitt'  williiii  »  iHirtuiii 
territory  for  ii  iixcil  ptM-iod  «)f  time,  and 
only  tlio  titl(*-p(i;{u  of  Hurit  play  liad 
biTM  filcil,  l)iit  no  priiilcil  copy  had  l)<>t>n 
dt'piixiti'd,  on  l>ill  fiiod  by  tlir  assi;j;ni'c 
to  pnttoct  IiIh  right,  Jfelif,  that  the 
coml  liad  jnriHdi(!tion.  Jiohrrtu  v.  My 
tr«,  i:i  Mo.  \m\v  Ilcp.,  ion,  401.— 
Si'UAoiTK,  .1.;  MasM.,  IHOO.  [But  hio 
l>uat  -J I.] 

17.  ITndor  the  act  of  CongroMH  ffivinu; 
to  the  (.'ircult  C'oiirtH  coj^nizanco  of  caMi-n 
nrisinjj;  iiinh'r  the  laws  of  llu«  I'nited 
St.'iti'M,  j^riintinji  toaiilliors  tlieexcliisivt' 
right  to  their  writings,  tho  citizenship 
of  till!  ])artieH  litigant  is  inunatorial. 
JCei'Hi'  V.  ]\7iii/l/ii/,  0  Amer.  fi.iw  IJeg., 
44.— C.\i)WAi,i..\i>i:i{,  J.;  Ta.,   IHOO. 

IH.  And  nnder  the  statutes  which 
confer  and  regnlate  >'!f//its  of  liteniry 
proprietorship,  the  citizenship  of  such 
]»:irties  is  also  uniniportant.  It  is  sufli- 
cient  if  the  complainant  is  u  resident  of 
the  United  States.     Ibid,  45. 

10.  Tho  act  of  1831,  §  0,  giving  re- 
dress for  the  unaiithorizei]  ^»/v'//^///(/  or 
pnhlinhiii(f  of  thdiiKseriptH,  gives  no  re- 
dress for  an  nnaiithorizud  thejitric.'il 
lepresentation  of  a  play.  Tho  word 
puhlish  inean.s  pnblish  in  print.  Ibid., 
45. 

20.  Tho  only  statnto  which  affords 
redress  for  unauthorized  theatrical  rep- 
resentations is  tho  act  of  August  18, 
185(5.  IJtit  this  applies  only  to  cases  in 
■which  copyright  is  eft'ectualiy  secured 
under  the  act  of  1831.     Ibid.,  45. 

21.  Where  a  play  had  never  been 
Itrinted,  and  consequently  a  copy  there- 


of «'ould  not  be  <b>posiled  with  th(>rli>r|( 
within  the  time  prts«-ril»ed  uftrr  its /o/A. 
lii'iiliuii,  but  all  the  other  Htatntory  k 
qiiirementM   hud    been   conipliod   with 
/fild,  that  jurisdi<*tion  for  ai  unauthor 
i/i'd  pulilication  could  not  be  niaint  lin. 
ed  uihler  such  act  <if  iHftlJ.      Ibid.,  ■>:>_ 
'2'2.  Hut  Jurisdiction  of  hucIi  a  cis,. 
may  be  niaiiilained  if  the  parties,  pliin. 
till'  imd  di'Tcndaiit,  :ire  residents  of  dif. 
ferent  states,  or  if   tho  plaint  ill"  \n  jn, 
alien.     Ibid.,  40,  4U. 

n.  Tv  Ui:si'ic«T  TO  Patknih. 

1.  Supreme  Court  United  titaka. 

See  nine  Appkalh,  A.;  Uiix  of  Ex* 
(KiTioxs;  Wrtrr  ok  Kuiioii. 

1.  The  question  whether  one  niacliitio 
is  substantially  like  another  is  ono  of 
fact,  and  cannot  be  certified  to  the  Sii- 
|>reme  CJourt  nnder  )<  (1  of  the  act  (if 
1H02,  eh.  ;n.  Such  act  applies  otilv  to 
(piestions  of  law.  Wllnon  v.  liannm, 
H  How.,  202.— Tankv,  Ch.  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1H40. 

2.  Where  the  principles  governing  a 
patent  cause  have  been  settled  by  this 
court,  it  will  (b'cline  to  hear  an  nrgunient 
u]>on  techiiic.nl  «pu'stions  of  pleadiiu^ 
arising  in  another  case,  mider  the  same 
patent,  and  the!  ruling  in  nsptvt  to 
which  would  have  no  influence  ujion  the 
ultimate  decision  of  the  case.  Smith 
V.  El  If.  15  How.,  142.— Tamov,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1K53. 

;}.  An  objection  not  taken  before  tlic 
court  below  cannot  bo  taken  before  tho 
Suitrenic  Court  on  appeal.  Kinsman 
V.  l\irh'/i>(r,9t,  18  How.,  295. — Crims, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1855. 

4.  Where  a  bill  is  filed  to  enforce  the 
specific  performance  of  a  contract  in  re- 


ill  tliri'tirk 
tU'r  \l*  pub- 
latiiliiry  n 
plu''!  with, 
I  iiii:iMtlii<r 
)(■  inuiiit  tin- 

•  tic) I     It    (HKO 

II I H'"*,  I'hiii- 

U'hiH   of  (lit'- 

liiititr  \n  ail 


ATI;  NTS. 
I  if  Sfilti9, 

r.ii.i,  OK  Kx- 

III. 

OHO  inncliliio 
I'l"  i«t  dill'  of 

1  tn    tllO   Su- 

f  tlic  act  of 
plies  (inly  to 

V.  IlortiutDy 
'li.   .1.;  Suii. 

j^nvcnriii;;^  ii 
t  It'll  hy  this 
inii  Mf^iiiiiiiU 
jilt"  jilcailiii,:! 
Icr  tlio  "iime 
li    ri'spoi't  to 

I1CI>  llpnil  tlio 

Inst'.     Smith 
ICY,  C'li.  J.; 

In  licforc  tlie 
In  liolnrc  the 
Kiiifman 

|5.— ClKTIS, 

(■lift lire  the 
liitruft  ill  ro- 


CULltTsl,  11.  2. 


fSS 


jURWiHonoN  Ai  TO  f.^Tuim    oinoviT  ooimm 


littioii  tn  a  |>ati>tit,  llio  Siiprciiii'  (!<iiit't 
liiiM  tic>  appt'Miitu  jiii'iitili('tit)ii,  itnh'MH  thi> 
iii;ittcr  ill  ciiiiiroviTMy  «'\ri('(N  lh('\aliu' 
III'  t>V<>  tlinilHailil  ilnllai'H.  Ilioirn  v. 
S/iini)iini,  '20  Ilitvv.,  50,  67. — Tankv, 
Cli.  .r.;  Slip.  Ct.,  lHft7. 

.1,  'Ilic  court  may,  liowovtT,  hiwftilly 
i>xri«'is('  itH  jiirisilii'tinii  when  a  far  li'«-t 
aiiiiMiiit  is  in  ilispiilL',  if  a  party  is  |i!'o- 
I't'otlinj;  ill  law  or  I'lpiity  for  tin-  iiifriiij.'f- 
iiH'iit  of  a  patnit-ri^lit  tt»  wliifh  lio 
chiiiiiH  to  III'  ftititlcil      Ifit'if,,  .Ml. 

II.  i'lic  aiiioiiiit  of  tli*<  penalty  in  a 
Ixiiiil  taken  on  nil  injiinetion  in  the 
iDiirt  below  cannot  bo  referred  to  to 
give  jurisdiction.     //u'<?.,  68. 

2.  Ciivuit  Goiirtt  United  tSlalca. 

See  also  A(Xount;  Ktiunv,  B.;  In- 
jUN(rno.v,  B. 

1.  Tlie  Circuit  Courts,  if  not  inferior 
in  the  teeliiiieal  sens*'  of  the  i»ooks,  arc 
so  ooiisi«lercd  by  the  constitution,  and 
are  ill  fact  Hiibordiii.'iti'  to  tlie  Supreme 
Cmnt,  and  their  jurisdietion  is  special 
mid  liinited,  liotii  in  rcjjard  to  the  nature 
of  tlic  cases  on  which  they  can  decide, 
and  the  character  of  the  parties  who 
can  conic  into  them.  L!iu'/i;/st(in  v. 
Van  fiii/e>i,  I  I'ainu,  4h. — Livi.susrox, 
J.;  X.  Y.,  1811. 

2.  If  jurisdi(rtion  of  cases  "arising; 
uiiilor  the  laws  of  the  ITnited  States" 
lie  not  conferri'd  on  these  courts  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  they  cannot  take  cog- 
niz-ince  of  them.     Ibid,  60. 

3.  By  the  judiciary  act  of  1789  the 
Ciivuit  Courts  were  not  clo'ihed  with 
ciiuity  powers  in  actions  between  citi- 
zoiis  of  the  same  state ;  .and  under  the 
act  of  1800  they  were  given  jurisdiction 
in  jiatont  cases  only  in  actions  on  the 
case.    On  a  bill  liled  to  restrain  the  in- 


frinKoincnt  of  n  patoni,  wheru  all  thu 
partitiri  wuro  citi/ciiM  of  the  Hamu  utatc, 
//</>/,  that  the  court  could  imt  take  co|^. 
ni/.ance  uf  hiicIi  a  case,  and  that  the  bill 
must  be  disiiiisMed.      //>!</.,  5'.',  .M. 

I.  If,  however,  iind»'r  the  act  of  IHOO 
it  became  nccesHary  In  an  action  at  law 
regul;iily  befiiit-  Hiuh  emirt,  for  either 
party  to  appeal  to  its  eipiiiy  side  in  aid 
or  defence  of  Miich  action,  such  applica" 
tion  might  not  bo  improper.     ff>i<l.,  6;J. 

6.  A  CinMiit  Court  must  imt  only 
conlino  itself  to  the  caseM  delined  by 
Congress,  but  if  by  a  partieiiliir  law  it 
Ih  luithori/.ed  to  proei<ed  in  a  given  caso 
nit  H  court  of  law  <»iily,  a  party  must 
come  into  it  on  that  Mde  to  bring  him- 
self within  the  provisions  of  it.  Ibid.y 
64. 

»1.  The  fact  that  the  subject  matter 
of  a  contract  Muight  to  be  eiiforcc'il  is 
a  patent-right,  dors  not  jur  ne  give  thu 
courts  of  the  I'liiled  Slates  jurisdiction; 
a  bill  tiled  for  tlio  spccilic  performanco 
of  such  a  contract  must  contain  the 
proper  averments  to  give  such  jurisdic- 
tion, linrr  v.  (ircjori/,  2  I'aiiic,  4'JO, 
4'Jl).— TllOMi'Sov,  J.;  N.  v.,  1828. 

7.  Under  tho  acts  of  170;i  and  1800, 
the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  I'liited  St.ates 
alone  have  jurisdiction  ofactiniisbroiight 
for  dainages  y>r  ^/((;  hifi'tii'ji'iinnt  of  a 
patent-right ;  as  by  those  acts  in  swh 
iirtions  the  court  can  dccl.'ire  the  patent 
void.  Jiurrall  v.  Jewdt,  2  Taige,  145. 
— Walwouth,  Ch. ;  X.  V.,  l.s:lo. 

8.  l»ut  the  jurisdi(;tiou  conferred  up- 
on such  courts  by  the  net  of  1810,  "  in 
suits  both  at  law  and  equity  arising  un- 
der the  ji.ateiit  laws,"  is  not,  either  in 
terms  or  by  necessary  implicatimi,  ren- 
dered exclusive  ns  to  all  actions  in  ref- 
erence to  patents.     //•/'/.,  II'),  1  KJ. 

9.  A  Circuit  Court  in  a  civil  suit  can- 
not declare  a  patent  void  exc-p:  fur  tho 


f^^IlM- 


I  III 


v^*r. 


!»S8Si^^ 


%i,  -■  • 


WWW^' 


TjT 


C-WUWwo 


.(MC^V 


% 

'*^%%* 


it-  I 


k 


v4 


v.*  4 


t'onnx  ».  t. 


4VlliMIMI'IH*H    HH    to   l'»>».S)N.       itHilir   nil  HtN 


omiNi*  N|M'i'illi'i|  ill ){ ii  of  till'  ni'i  nf  170:1. 
ir  till'  |iiili'iil  ix  ilt'li'i iivi>  tor  liny  nllifr 
I'liiiNi'  till'  \i<riii<-l  iihinI  ho  ^oih'iiil  Col 
till'  ili'I'oiiiliiiil.  W'/iitmy  V.  Nmmfll, 
Hiilil.,  :tlrt,  :il7,  nil.  IUi.uvvin,  .1.; 
Pii„  Ih;ii. 

10.  I'lhlcr  ^i  lit  mill  IV  ol'tlif  ml  ol' 
iN.'liI,  llii>  Ciiviiil  ('oiirlN  of  llio  riiiliil 
Klnh'H  liit\  o  o!k«>hiNivi>  I'o^iiiyiMii'c  of  Miiil m 
ill  oi|iiili,  t-i'liili\i<  lo  iiiliMloiin^  |iii|«<iiIm 
ill  i'iiM«»«  w  lii'io  ihii  I'oiirl  IN  iiiillioi'i/<<<l 
III  iitljiiilf(i<  iiii<l  ilivliii'o  II  |)iili'iit  iiio|M>r- 
Mtivo  or  voiil,  i>itlii<r  wlioily  or  in  piiii, 
or  in  iiii\  |mrt it'll lar  poiiion  of  llio 
I'liili'd  Si.'ili'M.  (iifiniin  V.  \y<ioifii',>rt/i, 
H  l'iu>ji',  i;m.  VVAi.Wktitni,  tli.;  N.V., 
IH40. 

M .  \V  hi'lluT  Kiii'h  oouiin  Imvo  I'solii 
kI\i'  Jiiri'*«li»  lion  ol'  omtv  «'»««>  in  wliioli 
n  rt>{lil  iitiilrr  llio  piitoiit  Iuun  niiglil 
I'oino  in  i|iH'!«lion  rollali'inlly  ;  or  in 
o;»j<i>!4  I'Xivpl  wln<r«'  from  iho  nutnro  t»f 
tlio  ri'liof,  tlu'ir  JiiriNiliotion  iimihI  ni'n>(»- 
Miily  lu' «'\>'lusiM> ;  71.07/.     //»/(/.,  l.'U. 

I'J.  'I'lu'  Ciiouil  I'oinis  I'UM'  no  jniii* 
iliotion  of  lui  iii'tion.  m    o  (Mifon'o  thi< 
n|Hvifu  I'xiviUion  of  m  t'onlriuM  roj*|u'i'l 

ill 


iiij;  u  |>!\ti'nt,  whi'ro  iho  |i;ntii'.H  ino 
I'il  if  I'll!*  of   tho  Niuiio  Ntnto  ;  but  wlioro 
tiio   phiintitVs    not    up   »  rit^ht   nmU'r   a 
p.'ttoni,  mill  a]lo)!i<  that  tho  .  ofciHiir.i 
nr«>  intViu^iiii;,  rilizi'iiship  will  no;  ■  iiit 
jurif<>liotion.      llrook.i  v.  .SVo/Ay,  H  Mo- 


l.oan.  .^•.^^.-  Ml  Lk.\: 


01 


no, 


l.'^l.' 


]9,  Hilt  whoi.'  tho  court  has  ohtaiufil 
jurisiHotion  on  tho  jjrouuil  of  inlViiiiro- 
nionl,  it  ni«y  ihon  lUviiio  othor  mat  tors 
whii'h  o\'  thomsolvof*  wouhl  not  alVord 
jjrouiui  for  tho  original  oxoroiso  of  juris- 
iliotion.      IN<f.,  y2i>. 

14.  Tn.lor  g  17  of  tho  act  of  ISJUl, 
tho  juvisiiiotion  .ns  to  suhjoot  mnttor 
of  tlio  (.'irouit  Court  iloos  not  oxtiMul 
to  a  bill  in  oquity  lilod  lor  tho  spooilio 
pcrfonnjmoo  of  a  contract  to  tn.nst'or  a 


imtiMit,  tho  jitr|«i|ii'iion  of  Niii'h  I'oiir'* 
lioiiitt  oonlliii'il  lo  iiolioiiN  niiili'r  iIm<  |iitt. 
I'lil  liiy/i  uniiiliii^  or  •'unllnninK  iigliin 
lo  iiitoiilorM.  Siitnttlh  \.  I'ltti'trt,  \ 
Woo.l.    »1.   Mill.,  117. —  WooimiiHV,  J.  J 


in.  If   Hiich  II  hill    iM  tilt')! 


iii;iiiiis|, 


Novoral  ili'foiiiliiniN,  noiiio  of  Hhom  iim 
ri'HiilonlN  of  Iho  nhiiio  Ntillo  willi  ||||i 
I'oMipliiiniintN,  ihi'  hill  niiiy  ^lill  Im>  iiiaiii 
liiini'il  ii^taiiiNt  iho  tli'linilanlN  u  jio  iiri> 
roMiilonlM  of  iino|lii<r  hIiiIo,       /At'i/.,  U';. 

III.  .\iiil  if  Miich  hill  ooiilaiii  11  priiycr 
for  nil  ininiii'lioii  a;;iiin>i|  iho  iimo  of  t||i> 
paloni  hy  all,  ihiN  woiilil  ho  Kroiiinl,  jj 
Ni'i'iiiM,  of  jiniNiliolioii  ovor  all  tho  i|i> 
tomliinlH  iiH  to  Nuhjoot  inatlor.  /A/i/,, 
:iH. 

17.  OhjoolioiiM  to  iho  JiiriNilioliiiii  011 
iioooiinl  of  parli.'M  or  Huhjool  imitlor,  if 
noi  iiukIo  unlil  alU'r  aiiNworM  aro  |iiit  in 
tho  niorilN,  roplio;)ti«.iiH  tiloil,  aiiil  thi> 
o\i<li'noo  |>iililiNhoii,  will  ho  too  laiit, 
/A/./.,  :iH. 

I.'^.  I'rooooiliiijfM  hy  hill  in  o(|Mily, 
iimlor  {$  lit  of  Iho  act  of  iH.til,  aii<l  t:|  lo 
of  tho  act  of  Ih;»I>,  ii^aiiiNt  the  Coiiiinii*. 


xionor   of  I'atontH   lo 


ooinpol    hiiii   lo 


i^<HUo  n  patoni,  muNt  ho  oominoiiooil  in 
Iho  Ciivuil  Court  of  tho  I'nitod  Si.iIch 
for  iho  Dintriot  of  Colmnhia,  and  can- 
not ho  hrounht  olsowhoro.  Notrihiiiiiil 
out  o{'  tho  (list  riot  liaH  jiiriMilictioii  over 
tho  portion  of  tho  CommiiiNionor  of  Pat- 
ents, ns  such,  iuiii  tho  Patent  Ottlco. 
iWuth«  V.  h'lhirorf/i,  IMir.  Pat.  Off., 
no.— K,\Ni>Ai.i.,  .1. ;  Ph.,  lH4fi. 

in.  Whoro  an  owner  of  an  undivided 
interest  in  a  patent  filed  n  hill  ai;:un.xt 
the  other  joint  owner  to  coinpel  tlio 
specific  performanoo  of  a  eonlrnct  in 
respoi't  to  manufacturing  under  siioli 
pal  out,  and  tho  defendant  ainoiij»  other 
thin<;s  denied  that  ho  was  manufactiir- 
inir  under  tho  patent,  and  sot  up  that 


c:oi;UTH,  H.  i. 


UWA 


jPMmiii'ri)iN  AN  r>i  f«riiNm    nrnnm  ntvwHk 


llii>  iirlii*lit  iiiiiitnt'iM'tiiri'il    hy    likiM    wiim 
illll'irrlll    rrnlll    llilll    |Mlli'Ml,     //>/</,  lllllt 

lliK  i|iii'Mtioii  rfil<«'<l  will  oni<  III'  lirtriiiKr- 
iiittiil     III'    It    tititfiif  i'i|j;lit,   nf    uhii'li    It 
hIiiI)<  I'Kiirl    liiiil  no  JiiriHilirliiiii,    f'nrk 
hufi>l\.   h'hinmint,    'i  IIiiIhI.,  rii.,  ItOO 
1(01).     IIain'I>;.u>,  CIiiiii.;  N.  .1  ,  iH47. 

V'O.  Ill  I'liMi'H  iiriNini^  iitnli'r  tin-  |iiili>iit 
lituM,  III!'  JiiiiMilirlinii  ttf  iIm<  Ciniiil 
('iiiiilM  i|iM<K  iiol,  )|)<|M>iii|   ii|Miti  l!i«<  ril 

ixi'M*<hi|l  III'   IIm*  |Mlliil'N  In  |Im>    Itrlinll,  M|- 

tlit'  niiiiiiiiil    Ml    ilt*4|i)ili',   ImiI    ii|iiiii   IIh' 
Niiliii'i'l  iiiiilli'i'.    'I'lii' |iiirlii-H  Miiiy  III- ril 
i/t'iiH  III'  llio  Niiiiiii  Mjiilf,  ttml  till'  iiiiiniiiil 
iiiiiv  )••'  liir^^i' iM' Hiniill.      AlltH  V.  lUmtt, 
I   iUiilrhr.,    iMil.  -  Nki,k«.n,  .1.;    N.    V., 

IHIII. 

•J I.  Till' jiiiliiiiiry  in-l  nl'  I7K»,  J}  II, 
rt'i|iiii'iii^  iiiii<  III'  tlii>  |iiirlicM,  iiliiiiililVnr 
itiii'inl.'itit,  III  III!  iiti  itiliiiliiliiiil  III'  llii' 
Mull'  wlii'ii'  t lii<  Hiiil  i  I  liriiiit;lil,  ilnrs  ikiI 
it|i|ily  l<>  iii'liiiMH  iti'iNiii;^  iiinli'i-  llii-  |iuti'iil 

lllWK.        I  Nil,    \H{\. 

'I'l,  II  in  only  iMU'c'HMiiry  to  ^ivo  jiiriM- 
ilictioii  in  |iiili>iil  niNCN,  llial,  llin  prncKHH 
is  Hi't'Vt'il  |ii'i-Niiii.'illy  ii|ioii  llii>  ill  ri'iiihkiit 
ill  till*  ilisti'ii't  wliori'  llii>  niiil  in  hroiiirlit, 
UM  priiviiltMl  liy  tin*  IiiIIit  rltkiiNi*  of  ^  1 1 
ol' lliii  not  of  17H1)|  iiliovn   ri'l'i-rrod  to. 

//>;./.,  iHd. 

'J;l.  'i'o  ciMifi'i' Jiii'isilii>rnin,  llii'  n^liirn 
of  tli«>  ninrshiil  upon  tint  writ  or  hiiIi 
pii'iiii  sIkhiIiI  Htiito  tliiit  \\n\  H4«rvi(!(i  of 
Hiicli  writ  or  Hiil)|i«i'nH  wuh  iniido  williin 
till'  ilistrii-t  wlutru  Huit  wuh  llron^llt. 
Ibid.,  4S7. 

24.  UiiiliT  1$  17  of  i\w  net  of  1h:i(I, 
till'  I'iiviiil  ('oiirtM  of  lln^  irnih-il  St.iti-H 
liavt!  not  only  orit/iwil,  hut  uIno  rxrlu- 
»Uv  jurisdiction  of  nil  artiiiiiH  arihin^ 
iindi'r  till  paU'iit  liiWH.  Dudley  v.  May- 
heir,  :t  ConiH.,  11. — Stiionu,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1849. 

25.  Althongh  the  juri8di<!tion  of  tlio 

Circuit  Court  embraces  all  cases,  botli 
15 


III  law  tiiid  ill  ti«|iiily,  iiriNiiiLC  niidfr  lliii 
|iiil«'iit  liiWN  for  infiini^Ci'Mii'iilM  nf  li'llorii 
|Mili-iil,  willioiii  ri't^ai'd  lo  lliK  i'lliiM<n<«iii|i 
of  llif  |iiitiii'M  nr  ilii*  aniMiMil  in  rmilro 
viMwy,  iImi  |irovi»i)inM  of  (J  I  I  ol  llm  Jii 
•  lii'iiiry  not  of  I7HII,  iin  lo  llM<roinnM'iM'iw 
nit'iit  of  Hiiilx,  a|i|)lirH  III  iIm'hi'  ntMi-H  hh 
wril  111  lo  iillicri  and  Ih'Imi'  hid'Ii  a  '<ilit 
raiiiiiil  lii>  liMiiii^lil  ill  any  nllii-r  diolriit 
ihan  ihat  wlnTrof  |||i>  iji-l'indunl  In  an 
inlialiilanl,  or  in  wliirli  ln'  Mliall  Im'  I'oiind 
il  lliK  linii'  of  Mi'rviiit;  I  In*  wril.  t>ny 
V.  S'lw.irk  I.  li.  r'o,  I  lUalilif.,  0:10,  n:i  I. 

N  K.isiis,  .1. ;   N.  v.,  |M."iO. 

V'U.  A  for|iorali<  Imily  rr«>al<'d  liy  tin. 
ItiWM  of  oiiu  Hiali'  lias  no  corponili'  ox. 
i^ili'iiiT  lii-yiiiid  llif  liinitH  of  llii'  li-rri- 
lory  within  wliiili  llii'  law  rii-atiii;^  it 
ran  opftali',  and  Im  not  hiu-Ii  ii  ihtmoii  uh 
i-aii  III'  roiiNidorod  an  inlialiilant  of  iiny 
ilinlrii-t  NO  nn  to  liii  HiMvcd  with  proi^oHN. 
/All/.,  n.l'^. 

'.27.  WlH'rc,  thori'foni,  iho  di'finnlanls 
wen*  u  (!or|Miration  rroalnl  liy  llio  Iuwn 
of  Now  .li'rHcy,  hut  had  a  Ntorii  in  Ihn 
I'ily  of  New  York,  and  a  prin'OHH  of  at- 
larhniiMit  under  tlin  lawH  of  .\'<>w  York 
wiiH  roniiniMirrd  ii^aiiiHt  and  lovii'd  ii|iOM 
ilH  property  in  New  York,  and  the  miiiii- 
nioiiH  was  aiNii  HiTved  iipoii  tin-  pre^^ident 
of  ihe  I'liiiipaiiy,  who  was  easiiiilly  in 
New  York,  Hilil,  that  the  cuint  had  no 
jiiriHilii'lion  of  the  iwrtion.   //>/</.,  J5.'J.'I,«I.'I4. 

liH.  I'lider  J5  II  of  the  jiidiei.ary  aet, 
Ihe  CiriMiit  Coiirts  have  no  Jiirisirtcllon 
in  HiiitH  iiiNtitnted  a;^aiiiHt  foreij^n  cor- 
poral ionn,  even  in  eaneH  wlMtro  the  Ntatu 
practiec,  if  adopted  hy  tlioin,  would 
anthori/e  th(;  institiilion  of  niicIi  Hiiitii 
hy  iittachnient  of  their  floods  found 
within  their  jurisdiction,     find.,  OKt. 

20.  Th«  nctH  of  Oonfjress  udoptiii^ 
the  Htate  process,  adopt  the  forins  and 
uiodes  of  Hervi(H)  only  ho  far  as  the  per- 
sons are  rightfully  within  the  reach  of 


i^ir 


•^. 


.y^w. 


y^,^:^ 


J^hr-J  :, 


I 


ii 


m 


CC/UIITS,  K  2. 


juuisnu HON  ah  to  patkntm.    ciitcurr  coi'uts. 


l::M 


% 


such  jiroc't'ss,  arnl  do  not  iiitciul  lo  vu- 
lar^i'  till'  sphcri)  of  tlic  jniiHtlii'tiuu  ol' 
the  Circuit  Courts*.     Ifmf.,  (J.'JO. 

30.  A  citizc'ii  of  the  state  of  Connec- 
ticut l)rouf»lit  suit  in  New  York  agiiinst 
a  ciiizL'u  of  ttio  statu  of  New  Jersey,  for 
the  \iolatioii  of  an  agreement,  tlic  sut)- 
joct  matter  of  wliicli  was  a  patent,  and 
jtrayed  nu  aeeount.  Jlcld,  that  under  g 
11  of  tlie  judiciary  act  of  1789,  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  of  tile  United  States  had  no 
jurisdiction,  as  neither  of  tiie  parties 
was  a  citi/en  of  the  state  of  New  York, 
and  tliat  JMiisdiction  couUl  not  be  sus- 
tained under  the  patent  acts,  as  the 
action  was  not  respecting  a  patent. 
Goo(fi/ear  v.  Dtn/,  1  lllatclif,  500. — 
Nklsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  ISoO. 

31.  Tile  i»urcliaser  of  a  patented  ar- 
ticle for  the  purpose  of  using  it,  exer- 
cises n.o  riglits  created  by  tlie  acts  of 
Congress,  nor  does  he  derive  title  by 
virtue  of  the  franchise  or  privilege 
granted  to  the  patentee.  When  the 
machine  passes  to  the  hands  of  tlie  pur- 
chaser, it  is  no  longer  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  acts  of  Congr?ss,  but  be- 
comes ])rivate  projierty,  protected  by 
the  laws  of  the  state  where  it  is  situated. 
If  the  right  to  it  is  infringed,  redress  is 
to  be  sought  in  the  courts  of  the  state, 
aecorduig  to  the  laws  of  the  state,  and 
no'  in  the  courts  of  the  Unitetl  States, 
nor  under  the  laws  of  Congress.  Hloom- 
cr  V.  McQitetcau,  14  How.,  649.— '^a- 
NEY,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

32.  Under  §  17  of  the  act  of  1830, 
the  Circuit  Courts  have  jurisdiction  ir- 
lespective  of  the  right  of  the  plaintiff 
10  an  injunction,  or  a  detnand  for  one. 
uVci'iiis  V.  Jii/inson,  3  lilatchf.,  83. — Nkl- 
SON,  Uetts,  JJ.;  N.  Y.,  1853. 

S3.  Accordingly,  where  tlic  plaintifTs 
patent  had  expired,  and  a  bill  in  equity 
£led  by  him  allegod  an  infringement  of 


the  patent,  and  prayed  for  a  discovnv 
and  an  account,  but  imt  fur  an  injuiir  iui, 
I/eld,  on  n  demurrer  to  the  bill,  tlmt  th^k^ 
court  had  juristliction.     Ibid.f  83. 

34.  A  process  of  attachment,  whetlier 
direct  or  foreign,  by  which  the  projioi- 
ty  of  the  defendant  is  attacbed,  l»y  vir- 
tue of  state  laws,  cannot  give  the  Cir- 
cuit Court  jurisdiction  over  a  i)ers()ii 
not  an  inhabitant  of,  and  not  found 
within  the  t ! !  • ;  rict.  Saddler  v.  Jliidsou, 
2  Curt.,  7. — CuiiTis,  J.;  IMe.,  i;;54. 

35.  The  proper  place  to  file  a  bill  for 
an  injunction,  is  the  state  where  the  de- 
fendant resides.  An  injutiction  will  not 
issue  out  of  a  court  in  a  state  dillereiit 
from  that  where  such  defendant  resides 
and  carries  on  his  business, on  the  ground 
that  they  would  be  beyond  the  process 
of  the  injunction,  and,  the  issuing  of 
it  would  be  inoperative  and  useless. 
Uuodjcur  V.  CliojJ'ce,  3  Blatcht'.,  270.— 
Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

30.  The  power  of  determining  the 
validity  of  a  patent,  is  exclusireli/  con- 
fined to  the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  Unit- 
ed States,  and  the  state  courts  cannot 
entertain  a  suit  for  an  infringement,  or  to 
declare  a  patent  void.  J^lini)'  v.  J'ennel, 
40  3Iaine,  434. — Rice,  J. ;  Me.,  1855. 

37.  If  a  defendant  is  sued  out  of  his 
district,  he  must  plead  his  ])crsonal  priv- 
ilege, lliese  v.  I'helps^  1  jMcAllis.,  17. 
— McAlustkk,  J.;  Cal.,  1.855. 

38.  Where  a  person  brought  .an  ac- 
tion in  a  st.ate  court,  to  restrain  the  use 
of  tlie  word  amhrotype,  asapplicahleto 
photographic  pictures,  and  claimed  the 
exclusive  right  to  use  such  Avord  under 
an  assignment  of  a  patent  for  a  process, 
in  connectic  n  with  which  said  word  was 
claimod  to  have  been  invented,  ITdd, 
as  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  use  such 
word  depended  upon  his  exclusive  right 
to  the  process  patented,  that  the  exist- 


''If! 


,:l!i 


COURTS,  H.  3. 


22" 


JUIUHDICriON   AS   TO   I'ATENTH.      UIHTIUCT  t'OLUTS. 


eni'O  and  validity  of  siioli  patent  lay  at 
tilt)  foiindatioii  of  his  claim,  and  tliat 
the  action  was  thorfforc  founded  upon 
on  exelusivo  right  undor  a  patent,  of 
whieh,  under  §  17  of  the  act  of  18;J0, 
the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United  States 
alone  had  jurisdiction,  and  that  a  state 
court  could  not  tako  cognizaiu-e  of  it. 
TomUnson  v.  Battel,  MS. — Dukh,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

30.  Questions  as  to  the  validity  and 
construction  of  patents  belorig  to  that 
class  which  the  courts  of  tho  United 
States  are  alone  conipeten*,  to  deter- 
mine. The  act  of  1 830,  §  1 7,  has  put  an 
pii<l  to  any  doubts  that  inay  formerly 
have  existed  on  this  subject.     Ibid. 

40.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit 
Court  is  materially  dilferent,  whether 
a  party  is  seeking  to  ei'<brce  the  spe- 
cific performance  of  a  contract  in  rela- 
tion to  a  patent,  or  to  prohibit  the  in- 
fringement of  a  ]>atent  belonging  to 
liim.  Brown  v.  Shannon,  20  How.,  5(5. 
— Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

41.  Under  §11  of  the  judiciary  act 
of  1780,  jurisdiction  of  the  person  of  a 
defendant  (who  is  an  inhabitant  of  an- 
other state),  can  only  bo  obtained,  in  a 
civil  action,  by  service  of  process  on  liis 
person,  within  the  district  -where  the 
suit  is  instituted.  Chaffee  v.  HaywarJ, 
20  IIow.,  215. — Catkox,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1857. 

42.  And  this  provision  is  not  changed 
by  any  of  the  process  acts,  or  by  the 
act  of  Congress  conferring  jurisdiction 
on  the  Circuit  Courts  in  patent  cases, 
without  regard  to  citizenship.  §  11  of 
the  judiciary  act  is  not  aifectcd  by  the 
suhsecjuont  process  acts,  and  it  applies 
to  alliiwW  suits.     Ibid.,  216. 

43.  A  suit  brought  to  enforce  the 
covenants  of  a  license  granted  under  a 
p.itoDt,  is  not  a  case  arising  under  a  law 


ot^the  Uniteil  States,  so  as  to  confer 
jurisdiction  upon  the  Circuit  Courts  to 
take  cognizance  of  it.  Judnon  «t  O'ood- 
year  v.  Union  Rubber  Co.,  4  IJlatchf.— 
Inokusoli,,  ,1. ;  N.  Y.,  18r)7. 

44.  The  nou-performanco  of  such 
coveiumts  Avould  be  a  violation  of  tho 
rights  of  a  piftentee,  as  secured  by  tho 
covenants,  l)ut  not  as  secured  by  any 
law  of  the  United  States.     Ibid. 

45.  Nor  is  an  action  for  fraud  in  tho 
sale  of  a  patent  a  case  arising  under 
such  laws,  so  as  to  give  jurisdiction 
thereof  to  tho  Circuit  Courts.      I  bid. 

46.  Under  §  17  of  the  act  of  ls;50, 
the  jurisdiction  of  ti»e  Circuit  Courtu 
in  ))atent  cases  does  not  depeiul  upon 
tho  citizenship  of  tho  parties  before  it. 
Ibid. 

47.  The  Circuit  Courts  of  tin'  United 
States  have  ecpiity  jurisdiclittn  under 
the  i)atent  laws,  by  direct  grant  Irom 
Congress  ;  they  do  not  however  nu'rely 
act  as  auxiliary  to  a  '.'ourt  of  law,  and 
therefore  do  not  vequiro  the  patentee  to 
establish  his  legal  rignl  in  a  court  of 
law  and  by  a  verdict  of  a  jury.  San- 
ders V.  Logan,  3  Wall.,  Jr. — Giuku,  J. ; 
I'a.,  1801. 


3.  District   Courts    XT.   S.,  un  kr  acta 
1790  andllQ^. 

1.  The  proceedings  in  a  District 
Court,  under  §  10  of  tlie  act  of  1793, 
upon  the  rule  nisi,  are  not  conclusive  ; 
and  the  process,  to  bo  awardc<l  upou 
making  the  ndo  absolute,  is  not  iina!. 
l>ut  the  proceedings  under  such  section 
are  in  tho  n.iture  of  a  Scire  Facias  at 
the  common  law  to  repeal  a  patent. 
Stearns  v.  Barrett,  1  IVIason,  104,  165. 
— Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1810. 

2.  From  a  judgment  in  such  a  j'lo- 


Wir^bistv 


Vv«iwC.5<t«: 


conn's,  ]{.  J. 


jntlHIlHJTION    AH  1()   I'ATKNTH.      hTATK  CorilTH. 


9. 


Ill 
If 


n»,. 


\ 


cocdiiif^  by  the  Dislri'-t  Court,  a  writ 
of  iMTor  lies  lotlu-  Circuit  Court,  if  tlic 
aiinuuit  ill  controversy  cxcooiled  iil'ty 
dollars.     /W(/.,  100. 

a.  'PIu'  judicial  authority  intended  to 
he  j;iven  liy  ^  10  ol"  the  act  of  17i);(,  is 
vested  e.\»'lusively  in  the  district  ju<l;^e, 
and  tlie  proceediiij^  inider  it  wai;  intend- 
ed to  be  summary  ;  and  neither  a  Scire 
Juti'uii^,  or  process  in  the  nature  of  a 
S'irc  F<icl<(s,  according;  to  the  forms  of 
the  couunoii  law,  were  anticipated  by 
Conjj:ress.  The  nuikiiiji  of  the  rule  al)- 
solulc,  if  snlHeieiit  cause  is  not  shown 
to  the  contrary,  on  the  return  of  the 
rule  to  show  cause,  works  a  repeal  of 
the  jtatent  withi)ut  further  proceed in<;s. 
Thoitipson.  V.  I/tf/t//i(,  1  U.  S.  Law 
Jour.,  85 ;  McGaw  v.  /iri/<tn,  ibid., 
OS.— Van  Nkss,  .1.  ;  N.  Y.,  IS2J. 

4.  Under  ij  10  of  the  act  of  l7i)3,  if 
the  ,judij;e  of  the  District  Court  grant  a 
rule  to  show  cause  why  jirocess  should 
not  issue  to  repeal  a  jtatent,  and  such 
rule  is  made  absolute,  the  niakinjjf  of 
such  rule  absolute  does  not  de  facto 
work  a  repeal  of  the  ])atent ;  but  the 
process  to  be  issued  upon  making  such 
rule  absolute  is  in  the  nature  of  a  Scire 
J'^icias  to  the  patentee  to  show  cause 
why  the  patent  should  not  bo  repealed; 
ami  upon  such  process  being  returned, 
the  judge  is  to  proceed  to  try  the  cause 
upon  the  pleadings  and  the  issue  joined 
therein.  Wood  cC  Jininda(]e,  JUx parte, 
9  Wheat.,  604-615.— Stoky,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1824. 

5.  The  jurisdiction  given  to  the  Dis- 
trict Court  under  §  10  of  the  act  of 
1793  applies  only  to  cases  in  which  the 
patent  has  been  obtained  by  fraud,  sur- 
reptitiously, by  false  niggestions,  by 
some  wilful  misrepresentation  and  de- 
ception. Delano  v.  Scott,  Gilpin,  493. 
— IIoPKixsox,  J. ;  Pa.,  1834. 


0.  The  hearing,  on  the  return  of  tlic 
rule  to  show  cause,  is  only  initial,  ami 
the  or<lcr  t)f  the  juilge  on  such  heariii" 
cannot  be  that  the  patent  is  invalid,  hut 
only  that  process  shall  issue  for  n  trial 
of  its  validity.  It  is  on  Kiu-h  trial  llmt 
the  <pu'stion  of  validity  is  to  be  deter- 
mined,  and  ju(lgnu>nt  of  repeal,  if  the 
issue  is  decided  against  the  patentee. 
//>»■(?.,  494. 

7.  A  decision  against  a  ])atcntee  will 
repeal  and  vacate  his  letters  iiatent,  hut 
a  decision  in  his  favor  gives  no  strength 
or  continuation  to  them,  to  prevent  his 
right  from  being  contested  aiul  tried  : 
any  suit  ho  nuiy  bring  for  u  vi(  littifu. 
I/>id.,  494. 

8.  The  summary  proceeding  tinder 
§  10  is  given  to  protect  the  j)ublic  from 
manifest  frauds,  in  taking  out  jvitents 
(the  fees  of  otlice  being  no  check)  fop 
known  and  common  things.   /i/(/.,4',)4. 

9.  It  gives  the  power  to  any  person 
to  call  ui)on  a  patentee  for  an  exaniin- 
at  ion  of  his  right,  and  have  it  rcpealcil, 
if  it  Khali  be  found  that  he  is  not  en- 
titled to  it.     Ibid.,  r)00. 

10.  In  a  proceeding  under  §  10  of 
the  act  of  1793,  the  court  will  not  or- 
der the  United  States  to  be  subatitiited 
as  plaintitts  in  the  action  of  Scire  Fueias 
in  the  place  of  the  petitioner.  Wood 
V.  Williams,  Gilpin,  520-524.— Ilor- 
Kixsox,  J. ;  Pa.,  1834. 

4.  State  Courts. 

1.  The  courts  of  a  state  have  no  juris- 
diction of  actions  brought  for  tlio  in- 
fringement of  patents  granted  under 
tlie  laws  of  the  United  Sta.es.  Such 
c.ises  are  only  cognizable  in  the  Circuit 
Courts  of  the  United  States.  Parsons 
V.  Barnard,  7  John,  144. — Cukiav; 
N.  Y.,  1810. 


COURTS,  n.  4. 


220 


jritlHUIOTION  AS  TO   I'ATKNTH.      HTATB  OOUHTa 


'J.  Tho  Ht.'ito  (KMirtH  liavi!  no  juriHilic- 
tioti  to  Ht'ttio  coiitlu'tiiiK  I'laiiMs  of  pi'rlicH 
uiuliT  iiitorfoiiii^  patt'iitH  f^ranti'd  by 
tho  United  StatoH.  Gihaon  v.  Wuod- 
uiorl/i,  8  I'aiK^s  13 1. — WAL^70UTll,  Ch. ; 
N.  v.,  1840. 

3.  Tliouf:jh  tho  validity  of  patents 
when  directly  adjudicated  upon  is  ex- 
clusively within  tho  jurisdietion  of  the 
courts  of  tho  United  States,  yet  when 
they  eonie  into  quetition  collaterally 
their  validity  must  become  a  subject  of 
iii(|uiry  in  the  state  courts.  Jilrh  v. 
Jlofc/ikisii,  1()  Conn.,  414. — Wii.i-iamk, 
Ch.  J.;  Ct.,  1844. 

4.  Where  an  owner  of  an  undivided 
interest  in  a  patent  filed  a  bill  against 
the  other  jiunt  owner  to  compel  the 
specific  performance  of  a  contract  in 
respect  to  manufacturing  under  such 
patent,  and  tlio  defendant  among  other 
things  denied  that  he  was  manufactur- 
ing under  tho  patent,  and  set  up  that 
the  article  manufactured  by  him  was 
(lifforcnt  from  that  patent,  Jleklf  that 
the  question  raised  was  one  of  infringe- 
ment of  a  patent-right,  of  which  a 
state  court  had  no  jurisdiction.  Park- 
hurst  v.  Kinsman.,  2  Ilalat.,  Ch.,  600- 
J09. — IIalstead,  Chan.;  N.  J.,  1847. 

5.  Consent  of  parties  cannot  confer 
jin'isdiction,  or  render  the  judgment  of 
a  tribunal  in  a  matter  over  which  it  has 
not  by  law  any  cognizance  effectual. 
Dmttey  V.  Mayhew,  3  Corns.,  12. — 
Strong,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

C.  Where  therefore  an  action  for  an 
infringement  of  a  patent  was  brought 
in  a  state  court,  and  the  defendant  stip- 
ulated not  to  raise  tlie  question  of  juris- 
diction. Held,  that  such  consent  could 
not  confer  any  authority,  and  that  the 
hill  must  bo  dismissed  on  the  ground 
tlmt  the  state  courts  had  no  jurisdiction 
of  actions  in  patent  cases.    Ibid.,  10,  14. 


7.  The  state  courts  have  no  jurisdic- 
tion of  actions  respecting  jtatentH.  Ibid.^ 
14. 

8.  The  purchaser  of  a  patented  ar- 
ticle, for  the  purpose  of  nsini/  it,  exer- 
cises no  rights  created  by  the  acts  of 
Congress,  nor  does  ho  <lerive  title  by 
virtue  of  the  franchise  or  j)rivilege 
granted  to  tho  patentee.  When  the 
machine  passes  to  the  haiulsof  the  pur- 
chaser, it  is  no  longer  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  acts  of  Congress,  but 
becomes  private  projxM'ty,  itrotei-ted  by 
the  laws  of  the  state  where  it  is  situated. 
If  the  right  to  it  is  infringed,  retlress  is 
to  be  sought  in  the  courts  of  the  state, 
according  to  the  laws  of  tho  state,  and 
not  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States, 
nor  under  the  laws  of  Congress.  Jiloom- 
erx.McQucwan.  14  IIow.,549. — ^Taney, 
Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

0.  Tho  power  of  determining  the 
validity  of  a  patent  is  exclu.siveli/  con- 
fined to  th(!  Circuit  Courts  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  state  courts  cannot  en- 
tertain a  suit  for  an  infringement,  or  to 
declare  a  patent  void.  Eliticr  v.  Pennel, 
40  ]\Iaine,  434. — Rice,  J.;  Me.,  1855. 

10.  The  state  courts  have  jurisdiction 
in  an  action  of  covenant  brought  for 
breaches  of  covenants  in  an  assignment 
of  a  p.atent.  WrifjJd  v.  Wilsin.  i 
Rich.  Law,  152. — 0'Neall,J.  ;  S.Car., 
1857. 

11.  When  a  question  as  to  tlie  con- 
struction, and  perhaps  as  to  the  valiility 
of  a  patent  arises,  collaterally,  in  the 
progress  and  upon  tho  trial  of  a  cause, 
the  necessity  of  its  determination  will 
not  oust  a  state  court  of  the  jurisdic- 
tion which  it  may  have  derived  from 
the  nature  of  the  action  and  the  state 
of  the  pleadings.  Tomlinson  v.  Battely 
MS.— DuER,  J.;  K  Y.,  1857. 

12.  But  where    the    existence    and 


^^^y¥^ 


\^^<^ 


0C^v 


iM 


i>^l 


..r  III 


t|!l^ 


i 


It 


230 


COrUTS,  C— DAMAGES. 


AUTIIUUITY   UK   IiKl'lSIONH  OF. 


WHO    I.IAlll.H    KOll  MKAHUUK  Or;   KIC. 


validity  of  a  patent  lio  at  tho  very 
foundation  of  the  action,  a  state  court 
cannot  entertain  jurisdiction.  Tontlinaon 
V.  JiaKel,  MS.— DuEK,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1867. 

l;{.  Where  a  person  brought  an  ac- 
tion in  a  state  court  to  restrain  the  use 
of  tho  word  ambrotype  as  app'icablo  to 
jihotographic  pictures,  and  claimed  the 
exclusive  right  to  use  such  word  under 
an  assignment  of  a  patent  for  a  process, 
in  connection  with  which  said  word  was 
claimed  to  have  been  inveated,  Held, 
as  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  use  such 
word  depended  upon  his  exclusive  right 
to  tho  process  patented,  that  tho  exist- 
ence and  validity  of  such  patent  lay  at 
the  foundation  of  his  cliim,  and  that 
the  action  was  therefore  founded  upon 
an  exclusive  right  under  a  patent,  of 
which,  under  §  17  of  the  act  of  1836, 
the  Circuit  Courts  of  tlio  United  States 
alone  had  jurisdiction,  and  that  a  state 
court  could  not  take  cognizance  of  it. 
Ibid. 

14.  The  jurisdiction  of  a  state  court 
is  not  defeated  because  the  subject 
matter  of  the  action  concerns  tho  ^lse 
of  a  patent-right,  and  the  action  does 
not  necessarily  involve  any  question  in 
regard  to  the  validity  of  the  patent. 
Sherman  v.  Champ.  IVans.  Co.,  31 
Yavm.,  174.— Relfieu),  J. ;  Vt.,  1858. 

C  Authority   op  Decisioxs  of,  in 
otiii;r  Courts. 

1.  The  rule  of  comity  observed  by 
the  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  in 
cases  which  admit  of  being  carried  be- 
fore the  whold  court,  is  to  conform  to 
the  opinions  of  each  other,  if  any  have 
been  given.  Such  decisions  amount  to 
authority,  which  although  not  conclu- 
sive, are  operative,  whenever  the  ques- 
tion should  be  carried  up.     Washhum 


V.  Gould,   3  Story,   132,  133.— SrouY, 
J. ;  Mass.,  1844. 

2.  This  rule  established  by  the  judges 
of  the  Supremo  Court,  applies  to  trials 
at  common  law  before  a  jury,  but  !ias 
no  application  either  by  its  terms  or  tliu 
reason  on  which  it  is  founded,  to  motions 
for  injunctions  wliero  error  may  bo  fol- 
lowed  by  irremediable  mischief.  Many 
V.  HizcT,  MS. — Spraguk,  J. ;  Mass., 
Ib49. 


DAMAGES,  IN  PATENT  CASES. 
See  also  Counsel  Feks. 

1.  In  an  action  for  a  violation  of  a 
patent-right,  the  plaintiff  may  recover 
against  one  defendant,  though  no  proof 
is  given  against  the  other;  for  all  torts 
are  joint  as  well  as  several,  and  a  ver- 
dict may  be  had  against  one,  though 
the  other  be  acquitted ;  aliter,  in  con- 
tract. Scutgen  v.  JCanotors,  1  Wash., 
172. — Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1804. 

2.  The  mere  making  of  a  macliiiie  fit 
for  use,  and  with  a  design  to  use  it  for 
profit,  is  an  infringement ;  but  if  there 
is  no  user,  or  no  actual  damage  proved, 
the  law  allows  only  nominal  damage. 
Whittemorev.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  431,  433, 
483.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

3.  Only  the  actual  damages  sustained 
can  be  given.  By  actual  damages  are 
meant  such  damages  as  the  plaintiifs  can 
actually  prove,  and  have  in  fact  sustain- 
ed, as  contradistinguished  to  mere  im- 
aginary or  exemplary  damages,  which 
in  personal  torts  are  sometimes  given. 
Ibid.,  483. 

4.  lu  the  case  of  the  user  of  a  ma- 


DAMAGES. 


9SI 


will)    l-IAlll.i;   KOIl;    MKAHIIIK  OF;    KXL'KMHIVK,    KtfECT  OV. 


chine,  tlio  rule  of  diunagos  shouM  bo 
the  viiliic  of  tlio  uso  of  such  a  inachino 
(luring  the  time  of  tho  illegul  user.  If 
a  making  of  tho  machine  and  no  naer 
is  proved,  nominal  damagcH  should  be 
awarded ;  but  tho  value  of  the  exitense 
of  making  sucii  a  machine,  or  the  price 
at  whii-h  it  might  be  sold,  is  not  a  rule 
for  such  damages.     i7>/t/.,  483. 

5.  The  rule  of  diiimj^o's  under  §  3  of 
the  act  of  IHOO  is  the  amount  of  the 
profits  actually  received  by  the  defend- 
ant, in  consequence  of  his  using  tlie 
])laintilf 's  invention.  Loxoell  v.  Z,t'wiit, 
1  Mas.,  1S5. — Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

6.  When  treble  dam.'iges  are  allowed, 
the  jury  find  single  damages,  and  the 
court  treble  them  in  awarding  judg- 
ment.   IbiiL,  185. 

7.  Under  the  act  of  1800,  if  the  jury 
find  for  tho  plaintiff,  they  find  the  actual 
damages  sustained  by  the  plaintiff,  by 
reason  of  the  use  by  the  defendants  of 
the  invention  of  the  plaintiff's.  The 
court  will  treble  the  damages.  Grai/  v. 
James,  I'et.  C.  C,  403. — Washington, 
J. ;  I'a.,  1 8 1 7 ;  Bvana v.  Iletticic,  3  Wash., 
422.— Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1818. 

8.  Though  a  patented  machine  may 
be  80  far  inferior  to  other  machines  of 
the  same  kind  as  to  deprive  it  of  all  in- 
trinsic value,  if  another  superadds  to  it 
something  which  will  remove  its  de- 
fects, it  becomes  valuable,  and  it  seems 
that  the  person  so  rendering  it  valuable 
will  be  liable  in  damages  for  the  use  of 
it.  Gray  v.  James,  Pet.  C.  C,  480.-— 
Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1817.  [But  see 
post  13,  14.] 

9.  The  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  be  com- 
pensated for  the  damages  he  lias  sus- 
tained by  the  infringement  of  his  right. 
Kneass  v.  Schuylkill  Bank,  4  Wash., 
14.— Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1820. 

10.  It  is  difficult  to  establish  any  gen- 


eral rule  as  to  danmges.  Tho  bettei 
course  is  not  to  lay  down  any  particulai 
rule  of  damages,  but  to  leave  the  jury 
at  large  to  estimate  the  actual  damages 
according  to  tho  circumstances  of  each 
particular  case.  J'Jarle  v.  Sawyer,  4 
Mas.,  14. — Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  IS'JJj. 

11.  The  price  of  the  machine,  the  na- 
ttire,  actual  state,  and  extent  of  the  use 
of  tlie  jjlaintiff's  hivention,  and  the  par- 
ticular losses  to  which  he  may  have  been 
subjected  by  the  piracy,  are  all  i)roper 
ingredients  to  be  weighed  by  the  jury 
in  estimating  the  damages.     Ibid.,  14. 

12.  A  considerable  latitude  is  neces- 
sarily given  to  the  jury  in  estimating 
what  they  shall  consider  to  be  the  ac- 
tual damage  sustained  by  a  j)atenteo 
by  the  violation  of  his  right,  and  tho 
courts  have  shown  no  disposition  to 
draw  the  ])Ower  of  the  jury,  in  this  re- 
spect, within  close  and  narrow  limits. 
The  estimate  of  a  jury  must  be  very 
extravagant  to  enable  the  court  to  say 
that  they  have  so  disregarded  the  rule 
of  the  law,  and  so  clearly  exceeded  the 
limits  of  their  authority,  that  their  ver^ 
diet  caimot  be  supported.  Whitney  v. 
Emmett,  Bald.,  325,  320. — IIopkinson, 
J.;  Pa.,  1831. 

13.  If  an  invention,  which  is  useless 
in  itself,  has  been  made  useful  by  being 
combined  with  something  else,  or  has 
been  so  changed  in  its  operation  by  an 
invention  to  which  the  owner  of  tho 
worthless  machine  had  no  title  or  claim, 
the  patentee  of  such  worthless  machine 
is  not  entitled  to  damages  for  the  use 
of  it.     Ibid.,  328. 

14.  A  patentee  is  entitled  to  recover 
for  the  use  of  his  invention  only  the 
damages  he  has  actually  sustained,  and 
not  the  value  that  has  been  imparted  to 
his  invention  by  a  subsequent  inventor, 
nor  for  the  use  such  inventor  has  made 


'S^mi 


Sc^. 


■W#-fv 


j^»;^:Wi 


iTa\ 


.>^4SS 


^*^ 


UC'^V- 


^pf^i 


III 


III 

III 


III 


ii* 


t!|^1 


fei! 


C 


'fJllT 


'•?*1  = 


li(4 


M 


!«»ir)i 

|:»'ip,,;( 


'''^Wkii.S 


231 


1)AMA(;ks. 


WHO   MAULK   rUK;    MKAHIIUK  Or ;    KXCKHHIVB,    Kt'CKCT  OT. 


of  IiIh  invention,  prDvidoil  by  such  uho 
lie  liHM  not  intlicte<l  iiny  loss,  injury,  or 
damniru  npon  tlio  putcntt'o.     Ifntl.,  H21). 

ITi.  A  verdict,  though  giving  !arg«! 
(lani.MgoH,  if  not  ugainst  eviilencc,  or  not 
HUpportcd  by  tiio  cvidenco,  is  not  HufK- 
(•i«>iit  reason  for  granting  a  iww  trial. 
Stditli  If  V.  W/u'pj'lc,  2  McLciiii,  40. — 
McLkan,  J,;  Ohio,  18;)9. 

I(i.  Where  the  evidence  sustains  the 
verdict,  (lie  court  carniot  say  that  tiie 
jury  should  have  given  greater  weight 
to  olliiM*  parts  of  (he  testimony,  which 
would  have  lessened  damages.  Tfnd.,40. 

17.  The  awarding  by  (he  jury  greater 
damages  than  were  anticipated,  is  not 
sncli  a  gross  nii.slake  in  the  jury  as 
woulil  authorize  setting  aside  their  ver- 
dict. The  <|uestion  of  damages  is  sid)- 
mitted  to  (hi'ir  fair  judgment.  Alden 
V.  Dewey,  1  Story,  341. — Story,  J.  ; 
3Iass.,  1840. 

18.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  a  i)atent,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  jury,  if 
they  find  for  the  plaintiff,  to  give  him 
reasonable  damages,  such  as  are  not 
covered  by  any  of  the  costs  ho  will  re- 
cover, to  indemnify  him  for  the  neces- 
sary and  unavoidable  expenses  of  estab- 
lishing his  right.  Wushhitrn  v.  Gould, 
3  Story,  13G.— Stouv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1844. 

19.  Where,  however,  a  patentee  fraud- 
ulently leads  .a  party  to  infringe  on  his 
right,  and  then  brings  an  action  against 
him  merely  to  gratify  revenge  or  mal- 
ice, only  nominal  damages  should  be 
given.     Ibid.,  137. 

20.  But  no  valid  patent  should  go 
out  of  court  without  the  jury  indemni- 
fying the  owner  for  his  reasonable  and 
necessary  charges  in  establishing  his 
right.    Ibid.,  137. 

21.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent,  if  the  plaintiff  establishes 
the  vaUdity  of  his  patent,  and  that  the 


defendants  have  violated  it,  he  xn  (>ii. 
tith'd  to  such  reasonable  damages  an 
sh:dl  vindicate  his  right,  and  reindxirsK 
him  for  all  such  expenditures  as  luivo 
been  necessarily  incurred  by  hiin  be- 
yond what  the  taxable  costs  will  repay, 
in  order  to  establish  that  right.  /'/»/- 
son  V.  IJtKjlti  Screw  Co.,  3  Story,  410. 
—Story,  .!.;  U.  I.,  1844. 

22.  The  jury  are  at  liberty,  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  a  sound  discredon,  to  give  a 
plai.itiff  such  damages,  not  in  their  na- 
(ure  vindictive,  as  shall  compensate  him 
fully  for  all  his  actual  losses  and  injuries 
occasioned  by  the  violation  of  the  pat- 
ent by  the  defendants.     Ibid.,  410. 

23.  Where  perscms,  in  (he  employ 
of  another,  were  guilty  of  an  infringe 
mcnt  by  making  the  thing  j)atent(Ml,  but 
such  ])ersons  acted  without  a  knowl- 
edge that  it  had  been  patented  only 
nominal  damages  were  given  for  such 
infringement,  liryce  v.  Dorr,  3  McLean, 
583.— :McLkan,  J.;  Mich.,  1845. 

24.  In  cases  of  wanton  and  perseve- 
ring encroachments  on  the  rights  of  in- 
ventors,  the  court  will  be  justiH.'d  in 
trebling  the  damages,  if  required  for 
the  full  hidemnity  and  protection  of  any 
wronged  patentee.  Allen  v.  Bboit,  2 
W^ood.  tfe  ]Min.,  147. — Wooonuifv,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1840. 

25.  Damages,  in  a  case  submitted  to 
the  "foir  judgment"  of  the  jury,  will 
not  be  deemed  excessive,  beciuse  they 
are  more  than  a  witness  may  have  testi- 
fied to,  or  slightly  more  than  the  court 
deem  proper;  the  A'erdict  will  not  be 
set  aside,  and  a  new  trial  ordered,  un- 
less the  damages  are  very  excessive  and 
unreason.able.     Ibid.,  149. 

26.  Actual  damages,  according  to  §  14 
of  the  act  of  1830,  are  the  sum  fixed 
by  the  verdict.  Stcphois  v.  Felt,  2 
Blatchf.,  38.— Betts,  J. ;  N.  Y..  Id46. 


Hi*-  li 


ti'f 


■^;|if 


DAMAr.KS. 


988 


wiin  i.iAiii.i':  roii;  mkahuiih  or;  kxckhaivk,  crrEOT  or. 


27.  A  iH'w  triiil  will  not  liu  granted 
lu'cmiso  tilt'  jury  timl  lilu-ral  <lmna;j:»'S, 
excopt  in  ii  ciisn  of  palpahlo  oxtravii- 
giinco.  Wlioro,  in  an  action  ior  an  in- 
iViii,iC«niont,  it  was  proved  l>y  the  plaiii- 
tirt'  tliat  sales  were  liighly  profitalde, 
iiinl  that  the  defendant  had  niainifae- 
tured  and  Hold  the  article  in  large  quan- 
tities, and  the  defentlant  olfere*!  no 
proof,  limiting  the  evidence  of  the  plain- 
till',  or  us  to  the  cost  or  value  of  the  article, 
JlehU  that  the  jury  were  warranted  in 
ex('rci^i^g  a  liheral  discretion,  and  that 
a  verdict  of  |2,000  would  not  be  inter- 
fered with.     Ibid.,  3S,  .30. 

28.  In  sucih  a  cise,  a  plaintifT  ought 
not  to  be  Iield  to  the  most  exjdicit  and 
exact  proof  of  the  amovnit  of  diimages 
unstained,  and  the  jury  are  warr.'inted 
in  exercising  a  liberal  discretion.  Ibid., 
39. 

29.  If  a  defendant  jjrcfers  to  le.ave 
tlio  matter  to  general  inference  and  the 
estimate  of  a  jury,  when  he  might  make 
it  reason.'iMy  certain  by  evidence  on  liis 
jiart,  the  finding  of  the  jury  should  not 
he  interfered  with,  except  in  eases  of 
palpable  extravagance.     Ibid.,  39. 

.^O.  Damages  should  be  compensato- 
ry, not  vindictive.  The  object  is  not 
imnisliment,  but  full  indemnity.  The 
amount  of  profit  Avliich  the  defendant 
lifts  derived  is  one  of  the  elements  to  be 
regarded,  Init  the  amount  of  loss  and 
injury  which  the  plaintiff  has  sustained 
should  be  regarded  also.  Kiihjht  v. 
Gamt,  ^lir.  Pat.  Off.,  135.— Kane,  J. ; 
Pa.,  184G. 

31.  If  the  machine  made  was  never 
used,  the  damagoe  Khould  be  merely 
nominal,  as  against  the  maker ;  if  it  has 
been  sold  by  him  and  used  by  others, 
tiie  verdict  should  be  for  tlie  damages 
actually  sustained  by  tlie  plaintiff,  with- 
out exclusive  reference  to  the  profita- 


bleiu'ss  of  the  use  by  the  wrong-doer, 
or  the  length  of  time  such  use  may 
have  eonlinue<l.     Und.,  13'). 

32.  Damages  nnist  be  plainly  exorbi- 
tant, or  what  is  soinetimeH  eallcil  "on', 
rageous,"  to  recpiire  the  interference  of 
the  court,  by  way  of  a  new  trial.  Aiktn 
\  /iemis,  3  Wood.  &  Min.,  352. — 
Woonniruv,  J.;  Mass.,  1H47. 

33.  Under  j^  13  of  the  u<\  of  1836, 
it  rests  in  the  discreti(m  ot  the  court, 
whether  the  d.anniges  shall  be  trebled. 
Under  the  act  of  1800,  the  amount  of 
recovery  was  fixed  at  three  times  the 
actual  damages  sustained.  G>iyon  v. 
Serrell,  1  IJlatchf.,  245. — Niii.so.v,  J.  j 
N.  Y.,  1847. 

34.  "Where  a  plaintiff  fded  a  disclaim- 
er under  fj  7  of  the  act  of  1837,  after 
the  ccmimeneement  of  his  suit,  Held, 
that  thougli  ho  was  not  entitled  to  costs 
against  the  defendant,  by  §  0  of  tho 
same  act,  that  tho  court  nevertheless, 
under  §  14  of  the  act  of  1830,  had  tho 
power  to  increase  tho  verdict,  in  tho 
w.ay  of  damages.     Ibid.,  245,  240. 

35.  Actual  damjxges  for  an  infringe- 
ment are,  however,  as  a  general  rule, 
all  that  can  be  claimed.  W^here  the  cir- 
cumstances are  aggravated,  and  such  as 
to  repel  altogether  the  bond  fides  of  tho 
infringement,  the  i)ower  to  ineiease  tho 
verdict,  under  §  14  of  the  act  of  1836, 
may  be  exercised.  Each  case  must, 
however,  stand  upon  its  own  circum- 
stances.    Ibid.,  246. 

36.  Previous  to  tho  act  of  1 836,  the 
court  were  compelled  to  treble  the  dam- 
ages. Since  that  act  they  are  not  com- 
pelled to  do  so,  but  may  increase  them 
or  not  at  their  discretion,  within  that 
limit.  In  the  exercise  of  that  discretion, 
the  court  will  not  increayc  them  if,  in 
their  opinion,  the  jury  have  already  ex- 
ceeded their  proper  measure.     Stimp- 


|«IIIMlii  ^ 


iil 


.(ww<v 


I* 

4 


"• 


»1 


284 


I)AMA(JKS. 


wii(»  UAtii.H  roK;  Ml. xsiui  or;  KxcKHmvB,  Krvvrr  or. 


■*",   *h4, 


%^;^.%Mrj' 


m 


''i:'^.. 


*o«  V.  T/u:  luiUrondu,  1  Wall,  Jr.,  IdO^ 
— GlMIMl,  J.,  I'll.,   1H17. 

37.  Tilt"  court  will  not  j;rant  u  m-w 
trial  on  t)u>  ^roitiul  of  fXcoHMivo  (laiim- 
gim,  it"  tho  verdift  was  in  accon lance 
with  the  (lirt'ction  of  the  court.  Ifnd.^ 
lUO. 

38.  Tho  term  "  actujil  (laniagos"  can- 
not 1)0  oonstruoil  to  mean  cxoniplary, 
vindictive  or  ])nnitory  clnrnaj^cs,  inflicted 
by  way  of  sniart-nioney,  or  |iunishinent 
of  the  defendant  for  fraudulent,  mali- 
cious, or  outraj^jeous  wronjjjs.  Ihid.^  100. 

39.  The  defeiulant  is  to  HufVerthe  in- 
fliction of  treble  damajifes  only  when  the 
court  are  of  tho  opinion  ho  has  acted 
luireasonably or ojtproMsivel y.  Ib'uJ.^  1 70. 

40.  Tho  Htandard  for  esliinatinj?  dam- 
ages fur  the  infriiii^ement  of  a  patent- 
ed machine,  is  tho  actual  profits  from 
tho  makintf,  usinj?,  or  selling  of  tho  in- 
vention by  the  defendant.  The  reason- 
pblo  cost  of  tho  labor  and  materials 
must  be  deducted,  as  the  ]»laintitr  him- 
fielf,  if  he  had  nuide  the  nuiclnnes,  would 
liavo  had  to  pay  such  expenses.  Par- 
ker V.  Perkins,  MS. — Guikb,  Kane, 
JJ.;  Pa.,  1848. 

41.  Where  a  patent  has  been  infring- 
ed Mithout  a  knowledge  of  tho  plaintiff's 
right,  and  under  such  circumstances  as  to 
warrant  the  inference  th.at  the  defendant 
was  not  aware  that  he  was  violating  tho 
rights  of  any  one,  the  jury  should  only 
give  such  damages  as  would  compen- 
sate the  injury  done  to  the  i)laintifr. 
Parker  v.  Corbi?i,  4  McLean,  403. — 
McLeax,  J. ;  Ohio,  1848. 

42.  But  where  the  circumstances  of 
infringement  are  of  an  aggravated  char- 
acter, vindictive  damages,  which  would 
include  counsel  fees,  and  something  more 
by  way  of  example  to  deter  others  from 
doing  the  same  thing,  may  bo  given. 
Ibid.,  403. 


43.  Tho  rule  which  goveruH  on  tho 
<|Ucstion  of  damages  is,  to  givt^  artnal 
flamageK — not  vindictive  or  exfinplarv 
damages,  but  tho  actual  loss  suNtaincd 
which  will  be  tho  ordinary  profits  the 
patentee  derives  from  the  sab'  of  his  in- 
vention. Jluckv.  J/trtttance,  \  liiatclif. 
400.— Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y.,   18411. 

44.  Damages  arc  only  to  be  conipcn. 
satory;  the  criterion  is  indemnity.  The 
jury  may  take  into  consifb'ration  the 
loss  sustained  by  tho  plaintiff,  and  like- 
wiso  the  profits  made  by  the  defeiidaiit. 
Parker  v.  JJulme,  1  West.  Law  Jour., 
428.— Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1H49. 

45.  Tho  (pu^stion  of  damages  is  ex- 
clusively with  tho  jury,  and  if  they  are 
of  the  opinion  that  the  defendant  lias 
unlawfully  infringed  the  jthiintitrs  pii- 
ent,  they  ought  to  award  him  such  siiin, 
as  in  their  judgment,  founded  upon  (Iio 
evidence,  would  fully  indemnify  him  for 
tho  actual  danuagos  he  has  suffered  by 
reason  of  such  infringement,  bejoiid 
tho  taxable  costs.  J'oofe  v.  Silnfty,  l 
Blatchf.,  450,  400.— CoNKUNG,  Nel- 
son, J  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

40.  Where  tho  defendants  entered 
upon  the  violation  of  the  plaintilV's  pat- 
ent, after  having  been  warned  of  the 
consequences,  and  went  on  with  their 
eyes  open,  disregarding  the  cl:iiins  of 
the  patent,  and  showing  a  williiiifnoss 
to  avail  thenjselvos  of  the  j)rofits  of  his 
discovery,  and  to  deprive  him  of  the 
fruits  of  his  genius,  time  and  expense, 
Jleld,  that  the  defendants  did  not  stand 
in  a  position  to  entitle  themselves  to  a  fa- 
vorable consideration,  and  that  the  jury 
were  warranted  in  giving  liberal  dama- 
ges.    Ibid.,  407. 

47.  The  jury  must  find  the  issues  as 
presented,  and  assess  the  damages  for 
the  breach,  if  any,  of  tho  thing  alleged. 
It  makes  no  difterence  that  it  is  an  im- 


DAMAGES. 


235 


WHO  LIAUI.H  rou;  mkahurk  or;  mxckhhivk,  Kri'dr  or. 


iiifiii'ii"!  isMiu'.     (tiw>fi/i(H'  V.  J^'ii/,  MS. 
.-(iitiKH,  J. ;  N.  J.,  I«ft0. 

48.  Ill  an  iictioii  fur  inakini;  ami  ncII- 
in^  II  iiiacliiiu'  wliifh  is  ati  iiitViiii^tMiiciit 
uiMiii  llif  plaiiitill'^s  patent,  llitt  iilainlill' 
Ui-ntitloil  as  (lania<;cs,  to  all  the  actual 
prulits  wliicli  tlut  ilcfiMiilant.  lias  nia<li', 
wliich  is  tlu*  saiiH!  tliiiiu^  with  tlic  dani- 
pr  cH  lie  has  Nustainc'tl  hy  imsoii  of  tho 
uho  l»y  tlio  (U'ti'inlant ;  lor  tln!  law  |»re- 
Kiiiiu's  that  it'  tluMletriithiiit  had  not  put 
his  iiiachiiioM  into  tlii'  niaikcl,  tho  dc- 
iiiniid  would  have  Ihth  lor  tin*  plaintilV, 
and  lit'  would  liavn  ri'coivL'tl  tho  prollls. 
ini/^ir  V.  Jkecher,  '2  Jlhituht'.,  14a.— 
Nki-s«>n,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  ik50. 

40.  TIk'  ilillt'ioiice  hi'twocn  tho  cost 
and  sclliiiij;  price  is  not,  howevi'r,  all 
j)rotit.  Till!  intiircst  on  the  capital,  the 
risk  of  bad  debts,  and  the  expeiiscH  of 
selling',  must  all  be  taken  into  the  nc- 
ooiiiit  in  arriving  at  the  profits.  Ihid.^ 
14;i. 

50.  It  is  the  jn.ikinp  .and  sellinnf  to  be 
used,  and  not  the  Hclling,  or  buying,  or 
milking  alone,  for  which  full  damages 
aro  usually  given.  Ho(j[f  v.  Kmcrmn^ 
11  How,,  (307. — WooDUUuv,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct,  1850. 

51.  The  price  paid  for  a  license  to  use 
a  thing  patented,  may  be  submitted  to 
tlicjuryasa  suitable  guide  in  estima- 
ting damages  for  an  infringement,  and 
is  the  customary  one  followed  for  making 
and  selling  patent  stoves,  spokes,  lasts, 
«fcc.,  and  seems  once  to  have  been  treat- 
ed by  law  as  the  chief  guide  in  all  jiat- 
ent  cases.    Und.,  607. 

■  52.  l)Ut  that  sum  mav  be  mitigated, 
if  the  maker  of  the  machine  was  igno- 
rant of  the  existence  of  the  patent-right, 
and  did  not  intend  any  infringement. 
Ibid.,  GO  7. 

53.  That  however  furnishes  no  reason 
for  allowing  no  damages  when  making 


the  machine  to  be  used,  and  not  merely 
for  a  model,  or  for  fancy,  or  pbilusoph- 
ical  illust ration.     //>/f/.,  tl()7. 

rd.  Till-  intent  nut  to  injure  never  ex- 
onerates iVum  all  dainagcM  fur  the  act- 
ual injury  or  encroachment,  though  it 
may  mitigate  them.     Ibid.,  (JOH. 

•").").  It  must  bo  a  very  extreiiu'  caso 
where  a  judgment  will  be  reversed  on 
account  of  excessive  damages  in  actions 
ex  dilirto,  when  the  instructions  of  the 
court  suggested  to  the  jury  the  true 
general  rule  as  to  damages,  and  when, 
if  excessive,  a  n»'W  trial  could  have  been 
moved  in  the  Circuit  Court.  Ifdd.,  1(08. 
i30.  The  rule  of  law  as  to  damages, 
when  an  infringement  is  made  out,  is  to 
give  to  tln!  plaintill'the  actual  loss  which 
he  has  sustained,  and  nuthiiig  mure.  Kx- 
emphu'yor  vimlietive  damages  cannot  be 
given.  If  the  damages  are  iiisulllcieiit, 
thectMU't  may  treble  them.  I/ild,\i  this 
ease,  that  the  plaintilfwas  entitled  t'  ho 
profits  on  all  the  machines  sold  by  the 
defendant.  IMl  v.  Wilis,  2  IJlatehf., 
201.— Nki.so\,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  1H51. 

67.  The  plaintift'  in  a  ]»atent  ease, 
when  he  has  established  a  right  to  re- 
cover, is  entitled  to  all  the  actual  dam- 
ages he  has  sustained,  as  contradistin- 
guished from  exemphiry,  vindictive,  and 
punitive  d;images.  These  are  not  to  bo 
taken  in  consideration  in  a  patent  case. 
I'itt.1  V.  Hall,  2  IJlatchf.,  238.— XklsoN, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

58.  One  mode  of  .arriving  .at  sucli  ac- 
tu.al  damr.ges,  is  to  ascertain  the  proHts 
wliich  tho  plaintiff  derives  from  the 
machines  which  lie  manufactures  and 
sells,  and  which  have  been  made  and 
sold  by  the  defendant.     Ibid.,  238. 

59.  Another  mode  is  to  ascertain  the 
profits  Avhich  the  party  infringing  luas 
derived  from  tho  use  of  the  invention. 
This  moasuro  of  damages  is  not,  how- 


■jj^ijjL 


.>^i»» 


Ml 


"w: 


••'•■  <^wL 


(   ' 


n 


1^ 


II  LI 


>-^wW^ 


•km^ktf^.i^>^X:: 


Mt 


I)AMA(!KS. 


fc   "r 


rWM 


'^<M^ 


wr^.;- 


.^ 


In 


i];i!^' 


I^:ij;i! 


'4i 


^Wi 


if 


WHO  i.uiii.H  ruH;  MRAMtriiM  or;  ■xokmnivh,  irrioT  or. 


rvor,  cotitrollin^;  Irhmuhp  a  party  in- 
friii;;in;^  hIuiiiIh  in  tt  iliU'cri'iit.  poNition 
from  i\w  piitcntuc,  not  Iwivin^  Item  \>rv- 
%ioiHly  aiilijcctcil  to  tlu)  (.'xpiMiNu  luid 
laltor  to  wliicli  llio  luttt-r  U  rr('i|iifnt!y 
cxposctl  in  tlic  pro(*(<8H  of  invention  iiml 
expcrinicnl.  Hrncu  tho  piirty  intVin^ 
liif^  ni:iy  well  jinonl  to  h«>II  at  Ii'MH  prollts 
•    tlian  tlif  pal«'nt«'('.     ffu'iL,  '2'M>. 

00.  'rii<>  pliiintilT  is  llicrctore  ontitif<l 
to  I'fcovcr  ^«lu■ll  [trotilH  as  lie  would  liavc 
rc'ilizcd  if  ho  had  not  Won  inti-rfiTiMl 
with.      ////</.,  230. 

(11.  And  th<>  ])l.iintifr  iH  also  ontitlud 
to  rt't'ovor  iiitt'ii'st  on  such  damages, 
from  the  commencenient  of  the  Huit. 
It>i(/.,  2:10. 

(12.  The  ujcnor.nl  rtilc  of  damapfos  in, 
that  till'  pl:iintitr,  if  he  has  maile  out  hiN 
lij^ht  to  rt'covcr,  is  enlillcd  to  tho  sw- 
tual  dama^t's  he  iias  Hustainod  by  rea- 
son of  tiio  infriii^cnuMit,  an<l  tIu)so  dain- 
njijcs  may  h*'  «K'tormiiuMl  hy  ascort.'iinin^ 
tho  profits  which  in  judi^monl  of  law  lie 
would  havo  mado  providod  tho  dofond- 
.'uit  hatl  not  intorforod  with  his  ri_i,dits. 
JfcConni'r/c  V.  A^i'i/)nonr,  2  IMatchf., 
2r)«.— Nki.son,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  Juno,  1851. 
[Ovorrulod,  isy.], pout  7ci.] 

03.  This  viow  jtrocoods  upon  tho  prin- 
eijilo  (hat  if  tho  dofondant  had  not  in- 
torforod with  tho  p.'itontoo,  all  persons 
who  Itoufjfht  tho  <lofondant's  niaohino 
would  nooossarily  liavo  boon  obli^^od  to 
go  to  tho  patontoe  and  purchaso  his  ni;i- 
chiuo.    Il)id.,2iHi.    [Ovorrulod, f»(>.v<  70.] 

04.  Thoro  is  no  distinotion,  in  rojjard 
to  tho  rulo  of  damages,  botwooii  an  in- 
fringement of  an  entire  inaohino  and  an 
infringement  of  a  mere  improvomont  on 
a  machine.  Tho  rulo  which  is  to  govern 
is  the  same,  whether  a  patent  covers  an 
entire  niaohino  or  an  improvement  on  a 
machine.  Ibid.,  257.  [Ovorruled,joo»<  77.] 

65.  And  tho  plaintitt'  will  also  bo  en- 


titled to  iiitorost  on  tho  actual  dania^i>H 
iiH  found  by  tho  jury,  from  tho  com. 
nienoorrunt  of  tho  Muit.     /AiV/.,  ii:)i>. 

00.  In  nil  uution  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent,  tho  rulo  is  to  give  the  aciu;i| 
damage  or  loss  incurred  by  re.-iMou  of 
tho  infringoinont,  :ind  that  is  the  proliti 
which  tho  plaintiffs  would  have  niailo  if 
thoy  had  not  bcm  ondiarrassod  by  thu 
intorforeuct>  of  tlu'  di'ltndimts  ;  hccainsD 
(ho  law  presumes  (hat  (ho  plaindll's 
wouhl  have  had  tin*  p!i(ronago  divcr(c(l 
l»y  tlu'  dofendants.  'Ditlnim  v.  /w-  A'oy,  2 
Hlatchf.,  I!»t."  Ni.:i,HoN,J. ;    N.V.,  |s,-,j. 

07.  Tho  profits  which  (ho  plaintiiVs 
have  lost  in  (••>nse(pit>iicoof  (lie  iiil'iiii"(>. 
inont  affords,  therefore,  a  criterion  l»y 
which  todolormino  the  aniounl  i>t'i|a,r|. 
agos  they  have  sustaiiu'd.     llilil..  lui. 

08.  Tho  jury,  also,  in  ostnuadni,' (ho 
damages,  may  (ako  into  aooomit  tho  in- 
terest on  tho  dam.agos,  fnun  tho  tiim 
sustained,  if  thoy  choose,  and  give  it  liy 
way  of  <laniages.     Ihid.,  \\)\. 

00.  In  an  action  for  an  account  of 
profits  which  had  .'locriiod  (o  tlie  do- 
fondant  from  (ho  use  of  (ho  iiiiicliiiies 
which  wore  an  infringement  u|ioii  tlio 
plaintiirs  )ia(ent,  (ho  dcloiidaiit  is  ac- 
oonnt.'ible  for  H\ioh  proli(s  as  ho  lias  ac- 
tually m:ido,  and  not  for  such  as  "with 
duo  diligence  and  prudenco"  iniglit  have 
boon  made.  Liri/u/ttton  v.  Wooilworth, 
15  How.,  550. — Daniki.,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1853. 

70.  The  patent  aot  of  1700,  §  4,  iiuide 
an  infringer  li.ablo  to  pay  such  ilaiii;i!,'ps 
as  tho  jury  should  iiiul,  and  ai^o  forfeit 
tho  in.'iohino.  Tho  aot  of  170;J,  §  5,  do- 
olared  that  an  infringer  should  pay  .1 
sum  equal  to  throe  times  the  price  for 
which  tho  patontoe  had  sold  licenses. 
Tho  act  of  1800,  g  3,  providod  that  an 
infringer  should  pay  throe  times  the  ac- 
tual  damages   sustained,     Seifinour  v. 


'Hw*. 


DAAlAtilOH. 


tar 


WHO  iJAHLN  rtm;  mranurr  or;  RxrmMirR,  RrrRt'T  or. 


}f,'('ort>n'rk\  10  IIow.,  4hh.— (JuiKit,  J.; 

Sup.  Ct.,  IH'W.  • 

71.  Till'  patfiit,  net  (»f  iHmi,  g  1 1, 
rniitiiii-H  till'  jury  to  tlii>  .'ictiinl  ilaiiia;{('M 
lU'^taiin'tl  hy  llu'  pat' ntcc.  'I'lin  poutT 
to  iiKTcuHu  tliitni,  itH  piinitivt)  (laiiia;{t>H, 
{r  ('i)iiiiiiiltfil  to  tilt' tliHcrrtioii  ami  jiiil^- 
nu'iit  of  fill'  court.     /f>iil.,  ■\H\). 

7'J.  TIktc  t'aiiiiot  l»»!  oiu'  riih*  of  dam 
n};oH  wiiich  will  ctpially  apply  to  all 
rftMOS.  Till*  tnoilo  of  nNcortaiiiiii^  tlH>s«> 
actual  (laMia>;»'H  must  lu'crssarily  <l<p<'iiil 
ii|i(iii  tilt'  pcfiiliar  Matunntf  llu*  luoiiop- 
uly  ^'laiitc.l.      f/ud.,  tnO. 

7:1.  If  ft  patoiitt't!  coiiHulcrH  or  tirids  it 
lor  lii"*  iiittTt'st  to  rt'ta'm  tin- «'iitiri'  mo- 
no|M)iy  ')f  liis  invention,  ami  compt'tition 
would  di'-lroy  its  value,  the  profits  of 
the  inlVin^^or  may  bo  tlio  only  orilcrioii 
of  tlio  actual  damago  of  tlii!  patentee. 

71.  Where  an  inventor  lias  foimd  it 
prolilaMe  to  exercise  IiIh  monopoly  by 
st'lliujjj  licenses,  ho  has  hitiiHolf  fixed 
the  average  of  liifl  act  ual  danmge,  and 
tlic  price  of  Huch  licenses  may  afford  a 
|)rn|ter  measure  of  damages.  Ibid., 
490. 

75.  It  is  only  where  from  the  peculiar 
circumstances  of  the  case  no  other  rule 
can  be  found,  that  the  defend.'vnt's  profits 
become  th(!  criterion  of  the  plaintitr's 
loss.    Ibid.,  490. 

70.  Actual  (lam.agos  must  bo  proved : 
what  a  patentee  would  httne  made  if  an 
infringer  had  not  interfered  with  his 
rights,  is  a  question  of  fact,  not  a  judg- 
ment of  law.  It  is  not  a  legal  inference 
that  third  persons  would  have  bought 
of  the  patentee  what  they  bought  of 
an  infringer,  if  the  latter  had  not  made 
and  sold  the  thing  patented.   Ibid.,  490. 

77.  Nor  is  it  proper  to  instruct  the 
jury  that  as  to  the  measure  of  damages 
the  same  rule  is  to  govern,  whether  the 


patent  eovern  an  entire  machine  or  an 
inipiovenieiit  on  n  machine.    Ihid.,  491, 

7h.  Where  11  patentee  avails  himsell 
of  his  invention,  by  putting  It  into 
market  and  Helling  rights  under  it,  in 
Nuch  caseH  tho  customary  charge  for 
th(!  right  to  uhu  the  invention  is  tho 
measure  of  damages  which  the  patenteu 
iH  entitled  to  recover,  with  interest  upon 
the  Hame  from  the  time  of  the  infringe- 
ment. AfcCitrmirkv.  Si'i/m"iti',\  ISIatolif,, 
'."-•». —Nki.bon,  .1. ;  .\.  v.,  lH,-,». 

70.  Itiit  if  the  patentee  does  not  seh 
rights  to  others,  but  nses  his  invention 
oxclusively  hiniHelf,  and  furnishes  the 
proiluetti  to  the  community  himself  out 
of  his  own  manufactory,  in  hucIi  cases 
the  measure  of  damages  is  ditlerent. 
fbid.  2'25. 

80.  If  tho  patent  is  for  an  entire 
nuu'hine,  the  patentee  is  entitled,  as 
damages  in  case  of  infring(>ment,  to  the 
profits  he  could  have  made  in  construct- 
ing and  vending  his  machine  over  and 
abov(!  the  mere  profits  arising  out  of  its 
manufacture.  Tho  profits  that  grow 
out  of  the  exclusive  right  to  manufac- 
turing the  invention  under  tho  jiateiit 
belong  to  the  patentee,  while  the  mere 
mechanical  ])rotits  are  excluded  from 
tho  damages.     Ibid.  225. 

81.  If  tho  invention  is  for  an  improve- 
ment  of  a  machine,  then  the  ]):itcntco 
is  entitled,  as  a  measure  of  damages, 
to  all  the  advantages  of  tlw  tise  of  his 
patented  improvement,  excluding  the 
profits  of  tho  manufacture,  and  exclud- 
ing also  the  value,  if  any,  of  tho  use  of 
tho  old  machine.     Hid.  225. 

82.  The  fact  of  the  use  of  a  patented 
machine  is  evidence  of  utility,  and 
should  subject  the  party  using  to  dama- 
ges.  Simpson  v.  Mad  Itivcr  11.  i?., 
6  McLean,  604. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio, 
1855. 


feir;^^,M* 


'S^:  'SD     ^ 


■^s^W^ 


MCw.'^^ 


888 


DAMAUKH. 


\t 


ti 


**:< 


.^!?; 


m 


i 


woo  UAHji  nwt  MMMM  ovi  txcnMVB,  imoT  or. 


»:i.  Ill  mi  tit'tioii  of  iiilViitt;t'iiii>iit,  no 
|)Iou  hv'mn  tili'tl,  mill  »  ili  ruiilt  t'litiTt'il, 
tiiif  fiiiirtli  III'  till'  |irii«'i'i'(|i»  lii'iii;(  (Mti- 
tniiti'tl  »<«  tlui  |iri)lllH  iit'llu*  iiiai-liiiii',  till' 
(laiiui)Xi'f<  wiTU  iiMNi'MMnl  tit  lliat  lUiiniiiit. 
J'lirkitr  V.  /liimkei',  IJ  Mrf.otui,  032. — 
All  I.KAN,  J.  ;  Ohio,  IH.^.-i. 

Hi  III  (•Nliiiialin;^  tliu  miiiiiint  nfiiain- 
B^'H,  till'  jury  raiiiiot,  ffn  lii-yDlnl  lli»' 
niiin  iiu>titii)iM-il  in  t\w  ilcflarnlioii.  UV 
ntitm  V.  y.  V.  it  I  fur.  li.  li.,  M  ,]inv: 
Fr.  IiiHl.,  .TJ.J  (::il  Her.).— Nklmon,  .1.; 
N.  v.,  lHft5. 

H.5.  III  cHtiiiiatiti};  tho  artiial  ilania^cM 
till'  rule  ipt  to  );ivo  tliu  valiio  of  the  iihh 
of  tilt'  patt'iiti'il  fliiiijx  iliirinj^  tin'  illi'<^al 
iisiT,  or  ill  iitliiM"  wiinls,  tlii>  anmuiit  of 
protitM.  M'iiifi  rtniitfi  \.  /ifditiyton^  M.S. 
— WiLHOV,  .1.;  Ohio,   lH-.«. 

80.  No  iixril  ami  crrtain  riilo  for 
ilaiiiat^cH  can  lio  t'stalilishcil  appliralili* 
to  all  oaHOM,  but  tht>  statiitf  has  tixcil 
the  jj;i'iu'ral  riilo  that  n  |iati'iiti'o  Im  I'ti- 
titU'il  to  ri'coviT  Hucli  ilaiiiJi^oM  jih  Ih' 
has  kIiowii  by  his  |>ronf<i  have  iirtiially 
bi'i'ii  sii>*taiiK'il  in  cdiisimiuciu'o  of  tlu' 
iisi>  of  his  invention,  without  his  lirt'iisi' 
niul  consent,  linnsom  v.  ^fayor^  rfr., 
o/N.  Y.,  MS.— Ham.,  .1.;  N.  V.,  is.-iO. 

87.  In  an  action  ajjainst  tin*  city  of 
New  York  for  an  infrinm-rm'nt  for  the 
nse  of  mi  invention  in  the  iinproveinent 
of  flro-engines,  ///<?,  that  the  jury 
ini^ht  take  into  consiileration  tho  ben- 
efits nccniinij  to  the  corporation,  as  to 
•lainages — as  if  fifty  engines  with  tho 
improvomeiit  wore  equal  to  seventy-tive 
without  it — anil  infer  that  the  corjiDra- 
tion  h.iil  saved  tho  cost  of  the  aiblition- 
al  iiuinbor,  and  would  have  paid  the 
amonnt  of  such  cost,  or  a  l.irgo  portion 
of  it,  as  the  consideration  for  a  license 
to  use  tho  iinprovemciit,  and  that  tho 
plaintiff  lias  lost  by  tho  infringement 
what  the  defendants  would  have  so  paid 


'ik'iTat- 

(Mile- 
■  v-tptlHII. 


to  neciiru  Riu'h  llcetiM'.     /AAA    [lliitHi'«i 
/».M<,  107. 1 

HH.  The  m'lierul  rub'  In,  that  flic  pnt. 
etitee  or  liiM  nsHl^iieti  in  ea>>e  of  till  in. 
fringeineiit  or  appropriation  of  hU  in. 
vention  by  another  without  IiIm  licfiii.i>, 
iM  entitled  to  the  actual  datiia;;i'H  In. 
has  Hustained  by  re:isori  of  hucIi  itilViii.'. 
iiieiit.  Smith  \.  Iliifijin$^  MS.  Nti. 
Hov,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  iHftO. 

H\).  The  theory  c»r  principle  in  re*p«irt 
to  daniagi'N  is,  that  a  thinl  persini  u||,, 
iidopts,  appropriates,  or  uses  ilu<  im. 
proveineiit  of  another,  interferes  with 
his  ciiNtotn,  Iiin  monopoly,  or  latluT, 
property,  a  rl  affects  the  beiii'lilx  wliidi 
he  would  otherwise  be  eiititlnl  to 
//./«/. 

00.  Tho  rule  oxcludes  any  e 
ed  or  vindictive  daniiigi'swhic 
limes  allowed  in  cusi's  of  wilt... 
I  hid. 

01.  If  the  patentee  has  an  estiibli^liiil 
price  in  the  market  for  a  pateiit-rii;lit, 
or  what  is  called  a  p;itent  fee,  that  Mini 
w  ith  the  interest  constitutes  the  iiiia^uro 
III"  daniages.  If  there  is  no  sinli  est;il». 
lislied  price  for  a  patent  fee,  then  tho 
jury  are  to  ini[iiire  of  the  loss  or  in- 
jury he  has  sustained,  and  tln'  protits 
which  the  infruiger  luis  made  liy  tho 
ust>  of  the  invention  may  be  taken  .-is 
the  measure  of  damagi's.  SliiUn  v. 
Hot  dm,  ;{  JMatcht'.,  64:). — Nklhi'.v,  J  ; 
N.  v.,  IS.'iO. 

02.  If  the  jury  adopt  tho  price  of  tho 
patent  fee,  as  the  measure  of  daiiiagcs, 
it  will  operate  to  vest  the  title  of  its 
jiateiit  to  the  extent  of  its  use  by  tho 
defendant  complained  of  througliuiit  its 
term.     IhUl. 

{).^.  If,  however,  thoy  adopt  tlio  prof- 
its from  the  nso  as  tln'  measure  of  dani- 
ages,  the  title  does  not  pass.   Ih'nl.,  .')45. 

Pi.  In  an  action  for  the  infringemeut 


Hw«,,. 


PAMAOK**. 


■J.10 


WNO  UANI.H   r»H|    MKANI'll*  Of;    RXriPlMVH,    RMTWr  Of, 


of  li  ptitfiit,  tin*  nili»  of  clnninu't"«  l-*  tin- 

hvU'iil  iiM*  of  tl)u   tiling;  ittiliiiti'il,  not 
wliiit  litt  mi^llt  liiivo  miuUi  l>y  ri'iiMoii- 


itit;  till'  tiinu  1)0  iiMi'tl  tlio  iilttintltfH  itn. 
I*rnviiiii(<nt.  /'<»»/*»  V.  /'!'»Ty,  .MM,— Wii/- 
KiNN,  J.;  Mit'li.,  1HA7. 

100.  Am  to  llic  ipU'Niioik  of  iliimii^ort, 


nlilc  <lili;;<'H<'«'.  'I'l'«'  •>""»'  •""'*'  "f  iluin- ,  tlio  jiiiy  iimy  liiUi'  into  (•nii<>iiU<i'it. inn  ili«i 
,Hj,.*  In  timt  lii'nl  down  in  /Jriuffnh  h  v-MilVircnri-  iK'lwrm  ilin  I'.cl  of  ncuiiifm'* 
ll'xx/j/'or//*.  /^cro*  V.  .y/iimiii,  20  How.,  tniinvj  llio  urtlflo,  hy  tlii<  old  proi-ouM  nml 
•jo.i.— Md.KAN,  J.;  Hnp.  Ct.,  |h.'»7.  I»y  tin-  now,  ami  iiIho  iliu  «lilVfri'n»t<  in 
ISt'iwi/i/*',  OO. !  tin*  Miint' of  ili(>  iirti«Ii'H  nniniil'irtnn'tl. 

1)^.  Milt.  wlnTo  tin'  wroii^  Iikm  Im-cii  '  Wuhrfmri/  lti'>i»t  C'o.,  v.  A'.  )'.  (0  //. 
ilonc  iiinliT  »;xi.{niviil»'<l  fircnniHtiincff*,  IIi'hh*  <A>.,  MS. — Inokuhui.i,,  J.j  N. 
till'  court  liuH  till*  powiT,  iiihIit  tlie  ntat-    V.,  1H5H. 

uto,  to  |iiiiiisli  it  mU'<|H!iiily,  liy  »ii  in-        loi.  'I'lm  ohjoct  of  ^  It  of  tho  net  (tf 
(•ri':»«' of  lilt' iliiniaifi'i,      //</</., 'JO.t.  |M:tii  an  to  tn'lilinvj  <lain.;4t'M,  in  to   ri'- 

1)1).  'I'lic  riiU' of  ilaina;{«'H  is  titu  prof-   niuiicratf  patcntct'H  w  lio  wi-rc  ronipullcil 


its  wliii'li  liavo  Ir'i'ii  ili'rivi'tl  to  tin'  tli*- 
fi'iulantM  from  tlio  umc  of  tin*  plaint ilVn 
macliiiii',  ovor  any  otln-r  niinUt  wliirli 
the  (li-fi>n<lant!4  had  a  ri^lit  to  adopt. 
S(nill\.  C'll/nis^  4  lliatolif. — Inokkmoi.l, 
J.;  N.  v.,  1H57. 
07.     No  pri'ciso  Htandard  by  wlilch 


to  NiiMtain  llii'ir  patrntH  ai;ainHt  wanton 
and  piTNisti'iit  infrin;^('iN.  /lill  v,  Mn- 
(Uill     /A,    MS.-Lkaviit,    .1.;     Ohio, 

1 0*2.  Uiit  tho  Hpirit  of  tho  act  will  not 
hioludo  NiiitH  hrou<{ht  iipun  an  oxpirod 
patent,  whoro  tho  iiolu  ohjoct  wan  thu 


tl!iiiiaj,'oH  aro  to  ho  niojisiirod  is  Mipplicd  !  rtcovory  of  d.'vinat^os.     ThuL 


\)\  tilt'  law.  Tho  slaliilo  ^ivos  tho  paf- 
I'litci'  his.ioliial  dainatjoH,  hut  tliono  must 
Im  proved — thoy  onniiot  ho  proMiiinod. 
It'  lit'  fails  to  {^ivo  oviilonoo  to  tho  point, 


lo:i.  NVhon  a  patent  has  lioen  riolatoil, 
it  nooessttrily  tollows  that  tho  plaintitf 
\n  otitilloil  to  sonui  (huna^os.  When  tho 
:i!iiouiit  of  daniafjoM  is  not  proved,  tho 


till'  jury  can  award  no  other  than  noin-   rule  is  th.it  tim  jury  ijive   only  nominal 

ilanian^es ;  if  tho  pl.'iintiirinteiids  to  elaiiii 

nioi'o  than  nominal  <l:i!na<^o^,  ho  must 

08.  It  is  cxi'ooilinjt^ly  ilitlleult  to  fjivo   satisfy  tho  jury  what  his  iiifiml  dam- 


iii;il  ilama<^eH.     Sinitli  v.  Illjijiim^  .MS. 
-IJkith,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 


(liriM't  oviilonoo  of  the  real  ;iiiiiiunt  of 
ilaiiiatjes.  Kiifts,  whieh  imply  damanos, 
iiiuy  ho  ro<i;artlod  as  prottf  of  tlain.a^^os, 
uiitlor  the  restriction  that  they  do  not 
warrant  uivin*?  prosuniptivo  or  sppoula- 
tivo  ilaiiiaj^os.  There  must  he  either 
jiositive  proof  of  damages,  or  facts 
proved  which  import  tho  mnouiit  proper 
to  1)0  awartled.     Ibid. 

90.  Tho  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  tho  ac- 
tual tlaiuago  sustained  hy  the  use  of  his 
liiHiroveiuent,  during;  the  term  of  the 
illegal  user,  or  the  amount  of  the  i»rolits 
actually  received  hy  the  dclmdaiit,  dur- 


ages  are.  J*uj>j>cnheitnfit  v.  X.  V.  <r. 
I',  Climb  to.,  4  iJlatclif. — I.nukiwoll,  J.; 
N.  v.,  1S5B. 

104.  There  is  no  unhonding  uv  nn- 
ylehling  rule  as  to  daniaires,  Imt  tho  rulo 
1,'enerally  rocojini/.ed  as  the  true  om-  is 
to  give  as  dam,ago*i  tho  amount  of  prol- 
its  saved  hy  the  defendants,  hy  tho  un- 
lawful uso  of  the  plaintiff's  invention. 
liill  V.  Daniels,  JMS. — Lkavht,  J,; 
Ohio,  1H,')8. 

10.5.  Where  a  patent  was  for  heating 
hnilers  with  the  w.isto  heat  of  a  blast 
lurniicc, //t7f/,  in  tho  case  of  .an  iufringo- 


-^  ,'-■ 


*#»» 

^4., 


wc; 


1^  »  «>l 


1     t 


•-•l 


^•^Hi*! 


■  -'    'Vwc- 


^ywfWfC'^v 


m 
k 


240 


i)A:siAr,Ks. 


will)    I.IAUI.K   KOK;    MKASUUK   OV,    KXC'KSNIVK,    KH'KCT   OK. 


f^ 


^ 


■liiiiip. 


ar 


!k 


If* 


lliii 


s'.fii 


■ff|| 


'Hi 


^i 


■J^i 


5  4.11^:1,^ 


iiioiit  1>»  >!ii'  use  ol'ii  ii):h-iiiiu>  wh'u'li  was 
tlio  samo  ill  |»riii('i|)Ic',  tliat  the  riilo  of 
<laiiiai;('s  was  (Ik^  price  of  tlio  coal  saved 
by  the  use  of  tlie  iiiiprovement.  lidl 
V.  2*hillij>s,  AIS. — Lkaviti',  J. ;  Ohio, 
1858. 

100.  When  ascertainable,  the  defeiul- 
nnt's  profits  are  the  proper  rule  of  daiii- 
ajjes.  Cofitniin  v.  Licsor,  31S. — Lkav- 
irr,  J.;  Ohio,  1859. 

107.  In  an  action  for  damages  for  an 
iiifriii<j;('nu'iit  of  a  patent,  the  ijlaintiffs 
must  furnish  evidence  by  •which  the 
jury  iiiay  estimate  a^'tu.il  damajjfcs.  Ac- 
tual dainaj^es  must  be  calculated,  not 
imagined,  and  an  arithmetical  calcula- 
tion cannot  bo  made  without  certain 
data  on  -which  to  make  it.  If  the  plain- 
tiff rest  his  case  after  merely  ])roving  an 
infringenu'iit,  lie  is  only  entitled  to  nom- 
inal tlamages.  Mayor,  tOc,  of  New  York, 
V.  Jiaiiaoni,  23  How.,  488. — GiuEU,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

108.  The  theory  or  principle  in  re- 
spect to  damages  is,  tliat  a  third  person 
who  adopts,  appropriates,  or  uses  the 
improvement  of  another,  interferes  with 
his  property,  and  affects  the  benefits 
which  he  would  otherwise  be  entitled 
to,  and  the  jury  are  to  look  into  the 
case  with  a  view  to  ascertain  the  actual 
damage  which  the  patentee  under  sucli 
circumstances  has  sustained.  The  rule 
excludes  any  exaggerated  or  vindictive 
damage,  which  is  sometimes  allowed  in 
cases  of  wilful  trespass.  Smith  v.  Iliff- 
gins,  MS. — Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

109.  AVhero  the  iryury  done  to  a  pat- 
entee by  infringement  of  his  patent  is 
not  in  the  use  of  liis  invention,  but  in 
making  use  of  it  without  compensating 
the  patentee  therefor,  it  being  the  inter- 
est of  the  patentee  that  his  invention 
should  be  used  and  adopted  by  all,  the 
measure  of   "  actuid  damage"   is  the 


price  or  value  of  a  license  to  use  if, 
Satxlirs  V.  J-njait,  \\  Wall,  Jr. — (JuiKn 
J.;  Pa.,  isill. 

1 10.  In  Hucli  cases,  the  measure  of 
danjage  being  a  certain  sum,  an  ac«'ouiit 
of  profits  is  not  re(i-,;ired,  and  the  juris, 
diction  of  a  chancellor  need  not  be  in- 
voked. 

1 1 1.  A  court  at  law  may  treble  a  ver- 
dict for  ''actual  damage"  where  tim 
defendant  lias  acted  wantonly  or  vexu- 
tiously ;  but  a  court  of  ecjuity  can  in- 
fllct  no  exemplary  or  punitive  damages 
as  a  court  of  law  may. 

112.  If  an  inventor's  profit  consist 
neither  in  the  "xdusive  use  ')f'  the  tliiiitj 
invented,  or  in  the  monopoly  of  iiiakiiiif 
it  for  others  to  use,  I  it  in  a  gen;'ral  iisu 
by  all  who  will  pay  the  prii-e  of  his 
license,  the  non-payment  of  ;  lie  lifcnsc 
fee  by  an  infring''r  is  the  only  wroiin 
done  him.  He  has  fi.\ed  his  own  meas- 
ure of  compcns.ation.  Jjivinynton  v. 
Jones,  3  Wall,  Jr. — Griek,  J. ;  Ta., 
1801. 

113.  The  oniy  cases  in  which  tlio 
measure  of  damages  is  the  amount  of 
the  infringer's  profit,  are  where  the  in- 
vention is  of  some  new  machine,  or  (i 
new  form  of  any  kuid  of  known  ma- 
chine, wliich,  as  itself — a  distinct  species 
of  machine  or  manufacture — is  more 
valuable,  or  can  be  put  into  market 
cheaper,  so  as  to  supersede  or  exclude 
other  machines  or  manufactures  of  the 
same  genus ;  and  wheni  the  profit  of 
the  patentee  consists  in  a  complete 
monopoly  of  the  right  to  make  and 
vend  the  new  machine  or  mnnufactnie 
as  a  unit,  and  in  tlie  exclusion  of  all 
other  competition.     Ibid. 

114.  Where  a  patentee's  invention 
has  such  peciilia"  characteristics,  ho  has 
a  right  to  dem;  d  that  those  who  have 
infringed  his  e-Kc!ui:ive  right  to  niaka 


DIX'I.AllATIOX.— DKKKXCKS. 


241 


DKFKNUE8  IH  SUITS  AND  AOTtUNS  UiCSI'ltCTlM.    I>ATKNTH. 


nnd  ^*«'^  l>i^  peculinr  invcntiuu  si  nuM 
rcfuiul  all  tlio  iit't  profits  inmlo  by  HUch 
inlViiigoiiu'iit.     Ibid. 

115.  Although  a  piitentoo  may  dc' 
flcribc  his  invention  us  an  iniprovemcMit 
of  soino  known  nuu'hinc,  yet  if  the 
niiU'liinc  constitnte  a  distin'^t  species  of 
inai'hine  or  scientilie  article  kiiowi  in 
the  market  and  having  a  j)ecnliar  value 
on  ac'coi  ,  t  of  its  peculiar  form  or  func- 
tions, the  measure  of  damages  for  in- 
fringing the  patent  is  the  amount  of 
profit  on  the  wholf  machine.  The  case 
of  Sii/mour  v.  McCormicA',  10  How., 
480,  distinguished  from  this.     If»l''. 

116.  ]5ut  if  the  patent  is  for  some 
addition  or  improvement  on  an  old  and 
well-known  implement,  or  some  separate 
part  or  device  thereof  of  small  impor- 
tance compared  with  the  whole — if  the 
license  to  use  tittf  addition  or  improve 
raent  was  sold  as  separate  and  distinct 
from  the  whole  machine,  the  measure 
of  damage  would  be  the  price  of  a 
license,  and  the  profit  made  by  the  ex- 
clusive right  to  make  and  sell  the  whole 
machine.    Ibid. 

117.  The  federal  courts  sitting  in 
equity,  cannot,  under  the  act  of  July 
4th,  1830,  §  14,  treble  the  damages 
found  by  them  for  violating  a  patent- 
right,  as  they  may  when  sitting  at  law, 
aud  on  a  verdict  and  judgment.    Ibid. 


DECLARATION. 

As  to  declarations  of  parties    and 
others,  see  Evidence,  D. 
As  to  declaratioa  in  pleading,  see 

Pleading,  A. 

ij 


16 


DEFENCES    TN    ACTIONS    AND 
SUITS  KESPKCTING  PATENTS. 

See  also  (Jknkk.vi.  Lssuk;  Pi.kaiunij, 

U.  ;   J  KIOK  UsK. 

1.  §  0  of  the  act  of  IVOa  d(".':-  not 
enumerate  .all  the  di'fenccs  of  which  the 
defendant  may  legally  avail  himself;  he 
may  give  in  evidence  that  he  ncvcu'  did 
the  act  attributed  to  hin>,  that  the  i)at- 
entee  is  an  alien  not  entitletl  untli-r  the 
act,  or  that  he  has  a  license  or  authoritv 
from  the  patentee.  Whitfnnore  v.  Cut- 
ter,   1   Gall.,   435. — Sroiiv,  J. ;    !Mass., 

1H13. 

2.  The  title  of  a  patentee  m:vy  be 
impeached  by  showing  that  he  was  not 
the  first  inventor,  and  this,  whethi-r  the 
patentee  w.as  aware  of  such  jtrior  dis- 
covery or  not.  Eoans  v.  IJaton,  Pet. 
C.  C,  342.— Wasiiinoton,  J,;  Pa., 
1810. 

3.  An  offer  to  take  a  license  of  a  pat- 
entee does  not  take  away  the  right  of 
the  person  making  such  otfer  to  deny 
that  the  patentee  was  the  origimil  in- 
ventor.    Ibid.,  347. 

4.  All  matters  of  defence  or  of  objec- 
tion to  a  patent  are  not  enumerated  in 
§§  0  and  10  of  the  act  of  1 793.  ZoiO- 
ellv.Ijewis,  1  Mas.,  180. — Story,  J.; 
Mass.,  1817. 

5.  But  it  is  not  a  matter  of  defence 
that  the  invention  of  the  patentee  is 
not  of  such  general  utility  as  to  super- 
sede others  of  tho  same  kind  in  use. 
Ibid.,  186. 

0.  It  is  a  good  defenco  to  an  action 
for  the  infringement  of  a  patent-riglit 
that  tho  thing  secured  by  the  patent 
was  not  originally  discovered  by  the 
patentee,  but  had  been  in  use,  or  had 
been  described  in  some  public  work  uu' 


Pf^k 


-■/'• 


'^^ 


:yifW 


■«'••' (^ 


',^■^4 


''y^^ 


>■<» 


'"WL-/. 


v. 


'Wli 


i 


i 


i^^W% 


hi^m^^i^'^izy^' 


!» 


Pt 


242 


DEFKNCES. 


ii 


^^ 


'SSilil 


4'i 


S)u 


km 


TO   suns   A     I)   ACTIONS  HE81'K(T1N(1    I'ATKNTS. 


terior  to  the  supposed  discovery  of  the 
patentee.  Jicdfonl  v.  Hunt,  1  jMiis., 
304.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

7.  It  is  perteclly  iiiuiLiteriiil  whether 
the  first  inventor  lias  taken  dut  a  patent 
or  has  dedicated  tlie  invention  to  tlie 
puhlic  or  not ;  for  tlio  defendant  may 
Btand  upon  the  defence  tliat  the  plain- 
tiff is  not  the  first  inventor  who  put  the 
hivention  in  use.     Ibid.,  304. 

8.  Where  two  persons  as  joint  in- 
ventors of  a  machine,  covenanted  with 
each  other  that  each  should  have  certain 
states,  and  that  neither  should  use  or 
sell  the  machine  in  the  territories  of  the 
other,  IldJ,  in  an  action  for  covenant 
broken,  that  the  defendant  could  not 
plead  that  neither  was  the  inventor,  or 
that  separate  jjatents  had  been  granted 
to  each.  Stearns  v.  Barrett,  1  Pick., 
443,  447.— WiLDK,  J.;  Mass.,  1823. 

9.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement  of 
a  patent,  a\  here  the  declaration  goes  for 
a  user  during  a  limited  period,  and  after- 
ward the  party  sues  for  a  tiser  during 
another  and  subse(pient  period,  a  ver- 
dict and  judgment  in  the  former  case  is 
not  a  legal  bar  to  a  recovery  in  the  sec- 
ond action.  The  piracy  is  not  the  same, 
nor  is  the  gravamen  the  same.  Earle\. 
Saicyer,  4  Mas.,  14. — Stojiv,  J. ;  Mass., 
1825. 

10.  §  0  of  the  act  of  1793  does  not 
enumerate  all  the  defences  which  a 
party  may  make  in  a  suit  brought 
ag.ainst  him  for  violating  a  patent.  One 
obvious  omission  is  where  he  uses  it  un- 
der a  license  or  grant  from  the  inventor. 
Pennock  v.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.,  23. — Sto- 
KY,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1829. 

11.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
principle  or  meanmg  of  such  section, 
that  a  defence  may  be  made,  that  al- 
though the  patentee  is  the  first  as  well 
as  the  true  inventor,  he  has  abandoned 


or  dedicated  liis  invention  to  the  public. 
Ibid.,  23. 

12.  The  distinction  is  well  settled  he-v 
tween  defences,  which  authorize  a  ver- 
dict and  judgment  in  favor  of  the  de. 
fendant  in  the  particular  action,  leaving 
the  plaintiff  free  to  use  his  patent,  and 
to  bring  other  suits  for  its  infringement 
and  those  which,  if  successful,  wouM 
require  '^le  court  to  enter  a  judgment 
not  only  for  the  defendant  in  the  par- 
ticular case,  but  one  which  declares  the 
patent  to  be  void.  Grunt  v.  Raymond, 
0  Pet.,  240. — Marshall,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1832. 

13.  If  a  party  is  content  with  defend- 
ing himself,  he  may  either  jiload  spe- 
cially or  plead  the  general  issue,  and 
give  the  notice  required  by  §  (J  of  the 
act  of  1793,  of  any  special  matter  he 
means  to  use  at  the  trial.  If  he  shows 
that  the  patentee  has  failed  in  any  of 
those  prerequisites  on  which  the  author- 
ity to  issue  the  patent  is  made  to  de- 
pend, his  defence  is  complete,  and  he  is 
entitled  to  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  and 
the  judgment  of  the  coiu't.     Ibid.,  240. 

14.  But  if  not  content  with  defend- 
ing himself,  he  seeks  to  annul  the  pat- 
ent, he  must  proceed  in  precise  con- 
formity to  §  6  of  the  act  of  ■"  703,  and 
"  fraudulent  intent"  must  be  found  by 
the  jury  to  justify  a  judgment  of  voca- 
tur  by  the  court ;  §  6  does  not  control 
§  3.     Ibid.,  247. 

15.  The  defendant  is  permitted  to 
proceed  according  to  §  6,  but  is  not 
prohibited  from  proceeding  in  the  usiiiil 
manner,  so  far  as  respects  his  defence, 
except  that  special  matter  may  not  bo 
given  in  evidence  on  the  general  issue, 
unaccompanied  by  the  notice  which  §  6 
requires.     Ibid.,  247. 

16.  It  is  a  good  defence  to  an  action 
for  an  infringement  of  a  patent,  that  tli' 


defencp:s. 


243 


TO   SUITS   ANU   ACTIONS   KESl'KCTINQ   PATENTS. 


sjtccifioation  docs  not  contain  a  written 
descriplK"!  of  the  invention  in  sucli  full, 
clear,  and  exact  terms  as  to  distinguish 
the  same  from  all  things  before  known, 
and  80  as  to  enable  any  person  skilled 
in  the  art  to  make  and  use  the  same. 
Ibid.,  246-248. 

17.  The  case  o{  Pennockx.  Dktlogiie 
(2  Pet.,  1),  affirms  the  princii)le  that  the 
failure  on  the  part  of  a  patentee  in  those 
prerequisites  of  the  act  authorizing  a 
patent,  is  a  bar  to  a  recovery  in  an  ac- 
tion of  infringement,  and  the  validity 
of  this  defence  does  not  depend  on  the 
intention  of  the  inventor,  but  is  a  legal 
inference  upon  his  conduct.     Ibid.,  249. 

18.  §  6  of  the  act  of  1793  declares 
the  defences  that  shall  be  available  for 
a  party  agahist  whom  a  patentee  has 
brought  suit  for  the  invasion  of  his 
n^hf,  but  no  processi  or  vneans  are 
given  for  the  examination  of  a  patent- 
ri"lit,  however  false  and  frauduh.'nt  it 
may  be,  if  the  patentee  will  forbear  to 
bi'ing  suit  against  tho.se  nsing  it.  De- 
lano V.  Scott,  Gilpin,  499. — Hopkinson, 
J.;  Pa.,  1834. 

19.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent,  it  is  no  defence  that  defend- 
ant's invention  worked  better,  or  was 
more  elegant  than  the  plaintift''s.  It 
does  not  follow  because  the  defendant 
lias  improved  the  plaintiff's  invention, 
that  he  can  use  it.  Alden  v.  Deicey, 
1  Story,  337,  338.— Story,  J.;  Mass., 
1840. 

20.  It  is  a  good  defence  to  a  bill  in 
equity  for  an  injunction  on  account  of  an 
alleged  violation  of  a  patent,  that  the 
inventor,  before  application  for  letters 
patent,  had  allowed  his  invention  to  go 
into  public  use  ;  but  such  use  must  have 
been  with  the  consent  of  the  inventor, 
and  have  been  generally  allowed  or  ac- 
quiesced iu,  and  not  have  been  merely 


experimental  or  temporary.  Wycth  v. 
Stone,  1  Story,  281. — SioiiY,  J. ;  Mass., 
1840. 

21.  It  is  also  a  good  defence  to  such 
an  action  that  the  patentee,  after  obtain- 
ing a  patent,  has  countenanced  or  si- 
lently ac(piiesced  in  the  use  of  his  in- 
vention by  others,  such  con(bict  being 
strong  presumption  of  an  abandonment 
or  surrender  of  his  right.     Ibid.,  282. 

22.  Under  §  9  of  the  act  of  1837,  it 
is  a  good  defence,  both  at  law  ujid  iu 
equity,  in  every  suit  brought  upon  a 
patent,  that  there  has  been  an  unreason- 
able neglect  or  delay  to  file  a  disclaimer 
when  one  is  necessary.     Ibid.,  295. 

23.  The  defence,  provided  by  §  13  of 
the  act  of  1836,  "  that  the  patentee  was 
not  the  original  and  first  inventor  or 
discoverer  of  the  thing  patented,"  ia 
complete  without  showing  that  the  first 
inventor  had  put  his  invention  in  prac- 
tice. Ilildreth  v.  Heath,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)-   Craxch,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1841. 

24.  The  use  of  the  thing  patented 
prior  to  the  granting  of  a  reissued  pat- 
ent, and  during  the  interval  between 
the  original  and  renewed  patent,  will 
not  defeat  an  action  for  an  infringement 
under  the  reissued  patent.    Stinipson  v. 

West  Ches.  R.  R.,  4  IIoav.,  402.— Mc- 
Lean, J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

25.  A  foi'mer  verdict  or  dismissal, 
on  a  bill  filed  for  an  injunction  to  re- 
strain the  use  of  a  patent,  is  not  a  bar 
to  a  subsequent  suit,  unless  a  judgment 
was  rendered  on  such  verdict  atrainst 
the  plaintiff,  or  the  dismissal  was  on  the 
merits.  Allen  v.  Rlimt,  2  Wood.  &  ]Min., 
132,  133. — Woodhuuy,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

2G.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement, 
a  plea  of  prior  use  or  sale,  under  §  7  of 
tne  act  of  1839,  to  constitute  a  bar  to 
the  plaintiff's  action,  must  allege  such 
use  to  have  been  more  than  two  years 


P^^*^ 


■m 


w.; 


Igjpr'j 


m 


^-rn^^P???:: 


■:^J*f 


iitf 


■»>». 


W^^i^ 


^*^ii 


^'W\ 


^^y^^ 


I^WWk 


e^ki^'^'g: 


244 


DEFENCES. 


TO  SUITS  AND  ACTIUN8   RK81>£CTINa  PATG.NTS. 


'•■  i:*wiH*^ 


I 


.'•'hi*;! 


m 


'k 


%a 


S|»v 


%! 


*!>» 


'■■Hft.i 


l)(.'foro  the  a])))lication,  or  an  abandon- 
ment, so  as  to  show  that  the  patent  is 
invalid,  by  abandonment  or  otlierwisc. 
Jiout  V.  Jiall,  4  McLean,  170. — McLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

27.  Where  an  action  is  on  a  promise 
\.o  jiay  a  certain  sum  for  the  assi^^nment 
of  a  patent,  and  sucli  assignment  was 
the  consideration  of  the  promise,  the 
validity  of  the  patent  may  bo  impeach- 
ed, as  a  want  of  consideration,  in  de- 
fence of  the  claim.  Wilder  v.  Adama, 
2  Wood.  &  Min.,  331. — Woodbuky,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1840. 

28.  But  such  a  defence  cannot  be  re- 
sorted to  when  the  action  is  on  a  sealed 
instrument,  or  when  another  implied 
covenant  to  the  plaintilf  was  the  real 
consideration,  upon  which  implied  cove- 
nant the  defendant  would  have  a  reme- 
dy, or  when  the  defendants  have  receiv- 
ed the  proceeds  from  the  articles  sold, 
to  recover  the  agreed  proportion  of 
which  the  action  is  brought.    Ibid.,  332. 

29.  The  defence,  authorized  by  §  15 
of  the  act  of  1830,  that  the  patentee 
had  "surreptitiously  or  unjustly  obtain- 
ed his  patent  for  that  which  was  in  fact 
invented  or  discovered  by  another,"  is 
only  .applicable  in  the  case  of  a  patent 
80  obtained  while  the  "first  inventor 
Avas  using  reasonable  diligence  in  adapt- 
ing and  perfecting  his  invention ;"  and 
if  pleaded,  it  may  be  necessary  for  the 
defendant  to  show,  in  order  to  vacate 
the  patent,  that  he  was  using  reasonable 
diligence  when  the  patent  was  obtained. 
Perry  v.  Cornell,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
Cranch,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1847. 

30.  Under  §  15  of  the  act  of  1830, 
l)roviding,  in  the  case  of  a  patent  grant- 
ed to  an  alien  patentee,  that  it  should 
be  a  good  defence  that  such  patentee 
had  omitted  to  put  and  continue  his  in- 
vention on  sale  upon  reasonable  terms, 


within  eighteen  months  after  the  pntent 
was  granted,  it  is  not  essential  that  such 
patentee  should  take  active  meaiiM  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  his  invention  in 
market,  and  forcing  a  sale ;  but  it  is  a 
sufficient  comj)liance  with  the  law  tliat 
he  should  at  all  times  be  ready  to  soil 
at  a  fair  price,  when  a  reasonable  oiler 
is  made.  2htham  v.  Ze  liuy,  MS.— 
NisLSOX,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

31.  Where  the  defence  is  set  up  that 
a  prior  machine  was  essentially  similar 
to  that  of  the  plaintitf,  and  the  jtroof 
relied  on  is  a  description  of  sucli  ma- 
chine contained  in  a  printed  publication, 
such  description  must  be  suHiciently  full 
and  precise  to  enable  a  mechanic  to  con- 
struct it,  .and  must  be,  in  all  material  re- 
spects, like  that  covered  by  or  described 
in  the  plaintifTs  patent.  Proof  of  a 
previous  structure,  bearing  some  resem- 
blance, in  some  respects,  to  the  plain- 
tiff's improvements,  and  which  might 
have  been  suggestive  of  ideas,  or  led  to 
experiments  in  the  discovery  and  com- 
pletion of  his  improvement,  Avill  not  in- 
validate the  patent.  Parker  v.  Stiles, 
5  McLean,  01,  62. — Lbavitt,  J. ;  Oliio, 
1849. 

32.  A  party  setting  up  a  right  under 
a  contract  for  an  interest  in  a  future 
term  of  a  patent,  as  an  equitable  defence 
against  an  action  brought  by  one  having 
the  legal  title,  must  deny  that  the  plain- 
tiff is  a  bona  fide  purchaser  without  no- 
tice, and  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  him, 
so  impeaching  the  legal  title.  Gibson 
v.  Cook,  2  Blatchf.,  150, 151.— Nelson, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

33.  It  is  a  well  established  rule  in 
equity,  that  the  matter  entitling  a  party 
to  an  amendment  of  his  contract  may 
be  set  up  by  way  of  equitable  defence 
against  a  proceeding  involving  the  rights 
of  the  parties  under  the  instrument. 


DEFENCES. 


24S 


TO  BUIT8  AND   ACTIONS  RESPECTINa   I'ATKNTS. 


Woodworlh  v.   Cook,  2  Bhitrhf.,  158, 
160. — Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

34.  But  such  ilofcnco  cannot  bo  set 
up  where  the  rights  of  bona  fide  pur- 
chasers have  intervened,  wliich  would 
or  might  bo  seriously  prejudiced  by  al- 
lowing the  contract  to  be  so  reformed. 
Ibid,  159. 

35.  Where  an  action  was  brought  in 
Louisiana  under  §  16  of  the  act  of 
1830,  by  the  owners  of  a  prior  patent 
against  a  subsequent  patentee,  to  set 
aside  and  have  declared  inoperative  the 
subsequent  patent,  and  on  the  hearing 
the  bill  was  dismissed  on  its  merits, 
Ihkl,  that  the  dismissal  of  the  bill  did 
not  necessarily  import  that  the  two  pat- 
ents interfered,  or  that  the  prior  patent 
was  void  and  inoperative,  and  that  such 
judginent  could  not  bo  pleaded  in  bar 
to  an  action  on  such  prior  patent  in 
another  state  against  an  assignee  of  an 
interest  in  a  subsequent  patent.  Tylar 
V.  Hyde,  2  Blatchf,  312.— Betts,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1861. 

36.  To  constitute  such  a  judgment  a 
bar  to  such  subsequent  action,  it  should 
have  been  direct  and  affirmative  in  its 
terms,  and  have  asserted  the  interference 
of  the  patents,  and  have  declared  the 
patent  void  in  Avhole  or  in  part,  or  in- 
operative and  invalid  in  some  part  of 
the  United  States.     Ibid.,  313. 

37.  It  is  no  justification  of  the  in- 
fruigement  of  a  renewed  patent  that 
the  infringer  had  stolen  and  used  the 
invention  with  impunity  before  the  pat- 
ent was  amended.  Goodyear  v.  Day, 
MS.— Grier,  J. ;  N.  J.,  1852. 

38.  §  7  cf  the  act  of  1839  gives 
no  protection  to  those  who  may  have 
seized  upon  an  invention  or  discovery 
disclosed  in  a  patent,  Avhose  specifica- 
tion may  happen  to  be  defective  or  in- 
sufficient.   Ibid. 


39.  The  granting  of  a  new  license  by 
the  owner  of  a  patent  to  a  second  per- 
son to  make  and  vend  a  patented  article 
within  a  certain  territory,  after  he  had 
granted  a  prior  and  exclusive  license  to 
another  person  for  the  same  territory, 
is  no  bar  to  an  action  brought  on  the 
first  contract  or  license,  to  recover  the 
amount  agreed  by  it  to  bo  paid  for 
machines  manufactured  under  such  con- 
tract, but  may  be  available  by  way 
of  recoupment  of  damages.  Pitta  v. 
Jameson,  15  Barb.,  317. — Johnson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1853. 

40.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement, 
if  a  patent  has  been  granted  to  the  de- 
fendant for  what  he  uses,  he  may  put 
such  patent  in  evidence  in  justification 
or  defence  of  such  action.  Corning  v. 
Burden,  15  IIow.,  271. — Grier,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

41.  If  to  an  action  brought  in  the 
name  of  a  p.atentee  for  the  benefit  of  a 
licensee,  a  release  from  the  patentee  is 
set  up,  the  plaintiff  may  file  a  replica- 
tion setting  up  the  license,  the  bringing 
of  suit  for  the  benefit  of  the  licensee, 
notice  to  the  defendants  of  such  license 
and  its  recording  prior  to  the  release, 
want  of  power  to  give  the  release,  and 
that  it  was  given  without  the  consent 
and  authority  of  the  licensee.  Good- 
year v.  McBurney,  3  Blatchf.,  33. — Nel- 
son, J. ;  N.  Y.,  1 853. 

42.  In  an  action  for  infringement  on 
a  reissued  patent,  proof  of  use  of  the 
thing  patented  during  the  interval  be- 
tween the  original  and  reissued  patents 
will  not  defeat  the  action.  Uattin  v. 
Taggert,  17  How.,  84. — McLean,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

43.  The  question  of  diligence,  under 
§  15  of  the  act  of  1836,  has  application 
to  the  case  of  a  prior  inventor  by  way 
of  defence,  where  a  subsequent  inventor 


'^H^ 

S.-,     '"*«*i, 


W'mm 


>^^^^^: 


|MW-<V; 


240 


DKMrUUIClI.— DESIGN. 


OKHIOX,    WlUT   IH,    AM)  I'ATKNT   t'OK. 


'*:}'^i 


'0!i« 


linH  ()1)laiiit'»l  ft  jiati'iit  for  tlu'  fainc 
invention  Hurroptitionsly,  and  iliit'ctly 
only  in  sucii  a  ciiw,  or  whore  it  ha«  ap- 
peared that  analogonH  principles  were 
involved,  and  then  by  un  ecpiitable 
construction  of  the  rule.  SUphenn  v. 
aaUHhnrij,  IMS.  (App.  Can.) — Moiwkll, 
J.;  D.  C,  1855. 

44.  The  things  specified  in  §  0  of 
the  act  of  1830  are  prerequisites  to  the 
granting  of  a  patent,  and  unless  these 
prerequisites  are  complied  with,  a  party 
sued  for  an  infringement  of  a  patent 
may  wliowthat  they  have  not  lieen  com- 
plied with,  and  in  that  mode  defeat  the 
action  of  the  sujtposod  inventor.  Han- 
som V.  Mayor,  <Ac.,  of  New  Yurk,  MS. — 
ILvi.L,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

45.  It  is  no  defence  to  an  action  for 
an  infringement  of  a  patent  that  the 
machine  used  by  the  defendant  is  a  bet- 
ter mode  than  that  invented  by  the 
plaintiff;  nor  does  the  use  of  such 
better  mode  form  any  objection  to  the 
validity  of  the  plaintilf's  patent.  Bell 
V.  Daniels,  MS. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1858. 

40.  If  an  invention  is  useless  as  to 
the  particular  thing  used  by  the  defend- 
ants, they  arc  not  liable  in  damages  for 
its  use.  I*opj)enheitsen  \.  N.  Y.  G.  P. 
Coinh  Co.,  MS.,  4  Biatchf. — Ixgkrsoll, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1858. 

47.  The  defence  that  an  invention  is 
■wanting  hi  novelty  or  originality  goes 
to  the  validity  of  the  patent.  Coleman, 
V.  Liesor,  MS. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1859. 

48.  The  defence  that  the  patentee 
had  surreptitiously  and  unjustly  ob- 
tained the  patent  for  that  which  Avas  in 
fact  invented  or  discovered  by  another, 
who  was  using  reasonable  diligence  in 
adapting  and  perfecting  the  same,  does 
Dot  necessarily  imply  bad  faith  on  the 


part  of  the  patentee,  against  whose  pat- 
ent this  defence  is  set  up.  The  word'i 
were  intendetl  to  be  used,  and  are  uscj 
in  their  broadest  sense.  Pfalps,  JJoiltjn 
cfc  Co.  v.  Prawn  Pros.,  18  How.  Pr.,  O. 
— Nelso.v,  J.,  N.  Y.,  1850. 

40.  Where  therefore  A  liled  a  caveat, 
for  an  invention,  and  IJ  subse(|ueiiily 
filed  an  application  for  tlio  same  inven- 
tion and  obtained  a  patent  therefor,  tlic 
Connnissioner  neglecting  to  give  notice 
of  such  application  to  the  caveator, 
Jftld,  that  such  defence  could  be  set  uji 
against  IJ's  patent,  though  there  was 
nothing  in  the  case  implicating  his  good 
faith.     Ibid.  0 

50.  It  is  a  good  defence  to  an  action 
for  the  infringement  of  a  patent  that 
the  invention  is  -worthless.  Vance  v. 
Camjjbell,  31S. — LEAvirr,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1850. 

51.  The  United  States  are  not  pre- 
cluded by  the  fact  of  granting  a  patent 
from  giving  in  evidence,  or  availing 
them  jclves  of  any  legal  objections  that 
may  be  brought  against  any  such  pat- 
ent. Shreeve  v.  U.  States,  MS. — Lou- 
ING,  J. ;  Ct.  Clauns,  1850. 


DEMURRER. 

See  Equity,  13.  4  ;  Pleading,  E. 


DEPOSITIONS. 
See  EviDExcE,  C. 


DESIGN. 
Pateiit  fob,  and  Infeingement  of. 

1.  The  phrase  "design,"  when  used 


<^z:. 


D18CLAIMKII,  A. 


947 


wiiKN  i'UOPBh;  what  to  CONTAIN;  imoT  or. 


a8  ii  term  of  art,  mortiis  llio  ^ivinj?  ot'ii 
VMibli'  form  to  tlio  coiicoptloiiH  of  tlu> 
n»iml»  or  in  other  wonlH  to  t\w  inven- 
tion. Jiinna  v.  Woodruff',  4  Wa«li.,  52. 
— Wasuinuton,  J.;  Pa.,  1821. 

2.  It  is  an  infringoniont  of  a  patent 
for  a  design  to  atlopt  the  design  so  as  to 
produee  substantially  the  saino  ai)pear- 
nnce.  It  is  not  necessary  to  adopt  tlie 
design  in  every  partieuhir.  Hoot  v. 
Bull,  4  INIcLean,  180,  181.— McLkan, 
J.;  Oiiio,  1840. 

3.  Where  letters  patent  were  issued 
under  the  act  of  1842,  for  a  "new  and 
ornamental  design  for  figured  silk  liut- 
tons" — the  design  consisting,  1st,  of  the 
contignration  of  the  mould  or  block,  it 
having  radial  indentations,  and  forming 
the  foundation  of  the  button,  .and  capa- 
ble of  being  varied  in  figure  as  desired  ; 
and  2d,  of  winding  such   block   with 
silk,  in  the  manner  described,  so  as  to 
luiike  buttons  of  different  hues  and  com- 
binations of  colors;  and  the  chxim  was 
for  "the  radially  formed  ornaments  on 
tlio  face  of  the  mould   of  the  button, 
combined   with  the  mode    of  winding 
the  covering  of  the  same,  substantially 
as  set  forth,"  Held.,  that  the  invention 
was  for  "  a  new  and  origin.-il  design  for 
a  manufacture,"  under  §  1  of  such  .act — 
a  design  for  the  manufacture  of  an  orna- 
mental button.      Booth  v.   Garclly,  1 
BLitchf.,  248,  249.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1847. 

4.  Held  also,  that  as  the  specification 
did  not  describe  the  process  of  winding 
the  silk,  that  the  patent  did  not  cover 
or  embrace  such  process,  but  was  for 
the  arrangement  of  the  different  colored 
threads  ui  the  process,  so  as  to  produce 
the  radially  formed  ornaments  on  the 
face  of  the  button.     Ibid.,  249. 

5.  Whether  the  sale  of  such  buttons, 
before   the  application   for   a  patent, 


would  atnount  to  an  abandonment,  w.as 
held  to  be  a  (piestion  of  fact  to  be  set* 
tle<l  by  a  jury.     Ihid.,  241). 

0.  Whether  the  sale  of  the  manufac- 
ture*! button,  before  applic.ition,aniount8 
to  a  sale  of  "the  thing  invented,"  with- 
in the  meaning  of  ^  7  of  the  act  of  1839; 
(/luri/.     Ibid.,  2.')0. 

7.  If  the  button  be  regardetl  simply 
as  the  product  of  the  invention,  the 
sale  of  it  would  not  be  a  sale  of  the  in- 
vention, for  a  B.ale  within  J^  7,  must  be  a 
Bale  of  the  invention  or  jmtented  article. 
The  "  design,"  however,  being  worked 
on  the  face  of  the  button,  might  per- 
haps be  said  to  bo  sold  with  it,  and  a 
sale  of  the  button  would  then  be  a  sale 
of  the  "design,"  the  thing  patented. 
Ibid.,  260. 

8.  In  this  CISC,  on  a  motion  for  a  pro- 
visional injunction,  the  novelty  of  the 
invention  being  denied,  and  it  being  ad- 
mitted that  the  plaintiffs  had  sold  before 
his  application  for  a  patent,  largo  qu.an- 
tities  of  the  article,  in  packages  marked 
as  imported  from  Paris,  the  injunction 
was  denied  until  the  plaintiff  should  es- 
tablish his  right  by  a  suit  at  law.  Ibid.., 
250. 


DISCLAIMER. 

A.  When  puopeu;  what  to  set  forth  ; 
Effect  op 247 

B.  EiTECT   OF  Delay   ok  Neglect  in 
FILING 249 

C.  Assignee  ;  Right  op  under,  and  to 

MAKE 251 

A.    When    rnoPEB;   what  to    set 
forth;  Effect  op. 

1.  Where  two  patents  are  substantial- 
ly for  the  same  invention,  whether  a  dia- 


%i»ii*;- 


^SiiTM^^ 


^.S.v>- 


'^ 


t4l 


DISCLAIMKll,  A, 


WIIKN   I'UOI'KU;   WHAT  TO  OONT.UX;   KfrBCT  Of. 


'<»■ 


clainuT  of  nil  titio  under  tho  first  pnt- 
uiit  to  tli«i  iiiiik>rial  piirtri  of  tlio  inven- 
tion for  whieh  it  wiih  f^runted,  would 
not  o|i«>nite  iih  an  estoppel  to  any  remedy 
wliieli  mit^lit  Ite  prosecuted  for  a  viola- 
tion of  that  patent ;  t/iien/.  Trcadirrll 
V.  Miifin,  4  Wasli.,  700.— Wasiiinu- 
Tox,  J.;  I'll.,  1827. 

2.  A  disclainter  at  tlie  close  of  ft  spp- 
eiiieation,  estops  tlie  patentee  from  set- 
tiui^  up  ;iny  privileye  to  the  part  dis- 
olainu-d.  Wlittnry  v.  Emntttty  JJald., 
;U:}.— Uai.owin,  J.;  I'a.,  1831. 

3.  Tln^  disclaimer  mentioned  in  ^  7 
of  tho  act  of  Ks;i7,  applies  solely  to 
suits  pendiuj;  when  the  disclaimer  is 
filed  ;  and  the  disclaimer  mentioned  in 
§  0  of  the  same  act,  applies  solely  to 
Biiils  hroiiujlit  after  such  disclaimer  is 
filed.  Wyith  v.  Htohv,  1  Story,  204. 
— Stouy,  J. ;  MasR.,  1 840. 

4.  Sonhlc,  That  a  disclaimer,  under 
§  7  of  the  act  of  18:17,  should  not  only 
disclaim  what  is  not  claimed  as  new,  but 
flhoiild  also  distinctly  Bet  forth  Avhat 
part  i,i  the  invention  is  still  claimed,  as 
it  is  manifestly  desi}j;iied  to  act  as  a  new 
Bpecification.  Ijippincott  v.  KcUy^  1 
West.  Law  Jour.,  515. — Iuwin,  J.  j  I'a., 
1844. 

6.  Under  §  7  of  the  act  of  1837,  the 
disclaimer  must  state  the  interest  of 
the  person  disclaiming.  But  Avherc  an 
administrator,  in  whose  name  a  patent 
had  been  extended,  entered  a  disclaim- 
er, stating  that  he  was  the  j>atentee,  and 
referring  to  the  i)atent  as  showing  his 
interest,  it  was  held  suflicient.  lirooks 
V.  Bicknell,  3  McLean,  430. — McLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

6.  §§  7  and  9  of  the  act  c  1837,  au- 
thorizing a  disclaimer,  do  not  apply 
where  a  patent  is  for  a  combination  of 
parts.  Batten  v.  Clayton,,  2  Whar. 
Dig.,  413.— Kaxe,  J. ;  Pa.,  1848. 


7.  .\  disclaimer  inuHt  lie  properly 
proved  before  it  can  be  admitted  in  (>v 
ideiico,  either  ua  tin  original  paper  or 
by  a  certified  copy.  And  if  adniiiicl 
in  evidence,  it  must  have  given  to  it 
the  full  clfect  of  a  diKclaimer,  under  J}  7 
of  the  act  of  1837.  Foote  v.  SihUy^  \ 
IMatchf,  450,  401.— Nia80N,  Conkmx, 
JJ. ;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

8.  Where,  therefore,  a  eoj)y  of  a  dis- 
claimer, indorsed  on  a  patent,  but  not 
proved  to  have  been  executed  by  tho 
patentee,  was  offered  in  evidence  by  tho 
defendant,  not  as  a  disclaimer,  but  as  a 
confession  that  the  plaintitrs  invention 
was  not  new,  and  that  ho  was  not  tho 
original  inventor  of  all  claimed  in  liJD 
specilicatioii,  //tW,  that  it  must  ho 
proved,  before  it  could  be  admitted  in 
evidence;  and  must  be  read  as  a  disclaim- 
er, if  at  all.     Ibid.,,  460,  401. 

9.  Where  a  disclaimer  was  tiled  by  tho 
patentee  himself,  setting  out  that  it  was 
"  to  operate  to  the  extent  of  the  interest 
in  said  letters  j)atcnt  vested  in  the  pat- 
entee," Held,,  that  it  fairly  enough  im- 
ported on  itfiface  that  the  patentee  was 
the  owner  of  the  entire  interest  in  tlio 
patent,  and  if  so,  there  was  a  suhstan 
tittl  compliance  with  the  statute,  us  to 
the  Btatemeiit  of  interest.  /i/(/.,  449, 
401.     [Affirmed,  ;)Oj»M  2.] 

10.  A  patentee  has  a  right  to  dis- 
claim any  thing  whieh  has  been  claimed 
through  "inadvertence  or  mistake;" 
but  when  a  p.atentee  claims  any  thing  as 
his  own,  courts  cannot  reject  tho  claim, 
though  tho  inventor  himself  may  dis- 
claim it.  i\irker  v.  Scars,  MS. — Gkiek, 
J.;  Pa.,  1850. 

11.  But  a  disclaimer  is  necessary 
only  where  the  thing  claimed  without 
right  is  a  material  and  substantial  part 
of  the  thing  invented.  If  the  part  not 
new  is  not  essential  to  the  machiiic,  and 


''>^: 


DISCLAIMKU,  n. 


940 


■rrKCT  or  vumr  on  niolkct  ix  raiwo. 


wiiH  t>i>t  intrtxliK'nl  into  tho  pntoiit 
tlir<Hi<;li  wilful  <icriiiilt  or  iiiti'iit  to  du- 
tVaiid  or  iniHicHil  tlit*  piiltlio,  tli«>  wiiiit 
of  II  (liNtliiiiiMT  nllnrilM  no  ground  for 
inMili<liilinn  tlio  piitcnt.  //all  v.  WiliM, 
2  Hhitdif.  109.— Nklmon,  J.;  N.  Y., 
IHJJl. 

12.  Wlicro,  in  ii  «1i.s(rl:kiin(>r,  tlu«  party 
gtnted  tliiit  h(!  wiiH  tliu  piitt-ntt'c,  and 
w  tiling  Huid  in  roHpoot  to  u  triuiMftT  of 
niiy  part  of  it,  tlu;  fair  proHuniption  is, 
tliat  ho  Htill  ownH  tho  whole  ;  and  it  is 
amillirii'iit  coniplianco  with  tlic  statuti' 
as  to  Htatiiiff  his  intcrcHt,  to  nay  "  that 
such  disclaimer  is  to  operate  to  tho  ex- 
tent of  liis  interest  tiierein."  SUshij  v. 
Foote,  14  How.,  221. — Cuhtis,  J. ;  Snp. 
Ct.,  1852. 

13.  Tho  law  rt'tpiiringand  perniiftinfjj 
a  patentee  to  diselaini  is  not  penal  but 
remedial.  It  is  intended  for  tho  protec- 
tion of  tlio  patentee  as  well  as  the  pub- 
lic, and  should  not  receive  a  construc- 
tion that  would  restrict  its  operation 
within  narrower  limits  than  tho  words 
of  the  law  fairly  import.  O' licUhj  v. 
Mom',  15  IIow.,  121.— Tanky,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  18.53. 

14.  Whether,  therefore,  a  patent  is 
ilie<jal  in  part  because  of  claiminjjf  mor(^ 
than  the  inventor  has  described,  or  more 
than  he  has  invented,  the  p.itentee  must 
in  eitlier  case  disclaim  in  order  to  save 
the  portion  to  whicli  he  is  entitled ;  and 
he  is  allowed  to  do  tliis  when  the  error 
was  committed  by  mistake.     Ibid.^  122. 

15.  The  disclaimer  of  part  of  an  in- 
vention, provided  such  disclaimer  arose 
from  inadvertency,  accident,  or  mistake, 
will  not  prevent  the  patentee  from  em- 
brsicing  the  part  so  disclaimed  in  a  re- 
issue of  his  patent,  llayden,  Exparte, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Merrick,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1800. 

16.  Inadvertence  and  error  may  oc- 


cur aH  well  in  a  disclaimer  as  in  a  claim, 
an<l  whenever  such  n  mistake  occurs,  it 
may  be  cured  l»y  a  reissue.  /*(i/>j>fn- 
/n'ltmn  v.  Fnike,  MS. — S'upm.vn,  J.; 
N.  v.,  1801. 

B.    Kkpkct  of  Dki.ay  or  Nkcilkct 

IN    Kll.INO. 

1.  Under  g  0  of  tho  act  of  1837,  It  is 
a  ^ood  defence,  both  at  law  and  in  e(pji- 
ty,  in  every  suit  Itrought  upon  a  pat«'nt, 
to  secure  tho  rights  granted  thereby, 
that  there  has  been  unreusonable  neg- 
lect or  delay  to  file  a  disclaimer,  whero 
one  is  necessary.  Wt/tth  v.  St<nie^  1 
Story,  205.— SrouY,  .1.;  Mass.,  1H40. 

2.  ScmUi;,  that  a  court  of  equity  will 
not  interfere  to  grant  a  i»erpetual  in- 
junction, whatever  may  bo  the  paten- 
tee's rights  and  remedy  at  hiw,  unless 
tlie  disclaimer,  whero  one  is  ne(!essary, 
is  filed  before  suit  brought.  Ibid,^ 
205. 

3.  The  disclaimer,  to  be  eftectu.al  un- 
der g§  V  and  9  of  the  act  of  1837,  must 
bo  tiled  before  stiit  brought.  If  it  is 
filed  during  the  pendency  of  tho  suit, 
the  [daintitf  will  not  be  entitled  to  tho 
benefit  tliereof  in  that  suit.  Heed  v. 
Cutter,  1  Story, 000.— Story,  J.;  Mass., 
1841. 

4.  If  filed  before  suit  is  brought,  tho 
plaintiff  will  be  entitled  to  recover  costs, 
if  he  establish  at  the  trial  that  a  jiart 
of  the  invention,  not  disclaimed,  has 
been  infringed  by  the  defendant.  Ibid.^ 
600. 

5.  But  wliether  filed  before  or  after 
suit  brought,  the  plaintiff  will  not  be 
entitled  to  the  benefit  thereof,  if  he  has 
unreasonably  neglected  and  delayed  to 
file  it.  Such  neglect  or  delay  is  a  good 
defence  to  the  suit.     Ibid.,  000. 

6.  An  unreasonable  negleci  or  delay 


I 


\^'. 


\— .  -z), 


■*-'-.^U.J"^ 


.WW.*'"" 


^^m 

:'.lv!'^-f>! 


n  ill 


j^^^^\. 


;w-wj^': 


3A0 


IMSCLAIMKII,  P. 


RrrMiT  or  itKr.AV  mt  nkolki't  in  rmnu. 


to  outer  A  iIlMcl.'tifiii'i',  iirii1t>r  ^  0  of  tlio 
n<'l  ctf  IH.'IT,  (Mil"*  ulVtlu'  |»:iti'iiti'(>  frniii 
alt  the  lii'iiflitM  of  ;liat  Hoctioii,  not  on)}' 
tliut  lio  hIiuII  not  r<>('  )Vi>r  cuMtH,  hut  th:it 
lu'Himll  Imvc  no  riifli.  of  lu'lion.  ///•"oX'.t 
V.  Hirhiilt,:\  M«'laiin,  HI).— M»  Kican, 
J.;  ()liu»,  IHU. 

7.  Wliiit  irt  nil  unrciiHoiiiibIc  duliiy  to 
outer  a  (ii?*c'lainu>r,  in  a  inixcil  (|u*'Mtioii 
of  law  and  tact,  to  lu>  (U'ciilcil  l»y  tin' 
jury,  uii'lcr  the  iuMtructioii  of  tliu  court. 
/A/*/.,  411). 

H.  liCMH  vi;jllan('()  will  l)t>  ro(|uir»Ml 
from  an  inlininii^trator  than  iVoni  the 
ori^jc'nial  patt'iiliM'.      /fiitf.,  4"iO. 

i).  Tht>  liliii;;  of  the  tlisclainicr  aiithor- 
izoil  by  15  7  of  I  ho  act  of  JH:i7,  will  not 
nfVi'ft  any  ;ictioii  lu'iidintj  at  the  tinif  <»f 
thi'  fllinir  of  siiih  (lisflainM'r,  except  in 
respect  to  the  (pieslion  of  nnrc.asonahle 
iiejjh'cf  <»r  tlelay  in  liliii<jf  it.  (iiii/on  v. 
JKcmll,  1  IMatoht:,  245.— Nklhok,  J.; 
N.  v.,  !H47. 

10.  Hut  where  a  diselaiiner  was  tiled 
undrr  such  section,  after  the  eoniineiu'o- 
liu'iit  of  the  action,  J/M,  aithou;j;li  un- 
der g  0  of  the  same  act  the  plaiiitilV  was 
not  entitled  to  costs,  yet,  that  under  ^ 
14  of  the  act  of  18;Jt3,  the  court  hail 
power  to  increase  the  verdict.  Ibul., 
246,  240. 

11.  Under  §  0  «>f  the  net  of  Ism,  the 
filinir  of  a  disclaimer  by  a  ])atentee  who 
has  bv  mistake,  Ac.,  claimed  somethmii: 
of  which  he  was  not  the  inventor,  is  not 
a  condition  precetlent  to  obtaininjjj  the 
benetits  of  such  act.  lie  loses  that  only 
bv  an  unrcasoiHiItlr  delav  in  liliiiff  such 
disolaiiiier.  ITotchkiss  v.  Oliver,  5  De- 
nio,318,— McKissocK,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1848, 

12.  Where  a  patentee  has  uninten- 
tionally and  without  fraud  claimed  as  a 
part  of  his  invention  something  which 
was  not  original,  but  has  unreasonably 
neglected  to  lile  a  disclaimer  of  such 


part,  lie  eaimot  recover  under  8  7  of 
the  act  of  lH:i7,  in  un  uclinti  for  illfrill^<^ 
inent,  even  if  the  defendant  has  in. 
tVinged  the  parts  u{'  his  invention  wlmli 
are  new.  J'lirkrr  \,  Sfilt'i^,  t\  Mcl.t.ui, 
.^tJ.— Lkaviit,  J.;  Ohio,  IH4(). 

i;t.  If  a  tlistilaimer  is  enterud  hetbre 
suit  instituted,  the  plaintilV  r((;ov«>rH 
costs  in  the  usual  way,  independirit  nf 
any  <|uestion  of  disclaimer.  I  bit  if  in 
the  progress  of  the  trial  it  turns  ihii, 
that  n  disclaimer  ought  to  h  ivi>  bfoii 
made  as  to  a  |iart  of  what  is  elainiiMJ, 
the  plaint itl'  may  recover,  but  will  iiol 
be  «'ntitled  t«)  costs.  JInH  v.  UVA.f,  'j 
niatchf.,  lltH.— -Nki.hon,.!.;  N.  V.,  iHr.i, 

14.  I'nder  ^  t)  <if  the  act  of  1h;<T, 
the  (|uestion  whether  there  has  bci-n  un- 
reasonable m-gligence  or  delay  in  enter- 
ing a  disclaimer,  goes  t(»  the  right  of 
the  action  ;  and  if  the  delay  slmws  great 
negligence,  the  Jury  may  tind  the  patent 
void.      I  hid.,  IIIH,  it)!). 

1.').  Where  a  claim  has  been  Haiiction- 
ed  by  the  Patent  OtHce,  and  has  been 
held  valid  by  a  Circuit  Court,  the  pat- 
entee has  a  right  to  insist  upon  it,  lunl 
not  disclaim  it,  until  it  h:is  been  passed 
upon  by  the  highest  court,  and  tlio 
omission  to  cbsclaim  will  not  remler  the 
patent  void.  The  delay  in  entering  the 
ilisclaiiuer,  under  such  circumstancoH, 
until  the  decision  of  Mich  higliest  court, 
is  not  unreasonable.  0'AV///y  v.  J/orsc, 
15  How.,  122.— Tan  KV,  Ch.  .1.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  185.1. 

1 0.  If  a  patentee  makes  a  claim  which 
is  not  well  founded,  in  the  same  ))atoiit 
with  other  claims  which  arc  well  louud- 
ed,  he  may  disclaim  within  a  reasona- 
ble time  that  which  ho  had  no  riglit 
to  claim,  and  then  his  patent  will  l") 
good  for  tlu;  residue,  as  good  as  if  it 
had  originally  issued  only  for  the  claims 
which  are  valid.    McCormick  \.  Scy- 


t'-.} 


in.sn,AiMi;u  n,  c. 


201 


irrMT  or  tmuAt  m  nun*. 


AaMOMM,  MONT  OF  VNOM. 


♦woxr, :«  r.l.ifi'hf.,'J2'J.— Nklbon.J.;  N.V., 

17.  iriioniuitH  lodiii'liuin,  mill  Itrin^N 
ptiit  t'oi'  tilt'  viiiliitinii  of  IiIh  pittfiil,  mill 
il  ii|i|)oikrN  at  tli(>  trial  tl>at  \w  'ih  cntitlt'il 
to  lit*  |troUH'l(><|  in  a  |m  >rlioii  df  hin  claiiiiH, 
lint  not  ill  Mxpcct  to  niioflMT  pnrlinn,  lu- 
JH  Ktill  <>ntill*M|  to  tJaiim^t'M  tor  tli<>  viola. 
tii<M  of  tlio  vuli<l  portion  of  lii^  cliiiiiiH, 
but  In-  n'oovorn  no  oont*.      /fiitl,,  222. 

IH.  ifut  it*  tim  jury  art-  Hati«ll»'il  that 
tlicrt*  li:ii^  In  ell  imr«'asurial»l<'  in'j^lif^i'iw'o 
and  ilrlay  on  tlu'  part  of  tlic  pal«'n(»'(( 
iti  iiiakiii;(  a  lUsclainur  as  rcNpoctH  tho 
Invitliil  piu't  '.if  liiH  i>at<'nt,  llu'ii  tho 
wlioN'  [>'il»'nt.  is  iiinprrativo.      /f>i<f.  '-'32. 

19.  WIhto  h  patentee  (ibt.iincil  nis 
]mtciit  in  lHtr>,  aiitl  ItroiijKlit  Huit  for  an 
infi'iti,^(>iii<-iit  of  it,  and  tltoro  were  nu- 
incrouM  trials,  tlio  last  of  which  was  in 
IH.Vt,  upon  which  a  (picstioti  arosi*  as 
to  tilt'  iriic  coiistnictioii  of  onu  of  the 
ciniiiis,  whether  the  Hanio  was  ntnv,  but 
Hiuli  claim  was  not  ono  <>f  the  issues  iit 
controversy,  and  Mich  claim  was  held, 
on  error,  not  to  la*  new,  J/eld,  tliat 
under  the  cirtuimstances  of  the  cnso,  the 
patoMtce  was  not  pfuilty  of  unroasonahle 
lit'lay  in  makinj^  the  disclaimer,  and  that 
such  delay  w;ih  a  (pnstiini  of  law  for 
the  court  lo<lecido.  Stymoury.McCor- 
mkk,  1!)  How.,  lOG. — Nklhox,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  18r)0. 

20.  The  granting  of  a  patent  f-r  an 
allcf^ed  improvement,  and  an  opinion  or 
(leiUiod  of  a  court  below  maintaining 
tho  validity  of  8\«ch  patent,  will  repel 
uuy  inference  of  an  unreasonable  delay 
in  correcting  tlio  claim  for  such  improve, 
nicnt,  which  \v;i.s  in  fact  not  now,  by 
entering  a  disclaimer  thereof,  until  the 
highest  court  to  which  it  coiUd  be  car- 
ried had  pronounced  its  judgment. 
Ibid.,  100. 

21.  Under    tho    oircumstancea,    the 


ipiestion  of  unrenHtiiiablo  delay  in  llling 
n  disclainiri'  wiw*  heht  to  be  one  of  law, 
for   tluMMHiil  to  decide,      //*/(/.,  lOrt. 

•l-l  Tmh'r  55  U  of  the  act  of  Ih;I7, 
w hero  a  patent  •><«  daims  more  than  liu 
has  invented  or  is  entitled  to,  his  p.atent 
will  still  lie  good  for  what  he  has  in< 
\cnted,  provided  he  enters  a  ilisclaiiner 
of  what  hu  has  included  in  his  patent 
which  lie  has  iiot  invente<i,  witlioiit  un* 
re:isonalile  negh'ct  «)r  delay.  ,Sil«f>i/  v. 
/'oiite,  20  llww.,  38.  — Nklmon,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  IH.^7. 

2.').  Where  the  oviilenco  going  to 
show  that  the  invention  waH  not  now 
was  introduced  on  thi'  trial  of  a  feigned 
issue  in  lb.')!,  and  the  (pie>tioii  of  nov- 
elty hud  been  in  controversy  from  that 
time  to  1H57,  nnd  no  disclaimer  had 
been  ent(!n  d,  //77,  that  \itider  tlie  eir- 
eiunstanccs,  there  had  not  b( en  such  an 
unreasonable  <Ulay  in  entering  tho  dis- 
claimer  as  to  bar  a  recovery,  iuul  tho 
jiluintiir  was  .allow  'd  to  recover  datnagt'S 
but  not  costs.  Ifiid.,  ;»«7.  ((iiliicit,  J. 
and  Damki,,  J.,  dissenting.) 

24.  What  is  "  unreasoii.ible  delay"  in 
fding  a  disclaiimr  is  a  question  of  law 
for  tho  c(mrt.  The  time,  in  rofcn-nco 
to  the  (piestion  of  deiav  commences 
from  the  time  wlu-n  knowledge  is 
brought  homo  to  the  party  that  ho  is 
not  the  first  invtfutor,  or  a  court  of  com- 
petent jurisdiction  has  declanJ  him  not 
lobe  one.  >Sinijrrv.  llW/zia/cy,  MS.— 
GlLK«,  J.;  Md.,  185S). 

Ct  AssiONKK,  Rkjiit   of    under,  axd 

TO    MAKE. 

1.  If  a  patent  has  been  previously  as- 
signed in  part,  and  a  disclaimer  has  been 
filed  by  the  patentee  alone,  such  dis- 
claimer will  not  operate  in  favor  of  the 
assignee,  in  m^   i>uit,  tiither  at  luw  or 


%.-.^ 


Kx 


'«>»■»' a^' 


"•Elf 


9St 


IMCnoNAUIKii.  *tv— DIM  OVKilV 


or  fllfTtllilHT    IN, 


WNAt  Wi    WIUT   f«TRNT*III.R. 


f«|iiiljr,  iiiili'MM  Iii>  liiiM  JdiiMMl  hi  it.     Ify 
Hh  V.  »S/i»/«»,   I  ^^^»»ry,  *iU4.-H'ii»MV,  ,1.; 


MltHH.,    IHIO. 

'J.  A  «liMi'l:iiini>r  ol'  purl  ul'  mi  iiivcii- 
lion  t'litiMtti  iiUVi'l  II  |triiir  ^niiid'o  iimli'i- 
lli«>  piitt'til,  iiiilcMM  hi*  ti«vi'|ilii  oi°  il ;  h«< 
limy  r«'(\iH»'  ).»  Iii>  ttlVciloii  |»y  jr.     Smith 


lA 


irtyr, 


I 


t'liii. 


I 


aw 


.Iniir.,  ft;t|.— 


Ka!«k,  .1.  ;  Ph.,  \H\i\. 

9.  Ihiilir  {}  7  nl'  tlio  not  n(  |H.'I7.  tho 
i>«viu*r  i>t'u  N'l-tiotiiii  iiittTi'Mt  in  ii  ptif 
niiiv  niiiltc  II  iliMt'l;iini«<r  nl'  purl  ot' 
tiling  piitiMili'il,  \\lii«'h  will  Im>  cuiiHiil 
lul  itM  n  part  of  lh«<  ori^iirtl  piilt'iit, 
tlio  I'xlrnl  of  hiM  intt'ri'Nl  ;  Iml  lli«>  p 
fiitt'c  Ih  not   t'oiiiprlli'il  to  join  in  h 
(liNi'iaii  M>r,  nor  will  it  iilVtil  any  one 
I'i'pl  liiiii  niiikinj^  it,  iiihi  iIiohc  cltiiiii 
iiMiiiT  him.     I\>thr  v.  //ol/iind,  MS 
Nklmon,  iNUKitMoi.t,  .n.;  I't.,  IHftrt. 


ii)Mi>ii,or  i<rrorNr(irri'<i«<tl,  or  oinimiiuiM 
Niipplit'il.     /hilt.,  ri|:i, 

;i.  Whil«»  II  prior  I'oniplirr  ciinihii 
iiionopoli/.c  uhiil  Hill  not  o|-i^inlli  wiili 
liiniMi'lf,  mill  Hliiit  iniiMt  In*  nnirly  i<|ri|. 
lit'iil  in  nil  Mtii'h  workM,  iim  iliftiomirifg, 
^ii^'tlt'cni,  tltv,  on  II  likt*  hiiIiJ«<«>i,  t\  m\h 
Ni'i|U('iil  <'on)|iili>r t'liiiiioi  rinplo>  kutinirli 
of  ri  prior  iirraii^ri'iiirnl  ami  iiiali'iialit  im 
to  hIiow  n  HiilMtniiiiiil   inviiMion  of  tli,. 


DICTU)N  AUIKS,  UAZKITKK 


*vc. 


1.  Some  »imilariliof«,  am]  Homo  ust 
prior  woi  kf*,  I'Vi'ii  t»>  (li»'  fopyiii);  of  Niiiall 
partH,  arc  lol«>rali>(l  in  Hiirli  luiokM  an 
«lirlion!iri»'H,jra/,«'tto«'rH,  jjramniar^inapH, 
aril linuM it's,  almaiiafs,  coMcorilanccM,  ry- 
clopu'ilias.  iiiiiiMarii's,  jjiiitK'  hooks,  aii*l 
Hiinilar  publu'atioiiM,  if  tlu<  main  iloNipi 
nml  oxt'i'ution  iiro  in  rcalitv  tiovt'l  ami 


ll'lll 
tho 

lorii 
new 

l.r 

and 

,    to 

hill 

pat 

4. 

m-li 

to  a 

I'X 

ticlii 

111),' 

Into 

»._ 

Hior 

MCIIH 

proi 

root 

iU>ri 

s. 

of 

ii>r,  an<l  not  chat    *ti>ri/,t'i|  by 


'iii)ii}{|| 


or  iiiip"ovi<i|  to  imiicatt'  iii>w  |miI 

talriil,aml  iicu  property  ainl  ri^liiM 

lit*  litMi  fompilcr.     //>ii/.,  ftl4. 

TliiiH  a  material  aihlilioti  U  tnnili> 

fommon  iliolionary,  wliit-li  nIwiIIiiiIiI 

iiitioiiM  of  a  lai'fji*  iiiimlK'r  of  \\tn,\^ 

tn*  omitti'il  ;  or  quotations  Ituni  au- 

H,  who  hav«'  iMiiployi'il  woi-iIh  in  th,. 

(«  aiiopt«<<l  ;  or  rnh'H  for  tht>  pr<i|>('r 

innciation    of    cai'li    wor<l ;    or  tlii> 

N   from    whii-li  tho  wtint  has  hini 

VO.I.     If)iiLt>l4. 


imi>rov«'( 


an< 


1   not  il  iiHMo   oovcr    for 


important    piracu's. 

'.'  Woo.l.   A    Mill,,    .M;i. — Wooom  ky, 


M 


ISS. 


l.'^4  7. 


'2.  In  oompilinpf  Huoh  works,  tho  ma 
ti'vials  of  all,  to  a  considoralilo  «'xli>iit, 
must  ln'  the  samo,  ami  to  mu*Ii  i-xtcnt 
arc  allowable ;  ami  tho  novolty  or  im- 
provemonl  can  lio  substantial  in  scarcely 
any  case,  unless  tho  matter  is  abriilgod, 
or  a  material  chantjo  made  in  the  ar- 
raHjjcmont,  or  more  uiodcrn  infonuatii  u !  a  machine  embodied  and  reduced  to 


PTS(H)VKUY. 

I.  A  discovery  of  some  ih'w  princi|)l(', 
theory,  eh-iiii'iitary  truth,  or  an  iinpnivi'- 
meiit  upon  it,  abstracted  from  its  a|i|i|i. 
cat  inn,  is  not  a  new  invention.  M'/iitm;/ 
V.  J'tHmitf,  Uahl.,  all. — Baldwin,  J.; 
Ta.,  lH;tI. 


'J.  I>ut  when  such  dlscovorv 


IS  np- 


plied  to  any  practical  purpose,  in  the 
new  construction,  operation,  or  eH'ccIs 
of  m.ichinery  or  composition  of  niiittcr, 
producing  a  new  subst:mce;  or  an  oiil 


one  111  a  lU'w  way,  l»y  m-w  iiiacluiiiTy, 
or  by  a  new  coinbiiiation  of  the  parts 
of  an  old  ono  opcratim;  in  a  peculiar, 
bettor,  cheaper,  or  quicker  nu'thod;  a 
new  mechanical  employincnt  of  |irinci- 
pie  already  known  ;  tho  organi/ation  of 


DISCOVKUV. 

WIUT  IN.  AWIl  WHAT  fATHNf* 


2A3 


priD'li''*'  "II  ""iiK'ilili'K  vinili|l>,  IttMuilih*. 
Vi'lltlil'I'S  '»•"'  <iM'"l''''  *'•'  «'i»j">''"«'i'i  i 
piillio   lii'W   IIMmIi'    <(t'  |)l'l(i'lirllll)   ('lll|>lii) 

\f\y^  liiiiniiii  nrl  kimI  itkill -it  in  n  "  diN 
I'ovi'ry,"  "liivonlinti,"  or  "impmvi' 
iiM-nl,"    willilii    llu)    lU'ln  of   ruiij^n-NH. 

3.  ir  It  |tiitt'ht  In  ioi-  n  iIiH«'uv«'ry,  il 
niiiNl  l»'  ('•»'  ••otiM'tliiti^  nt'W,  not  fur  itii 
iiii|iio\i'iii('iit  only  ;  nirli  item  iihihI  Im> 
A  iii'W  iiivciiiion,  and  tlitt  iliNcoxriy 
iiiukI  iioI  iiiil  ill  u  iiiiitiM-ial  |»art.     Jftiil., 

31». 

1.  Tiitlrr  tin*  «'on«fitnfion  titnl  laws 
of  iIm'  I'nilftl  Shitt'M  ri'H|HTlinj;  patnilH, 
(linrDnri/  in  ?<\  nonynioMM  willi  hn'rnlinn. 
Kiiiii">\  AV  fxirti,  MS.  (App.  I'liM.) - 
CiiAN.ii,  til.  .1.;  I).  ('.,  »HM. 

f».  No  (liHfovcry  will  nilitlo  tim  iliw- 
rovt'rtT  to  a  pat«<iil  \\  liitli  «iocs  not  in 
tlli'il  amount  to  iho  «'oiitrivanc«M»r  pro- 
tlitotioii  of  Hoint'tliin^  which  diil  not 
vx\M  iM'I'ori' ;  or,  in  othor  wonU,  to  an 
invciiliiiii.     //>/(/. 

(J.  Thi'  tlist'ovory  of  u  ih'w  vffwi  <tf 
tliiit  whi«-h  oxiHtoil  before,  w  not  tho 
HuItjtM't  of  a  patent,     /fnif. 

7.  'I'lif  (liKcovi'ry  of  u  fai-t  \vlii«'h  «'x- 
iHtnl  lon^  hcforo  \h  a  mere  nakt'<l  diH- 
covi'iy,  without  any  invrntioii,  ft»r  wliicli 
n  )tat»'iit  catniot  ho  ^ranti'd.  Tln-rr  is 
110  invt'tilion — iiothin}{  contrived  or  pro- 
diiccd.     I/ii(f. 

8.  Ho  wlui  liaH  diHcovered  Honu)  new 
I'lt'iiuiit  or  property  of  nnitter  may  hc 
cure  to  hiniHcIf  tho  ownership  of  his 
dincovcry,  so  Hoon  as  ho  has  been  able 
to  illuHtrate  it  pra(!tica!ly  and  to  (h'nion- 
Rtrato  its  vabie.  His  patent  in  hiicIi 
caso  will  bo  commensurato  with  tho 
principle  which  it  minounces  to  tlu- 
World,  and  may  be  as  ))road  as  tho 
mental  conception  itself.  Dctm-Ad  v. 
Reeves,  4  Amer.  Law  Jour.,  N.  S.,  185. 
—Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1851. 


0.   Ibif    (lie   mental   eotieeplioii   iiiiml 
li!ive  been   embodied    in    nonie    meilnin 
ieal  devlei*  or  Monie  proeeMs  of  art.  'I'liti 
paleni  muMt  bo  for  ii  ihinKt  not  for  iin 
idea  merely.      //»/»/.,   |hh. 

10,  A  new  proeeMN  In  nnnally  the  re> 
Hnit  of  diHeo>ery;  a  machine  of  invi'n' 
lion.  Citrnlntf  v.  /litftlm,  ir»  How., 
'^(17.     (iitiKK,  .1.;  Sup.  Hi.,  IHA.'I. 

11.  One  may  dineover  an  lm|irove- 
ment  in  a  proeesN,  irrcMpeeiive  of  any 
parlienlar  form  of  nniehinery ;  and 
anotli«>r  may  invent  a  labor-Navin;^  mn- 
ehine  by  which  the  operation  or  pro- 
ceNN  may  be  performed,  and  each  may 
be  entitled  to  a  patent.      Ifiiil.,  'Jtl7. 

I'i.  Tho  dincovery  that  a  refune  or 
WoiiineMri  material  onn  bo  advanta){e< 
ously  applied  to  a  new  purpose,  if  that 
reHult  is  owini;  to  the  presence  in  such 
refuse  material  of  certain  in^redionts 
or  sidtslanci'S  which  had  belbro  Ix'en 
used,  but  in  a  dillereiit  way,  for  the 
name  purpose,  is  not  a  patentable  inven- 
tion. Afiiulr,  I'Jx  pnrtf,  iMS.  (App.  Cas.) 
—  MousKi.i,  .1.;   I).  (J.,  lHft3. 

|:».  The  mere  discovery  of  (>  fact,  nn, 
in  Sickles'  invention,  derivinjj  power 
for  thc^  tripping  of  thi!  valve  from  tho 
(•(•centric  Hlrap,  or  from  any  otlusr  niov- 
in;»  part  of  tho  ('iif^lne  not  controlled 
by  the  litVinj^  rod,  does  not  constitute 
tho  Hubjc(;t  of  a  patent,  thoui^h  the  idea 
may  be  xww.  The  new  set  of  ideas,  in 
order  to  becromo  patontabh-,  must  bo 
embodied  into  working  mat^hinery,  and 
adapt(!d  to  pra(^tical  use.  tSicAirs  v. 
linrden,  :\  lUatclif.,  b'AH. — Nelson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

14.  It  iH  this  einbodinu.-nt  and  opcr- 
ation  of  nmdiincry  for  practical  pur- 
poses whi(d>  furnish  beneficial  vosults 
to  tho  public,  and  render  tho  discovery 
patcntablo.    Ibid.  538 


-•^■JjjjlUM*, 


^1 


r:>;r^*^ 


^S?fe=: 


254 


DOUHLK  I'SK. 


WHAT   IH;    WIIEV    I'ATi:M'AI1I,K. 


H-     rf' 


"tSJi 


!Wj! 


7 


DOUHLK  USE 
Sco  also  New  Aiti.ication. 

1.  The  mofttiiiipf  of  the  rulo  1  ii<l  down 
in  JIowc  V.  Abbott,  '1  Story,  '  i)4,  and  in 

M'lnans  v.  Jios.  cO  Pro>\  Ji.  Ji.,  2  Sto- 
ry, 410,  that  anew  application  is  not 
entitled  to  protection,  is,  that  the  appli- 
cation of  an  old  machine  or  oM  compo- 
sition of  matter,  before  patented,  to  a 
ne^v  ohjeot,  or  what  i;  termed  a  double 
use,  does  net  entitle  one  to  a  patent 
connected  with  the  new  object,  because 
there  is  no  new  n:achuiery,  or  new 
cond)ination  of  old  j>arts.  Jlotc/i- 
kiss  V.  Oreefiwood,  11  How.,  270. — 
Woonni'UY,  J.;  (Dis.  Opin.),  Sup.  Ct., 
1850. 

2.  J>ut  it  is  entirely  dilK'rcnt  if  one 
apply  nn  old  eartli,  or  old  meclianieal 
pow  e"  .)r  old  principle  in  physics,  to  a 
new  object.  There  is  then  a  now  form 
adopted,  or  a  new  condonation  lor  the 
j)urpose — a  new  shape,  consistencj',  ;ind 
U80  given,  or  a  Jiew  modus  opcram/i, 
which,  if  cheaper  and  better,  berieiits 
the  world  and  deserves  protection. 
Ibid.,  '270. 

3.  If  thes0  arc  the  eftects,  however 
small  the  skill  or  ingenuity  to  imitate 
them,  tliey  are  not  excluded  from  the 
aid  of  the  laws.  They  are  not  mere 
double  uses  of  a  previous  composition 
or  machine,  but  a  double  or  additii»nal 
form  or  composition  of  an  article  for  a 
now  purj)ose.    Ibid.,  270. 

4.  A  mere  analogous  use  is  not  pat- 
entable ;  but  where  a  new  or  improved 
manufacture  is  produced,  by  new  con- 
trivances, combinations,  or  arrange- 
ments, a  new  'principle  may  be  consti- 
tuted, and  the  api)lication  or  practice  of 
old  things  will  be  new  also,    /Smit/i,  II. 


Z.,  7'Jx  jxirfc,  MS.  (App.  ('as )— Mou- 
tsKi.i,  J.;  I).  ('.,  lH.>;t. 

5.  Where  the  change  in  a  nmcliino 
consists  in  the  einpl«)yment  of  an  ohvi. 
ous  substitute,  the  (liscovery  and  aiull. 
cation  of  which  could  not  have  involvnl 
the  exercise  of  the  inventive  faculty  in 
any  considerable  degree,  thc^  clianjri, 
will  be  treated  mert'ly  as  an  unsul»Htaii- 
tial,  colorable  variation,  or  doiibjo  use 
and  not  patentable.  I'Jocrxon  <(';  liintnl 
Ex  pttrtc,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — .Mousiiij,, 
J.;  1).  C,  1855. 

(I.  Though  then'  may  be  in  a  new  aii- 
plication  some  degree  of  novelty,  soino- 
ihing  may  have  been  discovered  or 
found  out  that  was  not  known  before, 
yet  unless  the  new  occasion  on  which 
the  principle  is  a])plied  leads  to  somo 
kind  of  new  manufacture,  or  some  new- 
result,  it  will  be  but  a  double  use. 
lilt t lid y.  Ex  parte,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
MousKM.,  J. ;  D.  C,  185H.  ^ 

7.  Where  the  principle  t)f  the  a'loged 
invention  has  been  disciovered  and  ap- 
plied before,  the  application  will  be  what 
is  callcil  !i  double  use.     Ibid. 

8.  Where  there  is  nothing  new  in  tho 
principles  involved  in  an  invention,  and 
nothing  new  in  the  form  or  character 
of  the  instrumentalitios  by  whidi  it  is  ^ 
applied,  the  new  ajiplication  is  but  an 
analogous  use,  and  is  not  the  subject  of 

a  patent.     Alien,  Ex  parte,  !MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— ^Ikhuick,  J.;  D.  C,  isc.o. 

9.  The  application  of  substantially  the 
same  uieans  to  produce  the  same  result, 
in  a  dilferi-nt  form,  as  tid)es  and  double 
walls  hi  a  grain  bin,  the  same  having 
i)een  before  used  in  cribs  and  kilns,  is 
t)nly  a  double  use,  and  not  patentable. 
Marsh,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.1— 
MousKM.,  J.;  D.  C,  18G0. 

10.  The  substitution  of  a  jewel  iu 
place  of  glass  in  a  sewing  machino,  to 


wt) 


!l5| 


m 


DIJAMAI'IC  COMI'OSITIOX. 


256 


iiidirT  or  AUTHOR  ou  i'Koi'Uiktoh  in. 


i)ri'V('iit  iViction  in  tho  j»iissu<;o  (»f  the 
tliiTiul,  ift  not  patt'iitahU' ;  it  is  but  tlic 
(loul)lo  uso  of  an  old  contrivance,  willi 
no  now  cllcct  or  rewult.  /i>rri/,  Ejt, 
jxirti',  .MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mousiiu.,  J.; 
D.C  IHOO. 

11.  The  niakiniif  of  an  instrnmcnt  of 
two  clilVcrcnt  Hubstanoes,  a«  an  liydro- 
iiu'tcr  of  iinlia-rnbbcr  ami  silver — the 
bulb  bein}j;t)f  bard  rubb((r  and  the<;rad 
uated  scale  of  silvor  or  metal — if  a  use- 
ful result  or  eflect  is  sccure<l  thereby, 
may  bu  tho  subject  of  a  patent,  though 
such  article  may  have  before  been  made 
ciitiiely  of  metal,  and  also  of  entirely 
hard  ruldter.  Such  an  Invention  is  not  a 
double  use.  Adams,  Kx  parte,  JMS. 
(Apl>.  Cas.)— MoKSKM.,  J.;  I).  C,  IHOO. 

12.  The  double  use  to  whii-b  .an  arti- 
\  clo  of  manufacture  is  applied  or  applic- 

al'le  is  not  agroun<l  for  a  patent.  J'cnd- 
ers,  Jvx  parte,  MS.  (Apj).  Can.) — Din 
LOP,  J.;  D.C,  1801. 


DRAMATIC  COMPOSITIOX. 

1.  There  remainn  in  ati  author,  not- 
witlistaniliug  the  coi)yriifht  by  statute, 
a  common  law  title  to  his  works,  be- 
fore publication.  Jones  v.  IViorne,  1 
X.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  409.— McCoux,  V. 
Chan.;  N.  Y.,  1843. 

2.  To  carry  oft*  a  manuscript,  as  a 
(Inuna,  with  intent  to  perform  the  piece 
on  the  stage  against  the  author's  will, 
is  an  infringement  of  liis  common  law 
rights.     Ifml,  409. 

3.  Acting  Of  represcntin;,  a  play  is 
not  publication  within  the  meaning  of 
the  copyright  laws,  lioherts  v.  Jfi/crs, 
13  Mo.  Law  Rep.,  397 — Si'uaguk,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1800. 

4.  The  act  of  1850  was  passed  to 


give  to  the  authors  of  dramatic  eompo- 
sitioiiH  the  exclusive  right  of  acting  and 
representing,  which  they  did  not  enjoy 
under  the  pn'vit)us  statutes.    I  hid.,  ;i!)7. 

5,  The  previous  acting  or  represent- 
ing a  play  will  not  deprive  the  author 
of  the  right  to  afterward  take  out  a 
copyright.      Ihid.,  .'1!)7. 

0.  Where  u  person  employed  by  an- 
other as  a  performer  and  stage  manager, 
agreed  to  writi"  a  play,  which  was  to  bo 
performed  in  his,  the  em|iloyer's,  thea- 
tre .\s  long  as  it  should  eontiinie  to  draw 
good  au<liences.  Held,  that  the  j>erson  * 
writing  the  drama  was  the  proper  per- 
son to  take  out  the  copyright,  and  that 
the  employer  had  no  right  or  intA'rest 
in  it  except  the  privilege  of  having  it 
performed  at  his  theatre.     Ihld.,  400. 

7.  An  assigiu;o  of  the  exclusive  right 
of  acting  and  representing  ji  drama  in 
certain  plui :es,  may  maintain  an  action 
in  his  own  name,  even  aller  a  represen- 
tation by  him,  for  an  injunction  to  j)rc- 
vent  its  being  represented  by  another 
within  such  places.     Ibid.,  400,  401. 

8.  And  such  action  may  be  maintain- 
ed, although  tho  author  or  assignee  lias 
only  tiled  bis  title-page,  and  has  not  pub- 
lished the  work  or  play.  Ibid.,  401. 
[Contra,  ^KW<  14.] 

9.  A  legislative  enactment  securing 
generally  to  l^^srary  proprietors  a  copy- 
right for  a  lii:..te<l  perioil,  but  contain- 
ing no  special  jn-ovision  as  to  theatrical 
representation,  does  not,  in  the  case  of 
a  dramatic  literary  composition,  include 
the  sole  right  of  representing  it.  Keene 
v.  Wheathy,  OAmer.  Law  Keg.,  44. — 
Cauwai.ladku,  J. ;  I'a.,  1800. 

10.  \i\  the  absence  of  any  legislation 
for  the  special  protection  of  dramatic 
liter.'iry  property,  an  authorized  public 
circulation  of  a  printed  copy  of  a  dra- 
ma, for  wbich  there  is  4io   legislative 


« •» 


''^■'C 


y-^s 


[■**v; 


^mI 


w^^ny/^ 


..5"*"'*' 


^^-^iCf--'.^' 


^^Q 


'W, 


•/V-i* 


Pf^r 


^ 


viiVi 


■■.::^: 


'— VfWv 


'^'lil^L 


-;.-/,'-J*jfb 


1  i  iT 


Hn 


250 


DRAWINGS. 


r^'^' 


f  m 


;vi■-■^>^^^ 


^%i 


*«»(•<}' 


W 


'««>.,  ii 


!l!*il 


liif^ 


*<*! 

?!l!l^ 


;«ii( 


:%;; 

'^:, 


UKgi'iHiTKH  of;  how  c()N8II>khki>;  ok  what  kvidknck. 


copyri<;ht,  1h  a  imblication  whicli  legal- 
izes a  Nubsi'ciiient  tlieatrical  rcprcHciita- 
tion  l)y  any  body  i'roin  sucli  copy.  Kcene 
V.  W/iectlcy,  0  Amor.  Law  Keg.,  44. 
— Cai)WAU,ai)EK,  J.  ;  Pa.,  18G0. 

11.  go  of  the  act  of  1831,  giving  re- 
drcHS  for  the  unauthorized  printing  or 
publishing  of  manuscripts^  operates  in 
favor  of  a  resident  of  the  United  States, 
who  has  acqtiired  the  proprietorship  of 
an  nii2^rinted  literary  composition  from 
a  non-resident  alien  author.  Ibid.^ 
45. 

12.  Hut  this  section — and  which  is 
the  only  one  enabling  a  proprietor  who 
derives  his  title  from  sucli  an  author  to 
assert  any  right  imder  the  act — gives 
no  redress  for  an  unauthorized  theatri- 
cal representation.     Ibid.,  45. 

13.  The  only  act  which  affords  re- 
dress for  unauthorized  theatrical  repre- 
sentations is  the  act  of  August  18,  1856  ; 
but  this  only  applies  to  cases  in  which 
copyright  is  effectually  secured  under 
the  act  of  1831.     Ibid.,  45. 

14.  The  assignee  of  a  dramatic  com- 
position cannot  maintain  an  action  for  its 
unauthorized  representation  by  others, 
unless  he  has  performed  all  the  acts  re- 
quired by  law  to  secure  a  copyright,  in- 
cluding the  deposit  of  a  printed  copy. 
The  observance  and  performance  of  all 
the  statutory  requirements  except  the 
deposit  of  a  printed  copy,  will  give  no 
right  of  action  under  the  statute.  Ibid., 
45,  46. 


DRAWINGS. 

1.  Drawings  annexed  and  referred  to 
in  the  specihcation,  constitute  a  part 
thereof;  and  they  may  be  resorted  to 
to  aid  the  description,  and  to  distinguish 
the  thing  patented  from  other  things 


known  before.   Eitrle  v.  Saicger,  4  Mas. 
I). — Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1825, 

2.  If  the  exjilanations  of  the  Hpocill- 
cation  call  for  the  drawings,  and  refei 
to  them  as  a  component  part  in  the  de- 
scription, they  are  just  as  nnich  a  purt 
of  the  specification  as  if  they  wore 
placed  in  the  body  of  the  specification 
Ibid.,  10. 

3.  Under  the  patent  law  of  IVn.l,  §  3 
requiring  drawings  with  written  refer- 
ences, drawings  when  so  annexed  to 
the  specification  become  part  of  the 
toritten  description  of  the  invention. 
Ibid.,  11. 

4.  The  drawings  may  bo  referred  to 
and  used  with  the  specification  to  niaku 
a  machine,  but  the  model  cannot  he  re- 
ferred to  for  such  purpose.  Grant  v. 
Mason,  1  Law  Int.  &  Rev.,  23. — Thom- 
son, J. ;  N.  Y.,  1828. 

5.  The  drawings  of  a  patent  may  not 
only  be  referred  to  for  the  purpose  of 
aiding  a  specification  which  would  other- 
wise be  imperfect,  to  support  the  pat- 
ent, but  may  .also  be  resorted  to  by  the 
opposite  party  to  explain  any  thing 
doubtful  or  ambiguous  in  the  written 
description,  or  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing that  the  machine  in  question  is  not 
the  same  as  that  for  which  the  patent 
was  granted.  Burrall  v.  Jewett,  2 
Paige,  143. — Walworth,  Chan.;  N. 
Y.,  1830. 

6.  References  to  the  drawings,  men- 
tioned in  §  6  of  the  .act  of  1836,  are  not 
requisite  to  the  validity  of  a  patent,  un- 
less they  are  necessary  to  an  under- 
standing of  the  invention.  Brools  v. 
Bicknell,  3  McLean,  261.— McLeax, 
J.;  Ohio,  1843. 

7.  The  description  of  a  machine  or 
improvement  accompanied  by  a  draw- 
ing, may  in  many  cases  be  understood 
without  references.     Ibid.,  262. 


""?tr 


'^•ftr. 


DRAWINGS. 


257 


RKQUI8ITES  Of;    HOW   0ON8IDKKED;    OP  WHAT   KVn)KN('E. 


8.  It  18  not  noccHsary  tliat  drawings 
ehouUI  1)0  referred  to  in  tlie  spcfillfii- 
tion,  and  without  such  references  tliey 
will  1)0  treated  as  a  part  of  it,  and  may 
be  referred  to  to  show  the  nature,  char- 
acter, and  extent  of  the  elaini,  as  well 
aa  to  make  a  part  of  the  description. 
Wttshlmrn  v.  Gould,  3  Story,  13;},  138. 
— SroRV,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

0.  Drawings  may  also  be  referred  to 
for  the  purpose  of  adding  something  to 
the  fipecification  or  claim  not  spocitically 
contained  or  mentioned  therein — as  to 
describe  or  show  the  existence  of  rol- 
lers in  a  machine,  when  they  are  not 
described  in  the  specification.  Ibid, 
139. 

10.  The  drawing  is  a  part  of  the  pat- 
ent, and  may  be  referred  to  in  order  to 
help  out  the  description.  ]}ut  it  need 
not  delineate  old  m.ichinery  connected 
with  the  new  invention,  when  no  change 
in  such  old  machinery  enters  into  the 
new  invention.  Emerson  v.  Hogg,  2 
Blatchf.,  9.— Betts,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

11.  It  is  questionable  whether  under 
§  3  of  the  act  of  1Y93,  the  specification 
must  contain  written  references  to  the 
drawings.  It  is  sufficient  if  the  paten- 
tee puts  on  file  with  his  specitit  fion 
drawings  and  wriiten  references,  with- 
out their  being  menrnied  in  the  speci- 
fication, and  if  the  ri  -rences  required 
are  written  on  the  dr.  vings,  the  stat- 
ute is  satisfied.     Ibid.,    ,  10. 

12.  Whera  a  patent  was  obtained  in 
1834,  the  original  of  which  and  the 
drawings  were  destroyed  by  fire  in 
1836,  and  the  patentee,  under  the  act 
of  1837,  in  1841  filed  a  copy  of  his  pat- 
ent and  deposited  a  drawing,  which, 
however,  was  not  verified,  but  which 
he  verified  in  February,  1844,  and  sub- 
sequently in  March,  1844,  considering 
Buch  copy  imperfect,  filed  another  and 

17 


a  fulK'r  drawing,  and  commenced  suit 
in  May,  1844,  Jlehf,  that  a  certififd 
copy  of  such  second  copy  was  properly 
received  in  evidence  in  such  'iction. 
Ibid.,  11. 

1 3.  The  drawing  performs  in  part  tho 
office  of  a  model,  tliat  may  at  any  time 
be  constructed  for  tlie  purpose  of  illus- 
trating and  giving  application  to  con- 
trivances which  may  be  obscure  or  <lif- 
fi(uilt  to  understand,  as  described  in  tho 
specification.     Ibid.y  12. 

14.  When  such  drawings  are  put  on 
file  they  become  pid)lic  records,  and 
copies  of  them  must  be  received  in 
evidence.  If  they  are  discordant,  one 
may  destroy  the  effect  of  the  other. 
But  if  they  concur  in  essential  partic- 
idars,  they  will  conduce  to  prove  tho 
origin.al  one.     Ibid.,  12. 

15.  The  drawing  forms  a  part  of  tho 
specification  of  a  patent,  and  in  to  be 
taken  with  it,  in  interpreting  the  pat 
ent.     Ivnight  v.  Gavit,  Mir.  Pat.  Off., 
183.— Kaxe,  J.;  Pa.,  1840. 

10.  Models  and  drawings  aro  a  part 
of  the  letters  patent,  and  may  be  re- 
sorted to  for  clearer  information  respect- 
ing the  invention  described  in  the  speci- 
fication. Hogg  v.  Emerson,  0  How., 
485. — WooDHUKY,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1847. 

17.  Drawings  annexed  to  a  patent 
issued  under  the  act  of  1837  form  no 
part  of  the  patent,  where  no  drawing 
was    annexed  to  tho   original  patent. 

Wilton  V.  B.  Roads,  2  Whart.  Dig. 
410.— Kane,  J. ;  Pa.,  1848. 

18.  The  drawings,  as  well  as  the  whole 
specifications,  may  be  looked  to  for  ex- 
planation of  any  thing  obscure  in  the 
patent.  And  the  drawings  may  be  re- 
stored when  burnt,  and  if  appearing  in 
some  respects  erroneous,  may  be  cor- 
rected. Hogg  V.  Emerson,  11  How., 
606. — Woodbury,  J.;    Sup.  Ct.,  1«60. 


^-t&i 


i 


^Wm 


■wu 


mfkA 


.!vT^ 


^wwq^ 


2r»8 


DRAWINGS. 


ItEQClSlTEi)  or;    UUW  CONSIUKRKO;    OF  WHAT  EVIOKNCG. 


s 


19.  Where  a  patent  was  prantod  in 
18.14,  to  which  no  drawini;  was  attach- 
ed, nor  any  reference  niacK'  to  any  draw- 
ings, and  afterwartl,  on  the  7th  of  Jnne, 
18.37,  Huch  i)atent  was  recorded  anew, 
under  the  jtrovisionH  of  g  1  of  the  act 
of  1837, which  patent  w.'iH  also  extended 
for  seven  years  on  tlie '2.5th  of  Septem- 
ber, 184H,  and  on  the  19th  day  of  Novem 
ber,  18!)8,  a  drawing  of  the  ])atenteo's 
invention,  accompanied  by  Avritten  ref- 
erences, was  filed,  witli  an  affidavit  of 
the  patentee  that  Buch  drawing  was  a 
true  delineation  of  his  invention.  Held, 
in  an  action  of  infringement,  that  un- 
der i^  3  of  the  act  of  1837,  a  certified 
copy  of  such  drawing  was  admissible 
in  evidence  in  connection  with  the  pat- 
ent and  specification,  and  thsit  the  whole 
together  made  jjrinta  facie  evidence 
of  the   particulars   of   .such   invention. 

Wlncnis  V.  Schen.  cO  7Voy  It.  It.,  2 
Blatcht".,  284,  298,  299.— Xklsox,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1851. 

20.  But  such  a  drawing,  as  a  general 
rule,  will  not  be  efiectual  to  correct 
any  material  defect  in  the  specification, 
unless  it  should  appear  that  it  corre- 
sponded with  drawings  which  accom- 
panied the  original  application  for  a 
patent ;  if  none  was  so  filed,  in  case  oi" 
discrepancy  between  the  drawings  and 
specifications,  the  latter  must  prevail. 
Ibid,  299. 

21.  Nor  Avill  such  a  drawing  have  the 
same  force  or  ctFect  as  if  it  had  been  re- 
ferred to  in  the  specification,  or  be 
deemed  ajad  taken  as  a  part  of  it.  Ibid., 
299. 

22.  Drawings,  Ijowcver,  accompany- 
ing an  original  application  for  a  patent, 
have  the  same  force  and  effect  as  if  they 
are  referred  to  in  the  specification,  and 
are  to  be  deemed  and  taken  as  a  part 
of  it.    Ibid.,  299.  I 


23.  The  provision  of  §  0  of  the  act 
of  1837,  riMpiiring  duplic;it(!  drjiwiiurs 
has  reference,  in  point  of  time,  to  tlio 
issuing  of  the  patent,  and  not  to  the 
filing  of  the  j)etition  for  it.  DiipIicHto 
ilrawings,  need  not,  thereibre,  be  filed 
!it  the  time  of  the  application  ;  and  such 
is  the  interpretation  of  the  Patent  Of. 
fiee.  French  v.  Rogers,  SIS. — Gkikk, 
Kane,  J  J. ;  V\\.,  1851. 

24.  The  siiund  set  of  drawings  re- 
quired by  §  U  of  the  act  of  18.)  7,  are 
unnecessary  until  the  patent  issues,  ami 
are  not  required  by  law  to  accompaiiy 
the  apj)lication  wlien  first  made.  O  Ji,il- 
ly  V.  3Iorae,  15  IIow.,  126. — Gkiku,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

25.  Models  and  dri  ngs  are  to  he 
considered  and  taken  together,  in  ex- 
planation of  the  8j)ecification  of  a  pat- 
ent. Stephens  v.  Salisbury,  SIS.  (App. 
Cas.)— MoiisEu,,  J. ;  D.  C,  1855. 

2G.  The  drawings  are  a  jiart  of  the 
s))ecific!ition.  Where,  therefore,  the 
specification  did  not  set  out  that  the 
thing  invented,  as  a  part  of  a  ])air  of 
shears,  was  cast  with  the  handle  of  the 
shears,  but  there  was  a  reference  to  the 
drawing  which  showed  how  such  pnrt 
was  made,  and  that  it  was  in  fact  east 
with  the  handle.  Held,  that  the  draw- 
ings could  be  referred  to  to  deterniiiie 
such  fact.  Ilienrich  v.  Luther,  0  Mc- 
Lean, 348.-— McLkaXj  J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

27.  Experts  may  be  examined  to  ex- 
plain, if  necessary,  models  and  draw- 
ings. Winans  v.  N.  Y.  d  E.  R.  11., 
21  How.,  101. — Grieu,  J.;  Sup.  Gt., 
1858. 

28.  In  giving  a  construction  to  a  pat- 
ent, the  drawings  are  to  be  regarded  as 
part  and  parcel  of  it.  Judson  v.  Moore, 
MS. — LEAvrrr,  J. ;  Ohio,  1800. 

29.  The  drawings  accompanying  an 
application  for  a  patent,  may  bo  signed 


"ll-l-  ,•: 


T-!^» 


EFFECT. 


259 


WirKTIIKH  I'ATKNTAIILE;    HOW   FAK  KVIDRXOE  OT  ISTENTIOX. 


cither  by  the  inventor,  or  by  nny  pers^iii 
Ih'  may  authorize  to  nigti  thiun.  Anoti., 
MS.,  Opin.— Black,  Atty.  Gen.,  1859. 


EFFECT. 

See  also  PnixcirLE ;  Process. 

1.  A  patent  can  in  no  case  be  for  an 
effect  only,  but  for  an  effect  produced 
in  a  f^iven  manner,  or  by  a  peculiar  op- 
eration. No  patent  can  be  obtained 
for  the  admeasurement  of  time,  or  the 
expansive  operations  of  steam  ;  but  only 
for  a  new  mode  or  new  application  of 
machinery  to  produce  these  effects ;  and 
tliereforc  if  new  effects  are  produced  by 
an  old  machine  in  its  unaltered  state, 
no  patent  can  bo  legally  supported,  for 
it  is  a  patent  for  an  effect  only.  Whit- 
temorc  V.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  480. — Stoky, 
J,;  Mass.,  1813. 

2.  A  patent  for  copper-plate  printing 
on  the  back  of  bank-notes  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  a  particular  end,  viz. : 
security  against  counterfeiting,  is  not 
a  patent  for  an  effect,  but  for  the  kind 
of  printing  by  which  that  effect  is  pro- 
duced. Kneass  v,  Sehnytkill  J3mik,  4 
Wash.,  12. — Washington,  J.;  Pa., 
1820. 

3.  A  discovery  of  a  new  effect  of  that 
which  existed  before  is  not  the  subject 
of  a  patent.  Jvemjycr,  Ex,  parte,  jNIS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Crancii,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C, 
1841. 

4.  A  mere  effect  from  old  means  will 
not  justify  a  patent.     Ibid. 

5.  An  end  to  be  accomplished  is  not 
the  subject  of  a  patent ;  only  the  new 
and  useful  means  to  accomplish  it.  Car- 
ver V.  Ilyde,  IG  Pet.,  519.— Taney,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1842. 


fl.  There  cannrit  be  a  patent  for  .i 
principle,  nor  for  the  application  of  a 
principle,  nor  for  an  effect.  Jiain  \. 
Morse,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Chancm,  Ch. 
J.;  I).  C,  1849. 

7.  Two  jtorsons  may  use  the  same 
principle,  and  produce  the  same  effect, 
by  diffirent  means,  without  interference 
or  infringement,  and  each  would  bo  en- 
titled to  a  patent  for  his  own  invention. 
Ibid. 

8.  In  determining  whether  an  im- 
provement is  the  subject  of  a  i)!iti'nt, 
the  jury  have  a  right  to  take  into  con- 
sideration in  connection  with  thediungo 
the  result  which  h.as  been  produced; 
because  the  result,  if  greatly  more  ben- 
eficial, reflects  back  and  tends  to  char- 
acterize in  some  degree  the  imjioituneo 
of  the  change.  Hall  v.  Wiles,  2  Blatchf., 
200.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

9.  Where  a  party  has  discovered  a 
new  application  of  some  property  in 
nature  never  before  known  or  in  usu,  bv 
which  he  has  produced  a  new  and  use- 
ftd  result,  the  discovery  is  the  subject 
of  a  patent,  independently  of  any  pecu-' 
liar  or  new  arrangement  of  machinery 
for  the  purpose  of  applying  such  new 
property.  loote  v.  Silsby,  2  Blatchf., 
264.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

10.  Hence,  the  inventor  has  a  right 
to  use  any  means,  old  or  new,  in  the 
application  of  the  new  property  to  pro- 
duce the  new  and  useful  result  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  means.    Ibid.,  2G4. 

11.  Where  a  change  from  a  patented 
machine  produces  an  effect,  different  in 
kind  and  highly  beneficial,  such  efi'cct 
reflects  back  upon  the  mechanical  ar- 
rangement and  construction,  and  may 
authorize  an  inference  of  a  substantial 
ch.ange,  which  the  arrangement,  dis- 
connected from  the  new  and  different 
effect,  would  not;  and  when,  without 


4J^ 


i^^Ww^-r 


2flO 


KFFKCr. 


coniii'ciiiij^   the    iii-w 


•*"»«»j? 


j^'^^^'kM 


I'fli'ct  with  thr 
cJiiiiiijc,  tlic  chaiigo  iiiijjfht  h«>  only  ii)riii!il 
uinl  uiisulistjiutial.  2\ith(nn  v.  Lt:  A'c//, 
2  IJhiti'hl'.,  492.— NkiSon,  J.;  N.  V., 
1852. 

12.  Such  now  ofTi'ct,  however,  to  fjflvt' 
materiality  and  importance  t«)  the  aji- 
parently  formal  ehan^jje,  must  not  (^mi- 
flist  in  doin^  inoru  work  in  a  given 
time,  or  with  a  roiluced  amount  of 
power,  but  tho  new  effect  must  l)e  dif- 
ferent in  kind.     Hiid.y  41)2. 

13.  The  mere  fact  that  a  ma(^hiiie 
constructed  and  arran<?e<l  apparently  or 
externally  like  a  previous  one,  produces 
a  result  more  beneficial,  does  not  deter- 
niine  that  tho  two  are  substantially  dif- 
ferent. The  new  result  must  be  one 
derived  from  a  different  medianical 
operation  and  effect.     Ibid.,  49:}. 

14.  A  patent  is  not  good  for  an  effect, 
or  the  result  of  a  certain  process,  as 
that  would  prohibit  all  other  persons 
from  making  tho  same  thing  by  any 
means  whatsoever,  and  would  discour- 
age arts  and  maimfactures,  and  is  against 
the  policy  of  the  patent  laws.  Le  Hoy, 
\.  Tatham,  14  IIow.,  175. — McLean, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

16,  Whoever  discovers  that  a  certain 
useful  result  will  be  produced  in  any 
art,  machine,  manufacture,  or  composi- 
tion of  matter,  by  the  use  of  certain 
means,  is  entitled  to  a  patent  for  it, 
provided  he  specifies  the  means  used  so 
fully  and  exactly  that  a  skilful  person 
can,  by  using  the  means  specified,  with- 
out addition  or  subtr.iction,  produce 
the  result  described.  O'lteiUy  v.  Morse, 
15  How.,  119.— Taney,  Ch.  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1853. 

16.  But  a  patent  cannot  be  for  an 
effect  produced  distinct  from  the  process 
or  machinery  necessary  to  produce  it. 
Jbid.,  120. 


17.  It  is  for  tho  <liHC<»very  of  wuiid 
practical  method  or  means  of  pro(|iiriri<>' 
a  beneficial  n-sultor  effect  that  a  palcni 
is  granted,  and  not  for  the  result  or 
effi'ct  itself.  Corning  v.  Jiurdm,  IT)  H., 
2(1H.— CiiiKK,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  ls.'.;i. 

IH.  A  patent  mjiy  be  granted  for  tin- 
use  of  a  known  thing,  in  a  known 
mamu>r,  t(»  produce  effects  alre.-idy 
known,  but  producing  those  eficcls  so 
as  to  be  more  economically  or  hi  im 
Jicitdly  enjoyed  by  the  ])id)lic.  Sidi y, 
E.r parte,  3IS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mokski.i., 
J.;  I).  C,  185.). 

It).  He  M'ho  discovers  tliat  a  certain 
useful  H'sult  will  be  produced  in  .'iiiy 
art,  machine,  manufiicture,  or  coniposi 
tion  of  matter,  by  tho  use  of  certain 
means  is  entitled  to  a  patent  for  sucli 
discovery,  provided  he  sets  forth  in  his 
si)ecifieation  tho  moans  he  uses  to  j)ro- 
duce  sui'h  useful  result,  so  that  any  one 
skilled  in  tho  art,  <&c.,  can,  by  usiiiir 
tho  means  specified,  Avithout  any  ad- 
dition or  subtraction  from  them,  j)ro- 
duce  precisely  the  result  he  describes. 
If  this  cannot  be  done  by  the  means  he 
describes,  the  patent  is  void.  Amer. 
Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Pin  Co.,  3  A.  L.  K., 
137;  3  Blatchf.,  192.— Inokusoll,  J.; 
Ct.,  1854. 

20.  And  it  makes  no  difl'erence 
whether  the  effect  is  produced  by  clieni- 
icid  agency  or  combination,  or  by  the 
application  of  discoveries  or  principles 
in  natural  philosophy,  known  or  un- 
known, before  his  invention ;  or  by 
machinery  acting  together  upon  me- 
chanical principles.     Ibid.,  137,  192. 

21.  But  every  one  may  lawfully  ac- 
complish the  8.ime  end,  and  Avithout  in- 
fringing the  patent,  if  he  uses  means 
substantially  different  from  those  de- 
cribed.     Ibid.,  137,  192. 

22.  The  patent  does  not  secure  to  the 


'M: 


^ 


M^t^^ 


KQurrY,  A. 


201 


JUHIHDICTION   AH  TO  OOPYRiOIITI  ANn  MANUHOniiTS. 


pali'iili'i'  tlio  roHiilt  or  I'flect  prodiiccil, 
only  tlic)  iiu'aiiH  dt'scribcd,  l»y  whi«'li 
piicli  risHiilt  or  iflU'ct  is  pnKliicetl.  All 
otlior  iiH'iHis  to  i»r<)iluc«f  the'  Kiiiiu-  cUc'cl, 
and  not  pati'iiti'd  to  any  om>,  arc  opi-ii 
to  tlu!  puhUc.     //>/(A,  13a,  102. 

23.  If  a  patentee  in  the  original  in- 
ventor of  a  dovic'o  to  aerotnpli.sh  a  par- 
ticular result,  he  may  claim  an  exclusive 
ri;;ht  to  the  use  of  it;  but  otherwise,  if 
ho  is  not  such  t)riginal  inventor,  hut 
only  of  a  cond)ination  of  such  device 
wilii  others.  Cdrr  v.  liice^  4  IMutchf. — 
Nklbon,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1858. 

24.  If  a  new  and  nseful  resnlt  is 
produced,  neither  the  simplicity  of  the 
structure  nor  the  greater  or  less  .amount 
of  invention  or  intellect  employed  as  an 
clement,  are  of  itnportancein  determin- 
ing the  validity  of  the  ])atent.  Teeae  v. 
P/ii'fpK,  1  McAllis.,  40. — McAu,isTKii, 
J.;CaI.,  1855. 

25.  An  end  or  result  produced  is  not 
secured  by  the  patent,  but  only  the  sub- 
stantial means  used  au<l  specified  to 
produce  the  end  or  result ;  these,  and 
nothing  m«)rc.  The  same  end  or  result 
may  be  produced  l)y  means  other  than 
those  substantially  described  in  the 
specification,  without  infringing  the 
patent.  Burr  v.  CoirpcrthuHiitc,  4  lilatcbf. 
— Inokusoll,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

20.  If  the  result  of  two  machines  is 
the  same,  and  if  the  essential  means  to 
produce  a  like  result  are  the  same,  or 
substantially  the  same,  then  the  one  is 
a  violation  of  the  other.  If  they  are 
not  the  s.'vme  there  is  no  violation,  for 
a  defendant  may  lawfully  produce  the 
like  result,  if  he  uses  means  substan- 
tially difierent :  residts  are  not  patented, 
but  only  means  used  to  produce  results. 
Ibid. 

27.  Where  a  result  is  a  new  and  val- 
uable article  of  manufacture,  this  will 


aiT:ril  groimd  to  presume  invention. 
Wixxlrnf,  Ef  parte,  iMS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— MoiisKt.i,,  J.;  I).  C,  1H50. 

2H.  A  residt  or  efl\'<rt  is  not  patent.'i- 
l»le,  but  whert!  a  result  is  in  a  greatly 
improved  manufacture,  or  development 
of  some  new  and  nseful  principle,  it 
may  become  the  test  of  invention,  and 
from  which  inveution  may  be  inferred, 
or  where  the  result  is  substantially  dif- 
ferent from  what  has  been  efi'ectecl  be- 
fore. Treadwell  v.  Pvx,  IMS.  (App. 
Cas.)— MouHKi.t,,  J.;  1).  C,  1850. 

20.  A  purpose  is  not  i)atental)le,  yet 
if  the  arrangement  or  thing  made  ellect 
a  beiu'licial  and  new  residt,  it  is  pjitent- 
abl(!.  Jacobs,  Kx  jmrU,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— MoKHKM,,  J.;  1).  C,  1850. 

30.  A  claim  for  an  effect  or  function 
is  not  patentable.  Sickles  v.  The  J'hlls 
Co.,  4  niatchf.— Nklson,  J.;  Ct.,  1801. 


ENGRAVINGS. 

See  title  "  Ciiauts." 


EQUITY,  JUUISDICTION  OF  AND 
PLEADINGS  IN. 


A.  As  TO  COPTRIOIITS  AND   MANCSCRII'TS   262 

B.  As  TO  Patents. 

1.  General  Jurisdiction 263 

2.  Orvjinal  Bill ;  parties  to ;  what  to 
set  forth;  multifariousness  of; 
amendment  and  dismissal  of. .  267 

^       .  3.  Supplemental    and    Cross  Bill; 

Bill  of  Discovery 269 

4.  Demurrer 270 

5.  Ansioer 270 

C     As  TO  Traue-Mauks 273 


r^Wi 


•Stt  '  t'N^j 


lef 


'»i»j* 


^  "-.-  k-, Ufc 


:r» 


-'"52*' 


^Wi 


Wir^ 


263 


Kgrrrv,  a. 


.,.''«->W 


'%#i||yr^- 


Ffr- 


iir,,S.. 


^k 


i^*^ 


^' 


JfUmDICriON   AH  Til  OUPVMUIini  ANt>  MANI'IU-HIITN. 


''^t-i^ 


t-J 


\.       Ah    to     CilI'VltltiHIH    ANI»     AlANir. 
Ht'KII'lH. 

Sfi«  al.so  AnioNrt,  A,;  I>iiAMATic 
C'oMi'oHii'ioNH ;  In.ii'N(Tionh,  a. 

1.  At  cointnoii  law  t1i«>  ri^^lils  of  an 
assi^nco  «)f  II  iu:iiiUHcri|ii  \vt>ul<l  l)i>  pro- 
Icih'd  l>y  uOoiirt  of  CliaiU'tTy.  W/ieat- 
i»i  V.  /'rV.  rjf,  H  IVt.,  001. — McLkan,  .1. ; 
t<ii|>.  I't.,  lH;tl. 

2.  TIiIh  is  pivHunu'd  to  bo  tln«  "oopy- 
riijlit"  ro('opiiz«'tl  in  J}  1  of  tho  act  of 
17!K),  and  wITu-h  was  intondiMl  to  lii' 
protcoti'd  hy  its  provisions,  and  this 
l»ii)ti'»"ti<>n  was  jj;ivi'n  as  woil  to  bo^ks 
piiblishi'd  undor  sncli  finMitnstani'os,  as 
to  niannsi'iipt  copios.      /AAA,  00 1. 

H.  Wlu'i-o  a  wroni;  has  bcm  fonunit- 
tod  in  ivspt'Ct  to  a  literary  work,  bnl 
the  bill  dooH  not  ask  for  an  injnnction 
to  protect  tho  connnon  law  riiflitsof  tho 
author,  or  tho  violation  of  any  fopyrijjht 
Hoourcil,  but  only  a>*ks  a!i  account,  re- 
dress cannot  bo  sou<;ht  in  a  court  of 
ctpiity,  but  tho  party  must  proceed  ut 
law  lor  dainajjcs.  Monk  v.  JLti'/xr,  l) 
Edw.  Ch.,  110,  HI.— McC't.uN,  V.C'h., 
X.  Y.,  1><;17. 

4.  A  Court  of  C'hanccrv  assumes  ju- 
risdiction  to  restrain  tho  i)ubIication  of 
juivate  letters  on  no  other  ])rinci]tle  :ind 
upon  no  broader  ground  than  that  of 
coi>yright  in  literary  jMoductions,  or  n 
jiropcrty  in  the  paper  on  which  they  are 
written,  similar  to  property  in  stereo- 
typo  or  engraved  plates.  M^efi/iore  v. 
Scorillv,  3  PMw.  Ch.,  527.— McCoun. 
V.  Ch.;N.  Y.,  1842. 

6.  It  will  not  exercise  the  power  of 
preventing  the  ])ublioation  of  ])rivato 
letters  of  business  on  the  ground  of 
copyright  or  literary  property,  when 
they  possess  none  of  the  attributes  of 
literary  composition.    Ibid.,  528. 


0.  On  gonond  ei|Mitabli'  principhw,  re 
lief  may  b«)  given  by  aCoiu'l  of  Chan 
eery  against  one  who  lias  surn-piiiiniix. 
ly  gained  possoHsiun  of  n  nianusfript. 
Hiirflittv.  (%-ittiiiifi )i,  i  IMcI.ean,  ;io|. 
-  Mrl.KAN,  .J.;  Ohio,  IH47. 

7.  A  coiM't  of  etpiity  will  not  alteiii|i|. 
to  restrain  the  |iidilicalion  of  private 
letters  on  tho  grnun*l  of  protecting  lit 
«'rary  properly,  when  they  possess  no 
attribute  of  literary  composition.  I/ni/l 
V.  Mi'Koizic^  ;i  Marb.  Ch.;  ;i2.5.-  \Vai, 
woKTii,  Ch.in.;  N.  Y.,  1H4H. 

H.  Ill  a  suit  iindtT  the  co|)yrighl  acts, 
tho  complainant  must  make  out  a  title 
to  sue  under  his  copyright.  The  court 
cannot  interfere  to  prevent  tho  use  of 
the  title  of  a  work  in  fraud  of  the  plain 
tit)',  U)ion  ]iriiiciples'  relating  to  the 
good-will  of  trades.  Jallh' wJik/.  ,v,  | 
lilatchf,  027.— Nki.son,.I.  ;  N.  Y.,  is.-.o. 
0.  The  net  of  Kebruary  l.'i,  ls|!»,  .s,, 
tar  as  it  gave  cognizance  to  the  courts 
of  the  rnited  Stales  in  cases  of  copy- 
rights,  still  remains  in  force,  and  is  ihc 
only  law  conferring  oipiitable  jurisdic- 
tion on  these  courts  in  such  eases;  jj  i) 
of  the  !ict  of  lS:n  protects  mamiserlpts 
only.  Stevens  v.  O'lttdifin;/,  17  lluw., 
4.').''..— Cuims,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

10.  The  oipiity  Jurisdiction  of  such 
courts,  as  to  co])y rights,  does  not  ox- 
tend  to  tho  adjudication  of  forfeitures; 
a  decree  therefore  cannot  be  eiitertd  for 
tho  penalties  incurred  for  tho  violation 
of  a  copyright.     Ibid.,,  455. 

11.  It  is  doubtful  whether,  under  the 
act  of  18H1,  as  to  copyrights,  the  courts 
of  tho  United  States  can  exorcise  juris- 
diction, by  way  of  injunction,  to  pre- 
vent the  publication  of  private  letters, 
contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  wiiter. 
Woolsey  v.  Jmhl,  4  Duer,  ;J82.— Di  ku, 

J.;  N.Y.,  1855. 

12.  A  court  of  equity  cannot  intcr- 


"n 


'■:ir' 


■Hw*,. 


KQnTV,  U.  I. 


20a 


At  TU  l-ATKNIHi   UENNHAL  JUMMMUTION. 


fun*  to  prevent  tliu  piililinition  of  pri 
vnt*>  IftttTN,  on  the  ^^'niiiiid  that  Niirli 
II  |)itl)li('!it  ion,  wil lioiit  llio  roiiHcnt  of  t lie 
writci't  ■'^  <^  Itrt'ikfli  of  foiiliilriico  ami 
|i()ii(ii'al)lu  feeling,  liiid  is  «laii){t>n)UN  to 
till'  |ii>a('t>  anil  uioralHof  tho  coninniiiily. 
Il,i,f.,  :ih:i,  :ih 4. 

i:i.  Kut  llio  author  lias  hiicIi  an  ex- 
('IuhIvo  ri^lit  in  hin  mainimM'ipt  at  com- 
iiKHi  law  aH  I'litilh'H  liiMi  to  dt'tcnninc 
for  irnnF«'lf  u  hetlirr  it  nliall  l)(>  pul)lisli('i| 
nt  all ;  and  wlien  tliis  t-Xfltisive  ri^lit.  is 
ill  danger  of  hcinf;  victlalcd,  ii  court  of 
('(|uity  irt  lioiind  to  prevent  the  wron^ 
by  iiijiliK'tiitn.      //>/</.,  '.iM,  UD.'J. 

It.  In  t'tpiily,  11  liniittMl  loeal  or  other 
partiid  nssi;^nnient  of  u  eopyri};Iit,  if 
made  for  n  valiiahlo  consideration,  will 
be  carried  into  ell'ect,  whether  it  would 
he  eU'ectual  ill  law  or  not.  luwne  v. 
\V/icafl(i/y  1>  Anier.  Law  Keg.,  47. — 
Cadwai.i.adkk,  J.;  l*u.,  1800. 

II.     As  TO  Paticvtm. 

1.     General  Jurmliction. 

Sco  also,  Fkignkd  Issuk  ;   Injunc- 
noN,  H. 

1.  Under  the  act  of  IHOO,  jurisdiction 
was  given  to  tint  (Circuit  Courts  of  the 
United  States  in  jiatont  cases,  only  "  in 
actions  on  the  case."  By  the  judiciary 
act  of  17hO,  such  courts  had  no  equity 
powers  conferred  on  them,  })etween  cit- 
izens of  tho  sumo  stute.  LiDingston  v. 
Van  Inffen,  1  Paine,  48,  62. — Livin(J- 
STON,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1811. 

2.  Where,  tlicrefore,  u  bill  was  filed 
for  tlie  infringement  of  u  i)atent,  and 
tho  parties  were  uU  residents  of  the 
Baine  state,  Held,  that  the  court  could 
not  take  cognizanco  of  such  a  case,  and 
that  the  bill  must  bo  dismissed.  Ibid., 
52,  54. 


.'t.  Iliil  whether,  under  such  actM,  if 
it  became  necessary  in  an  action  at  law 
to  appeal  to  their  eipiity  ^ide  in  aid  or 
defence  of  such  action,  those  coiirtM 
would  not  have  the  necesHary  jiirisdiiv 
tion  ;  f/ini\i/.     /fiid.,  ri;t. 

4.  The  eipiity  jurisdiction  i-xcrciscd 
by  the  courts  over  patents  for  iini'ii- 
tioiiM,  is  merely  in  aid  of  the  common 
law,  ami  in  order  to  give  more  com- 
plett)  elVecl,  to  the  piu\isions  of  tho 
Htatiites  under  which  tliepatini  is  grant- 
ed. Stdltoiin\.  lied/lild,  I  I'uiiie,  440. 
— Tllo.Mi'SON,  J. ;   N.  v.,  1825. 

5.  Whether  the  complaiii.mt's  patent 
is  good  and  valid,  so  as  ullim:itely  to 
He(Mire  to  him  the  rights  he  claims,  in 
not  a  question  for  decision  upon  the 
eipiity  sid((  of  the  court.  Hut  the  <;(pii- 
ty  jurisdiction  should  never  be  exeicised 
but  upon  the  supposition  that  the  ap- 
plicant for  the  aid  of  the  court,  has  a 
right  \vhi(;h  has  been  infringed  by  tho 
other  l»arty.      //fid.,  44(i,  447. 

0.  The  liict  that  the  subject  niatt(T 
of  a  contract  sought  to  be  enforccMl,  is 
a  patent-right,  does  not  of  itself  give 
the  courts  of  tho  Uniti'd  States  juris- 
diction. A  bill  filed  for  a  specific  per- 
formance of  such  a  contract,  must  con- 
tain the  proper  averments  to  show  that 
the  court  has  jurisdiction.  Jiiiir  v. 
Greijonj,  2  Taiiie,  42(5,  4'JO. — TiiOMf- 
su.v,  .1.;  N.  v.,  1K28. 

7.  If,  in  an  assignnient  of  a  j)atent, 
the  invention  or  improvement  conveyed 
is  misnanied,  tho  deed  is  not  a  nullity, 
if  it  furnish  suttlcient  means  for  correct- 
ing tho  mistake,  and  identifying  the 
thing  about  which  the  parties  intended 
to  contract.  The  deed  may  be  reform- 
ed in  a  court  of  ecjuity.  Harmon  v. 
Bird,  22  Wend.,  115.— Biionson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1839. 

8.  A  court  of  equity  will  not  intcr- 


'^'1i.»■*.^; 


1   1  IUXl. 


204 


KQiriTV,  n.  1. 


f  >«- 


^*« 


^•iim 


:<..^ 


'**N. 


'^.?r 


AM  m  PATINTIi   OKMIIUL  JUtUMIOTION. 


frn*  iti  lirlialf  of  n  |iat«'iit«'<',  clfln'r  to 
{(rniit  iui  iiijiiticlinti,  or  ^ivi-  liiiii  iiiiy  ro- 
lift*,  in  i'i'M|)t'ct  to  an  :illt>}{cil  vlitliitioii  of 
liiH  piitrut,  if  after  linvinj^  obtaiiu'il  lus 
patent,  lie  Ii:>h  Niirren<lere<l  or  ile<lie:ite<l 
it  to  the  piiltiic,  orac<|iiieHee«l  for  a  lon^ 
Iteriiiil  in  I  lie  )iul)ii(t  nse  tliereo*',  with- 
out ubjt'etioti — !i«  IiiM  own  ctindiiet  may 
bo  conNideretl  nn  huvinf;  U>i|  to  hiicIi  use 
or  n|i|tli»'iiti<>ti,  or  actsofflu' (leleiKlanls. 
]\'i/(//i  V.  A/oz/f,  1  Story,  2H'.',  iJ8  4.— 
Stokv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1H40. 

0.  I'n.ler  U)^  10  ami  17  of  thu  aet  of 
IP.'UJ,  tlie  Circuit  (.'ourts  of  the  I'liiled 
States  have  exehi>i\e  (•(ijjjni/.anee  of  8uits 
in  e(jiiily,  relative  to  inti-rferini;  patentH, 
in  easeH  where  the  court  is  authorized 
to  adjuilye  and  declare  a  patent  inoper- 
ative or  \(>'i  I,  either  wholly  or  in  pjirt, 
or  in  any  particular  portion  of  the  I'nit- 
cd  States.  (iibson  v.  Woodicorth,  8 
Pai<,'e,  134.  WALVVOinii,  Chan.,  N.  Y.; 
1840. 

10.  Wlu'ther  such  courts  have  exclu- 
fiive  jurisdiction  of  every  ease  in  which 
a  right  under  the  jtatent  laws  might 
come  in  (juostion  collaterally ;  or  in 
cases  except  where,  from  the  nature  of 
the  relief,  their  jurisdiction  nuist  neces- 
sarily be  exclusivo;  qmry.     I  hid.,  134. 

11.  In  .ail  action  at  law,  for  a  breach 
of  a  patent,  it  is  in<lispeiisal)Ie  to  estab- 
lish a  breach  lu'lore  suit  brouixht,  But 
in  equity,  a  bill  will  lie  for  an  injuiu-tion, 
if  tlie  jiatont-right,  is  admitted,  or  has 
been  established  upon  well-grounded 
proof  of  an  ajiprehended  intention  of 
the  defendant  to  violate  the  patent- 
light.  A  bill  quia  timet  is  an  ordinary 
remedial  process  in  ccpiity.  Woodworth 
V.  iStoiic,  3  Story,  762. — Stokv,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1845. 

12.  The  Circuit  Courts  have  no  juris- 
diction of  an  action,  as  to  enforce  the 
opecific  cxecutiuu  of  a  contract  respect- 


ing a  patent,  w  liere  the  parties  are  all  i  itj. 
/.(  ns  of  the  same  Mtttle  ;  but  where  tlu! 
plaint  itln  net  up  a  right  under  a  pai.  nt 
and  nWvf^f  that  tliu  defetidantM  ucu  in. 
fringing,  citizenship  will  not  oust  jmiH- 
dietiou.  lirtnikn  v.  tS(,Mey,  ."I  .McLcjui 
^J.^.  — MrLKA.N,  .[.;  Olii,),  IH4.5. 

13.  lint  vvitere  the  court  has  obtained 
jurisdiction  on  the  grotmd  of  infringe- 
nu'til,  it  nuiy  then  decide  other  matters, 
which,  of  ihemsflves,  would  nut  aiVonl 
ground  for  thu  original  excrcino  (<f  ju- 
risdiction,    /ftid.,  520. 

14.  I'luler  ^  17  of  the  act  of  Is.'tO, 
the  jurisdiction,  bh  to  subject  niafttr, 
of  the  Circuit  Courts  does  nr»t  v\{>  ml 
to  a  bill  in  e<|uity,  filed  for  the  specitic 
performance  of  a  contract  to  transfer  a 
jiat'  t — the  jurisdiction  of  suili  court 
bei  continid  to  actions  under  the  pai- 
ciit  l(tw8  gr.'iiititig  or  confirming  rights 
to  inventors,  ^t smith  \.  V<drft'  \ 
WiM.d.  tfe  Afin.,  37. — >V<)oi)iiUKv,  J.; 
Mass.,  I84fi. 

1 ').  If  such  a  bill  i8  filed  agaitiBt  sev- 
«'ral  defeiulants,  some  of  whom  are  resi- 
dents of  the  same  state  w  ith  the  com- 
plainarits,the  bill  may  still  be  niaintiiiiu'd 
against  the  del  iidunts  who  are  rc.-i- 
dents  of  another  state.     Ibid.,  37. 

1(J.  And  if  such  bill  contain  a  prayer 
for  an  injunction  against  the  use  of  the 
patent  by  all,  this  w(»uld  be  gr  iin<l,  it 
seems,  of  jurisdiction  over  nil  the  de- 
t' ndants  as  to  subject  matter.  Ibiil, 
38. 

17.  I'roceedings  by  bill  in  equity,  un- 
der §  10  of  the  act  of  1830,  and  Jj  lu 
of  the  act  of  1839,  against  the  ("om- 
missioner  of  Patents,  to  compel  him  to 
issue  a  patent,  must  bo  coinmeMced  in 
the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States 
for  the  District  of  CoUnnbia,  and  can- 
not be  brought  elsewhere.  No  trihii- 
nal  out  of  the  district  has  jurisdiction 


1 
■•111,, 

'llip.f':., 


EQUITY,  J{.  I. 


flds 


Ai  Tu  fATBin^    amiiu     JCRMDICTIOW. 


(,v«r  tlio  pumoti  of  the  t-'omin|n«ii«>nt»r  of 
I'ltlt'iitM,  UM  Hiich,  iiml  tilt*  I'lttt'iil  OiTit'i . 
Pftntlns  V.  J'JUtinnrf/i,  .Mir.  I'lt,  Off., 
36.-KANi)Ai,r„  J.;  I'li.,  IHUI. 

(.,  Tlio  jiuisdirlioii  «-i>iilVTru(l  upon 
iho  Cii'fiilt  Courts,  ill  piitcn'  ouhch,  by 
g  4  uf  the  act  of  IHiiO,  iH  ihu  oiime, 
in  itM  iiittiii'K  Hint  «'X(tMit,  itH  tlii<  i><|uity 
juristlicUiMi  ill  Kii^lainl,  from  wliich  it 
jx  ilurivi><l.  On  (iii  injiiiictioii  liili  tik-il 
by*  |mti-iit»'o,  uIh'I'u  tlit'i'o  in  no  <ns|Mitt> 
:)Hto  till*',  tiiu  Itill  hikviii^r  I)(<t>ii  t.'ikcii  m 
(.()iif<'s--(il,  HUc'liCdurtHliavy  till'  power  to 
refer  tliu  ouhu  to  a  iimHtcr  to  taku  uiid 
Htnt»'  ivn  account  of  tli«  profits  inado  )iy 
tlio  (h<fi>iulunt  l>y  llio  uho  of  tht;  plain- 
tiffM  iiivoiilitiii,  instead  of  scinlin^  it  to 
1  court  at  law  t(»  asst'ss  llio  iiaiiva<^cH. 
.lltin  V.  /Hunt,  1  Blatchf.,  480,  487.— 
N|.;r,«oN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

19.  Wiicn-  it  is  evident  tliattlicloi^al 
ifli'ct  iif  a  contract,  as  to  a  patent,  uc- 
c'oniinj;  lo  the  terms  of  it,  is  ditVercnt 
fiom  tlie  actual  aj^roeinent  madu  at  the 
time,  hetweeii  the  ])arties,  a  court  of 
i'(|uity  would  probably,  upon  a  proper 
iipplication,  direct  tlic  contract  to  be 
nfornicd  by  the  insertion  of  a  chiUHC 
to  tho  etVect  chiimcd.  Woodworth  v. 
Cnok,  2  IMatchf.,  168.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1850. 

20.  It  is  a  well  established  rule  in 
equity,  that  the  matter  entitling  a  party 
to  an  ameiidfnent  of  his  contract,  may 
beset  up  by  way  of  ecpiitablo  defence 
against  a  i)roceediiiL;,  as  to  enforce 
;i  specilic  performance,  involvinj^  the 
lights  of  the  parties  under  the  instru- 
ment, and  which  would  not  have  been 
inaintiiiiiahk»  had  the  aixreement  been  as 
was  iiitt!i(l(  1.     Ibid.,  158,  l.')i). 

21.  But  such  contract  cannot  be  re- 
t'orined  where  rights  of  a  bona  fide  pur- 
I iia-i'i-  have  intervened,  which  would  or 
iiiimlii  be  s(  I  .ously  prejudiced  by  allow- 


ing Rfieh  Contract  to  ^o  rofoeinuil,  or  de> 
fence  Hi>t  lip.     Itiid.,  \h9. 

'i'i.  A  Huit  in  equity  to  obtain  an  in-- 
jiiiK'liMn  to  restrain  jimci  ed'u^H  in  an 
action  at  law,  will  n<>t  be  Miistained 
wIh'H  the  illlej^ations  i=,  t  Mp  a  clefem  «', 
ns  fraud,  \vhi<h  Ih  n  proper  caMl*  for  the 
CDMsideration  of  ;»  jury,  .'»iid  when  tho 
faets  ebarged  are  nu'tainl  denied  by  llio 
defendant,  such  iliiial  being  HulHcieiit 
to  prevent  tho  isHiiing  of  an  injuiietion. 
Ihiy  v.  (ioinh/f.nry  MS. — <ii(iKU,  J.; 
N.  J.,  1850. 

23.  If  fVoin  tho  ntitnbor  and  charactor 
of  the  assignmcntH  and  reasm^iuiicntt 
of  a  patent,  it  may  be  d(»ubtful  whether 
an  actiiUi  at  law  can  be  brought  so  ju 
to  obtain  relief  for  an  injury  ciniiplained 
of,  it  will  atford  ground  for  the  exer- 
cise of  an  cipiity  Jurisdiction,  liii-kndl 
V.  Todd,  5  McLean,  J 10. — M<Lk,\n,J.; 
Ohio,  1851. 

24.  Upon  a  bill  filed  to  deelarc  a  pat- 
ent granted  by  the  Oommissioner  invalid 
or  inoperative,  uiub  r  §  10  of  tho  act  of 
1h:»0,  amended  by  ^  to  of  the  act  of 
IS.'JO,  the  hearing  is  altogether  inde- 
la'iident  of  th.at  before  the  Comiuission- 
er,  and  takes  place  upon  such  testimony 
as  the  parties  may  see  fit  to  produce, 
agreeably  to  the  rules  and  j)ractice  of 
a  court  of  ecpiity.  Atkinson  v.  Hoard- 
in<tn,  MS.— Nklsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

25.  The  evidence  before  the  Commis- 
sioner is  not  evidence  in  such  a  suit,  ex- 
cept by  consent  of  parties  ;  iiur  are  tho 
parties  to  the  suit  restricted  to  the  tes- 
timony used  before  the  Commissioner. 
Kither  party  is  at  liberty  to  hitroduco 
additional  evidence.     Ibid. 

20.  A  eourt  of  ccpiity  will  not,  in  a  de- 
cree intended  to  put  an  end  to  litigation 
.IS  to  patent  interests,  attempt  to  undo 
what  has  been  done,  and  set  aside  what 
has  already  been  adjudicated  between 


11% 


c:?: 


^^i  ^\ 


'yc^^*- 


It 


Mt 


EQUITY,  II.  1. 


AM  in  fATBKm    oniRML  ivnmtiwtvm. 


Ll    /' 


1    '*iv 


tho  t>orUi«ii.     (iootl^ar  v.  /Any,  MS.— 
27.  Tlu<    piiliiit   act  of   IH.10,   I  17, 

COIlfcl-N  Jlllitciil'tioll     ill     finily    llfMIII     llu* 

Cirriiit  Comix  irrin|u'«'li\t'  of  llu- ri^lil 
of  llio  |iliiiiilitr  to  an  iiijtinrtinii,  nr  nt' 
Imh  <lt'iiiiiit<l  lor  oiiv.  Ntvin»  \ .  Jo/in- 
HON,  ;»  lUiitflif.,  8:j. — Xri.How,  IlnTri*,  JJ.; 
N.  v.,  la.-iJJ. 

2H.  Arronlin^Iy,  wliiTO  tlif  plaiiitiirM 
|>nti>iit  liu<l  cxpiri'tl,  ami  a  l»ilt  in  iu|iiity 
llli'il  l>y  liiri)  allc^t'il  an  iiitViii^ciin'tit  ot' 
the  |iati>nl  lirlnif  it  i-x|iiri'<l,  aihl  prayi'd 
for  u  tiiNt'ovcry  uiid  an  aci'oiiiit,  hut  nut 
for  an  iiijiinction,  J/clil,  on  a  (li-iiiiirr«>r 
to  tliu  Itill,  that  tilt!  court  had  juriHdii*- 
tion.     //>/»/,  H^. 

•J!».  A  i'uurt  of  »>i|ui(y  will  not  pro- 
C(>ud  .-iL^aiiiHt  lilt'  |iriiu>i|)lt's  and  Nurc- 
tics  of  an  iiijiincliondMind  to  onl<UTi> 
|)aytiu>nt  of  the  datna^^cH  HUMlaincd  l>y 
TfaHou  of  iIm'  iiijuiiclion.  Tlio  d«'(i'iid- 
ant  must  resort  to  an  action  at  law  on 
the  boiid,  Mtrnjjidd  v.  JomSy  2  C'nrt., 
806. — CiruTlM,  J. ;  Mohm.,  lH.5a. 

30.  A  mutual  and  reciprocal  covenant 
of  an  aj^rcernciit  n'spectin^  a  patent, 
ha\in}{  been  broken  by  one  parly,  he 
cannot  obtain  the  aid  of  a  court  of 
equity  to  restrain  the  other  covenanter 
from  its  violation.  Cliitn  v.  Jlrrirn; 
11  Mo.  Law.  Uei>.,  li'Jl. — Cuuris,  J.; 
MaHH.,  18.)((. 

81.  Otherwise,  where  the  covenants 
are  imk'pendent,  or  only  collaterally 
connect!  d,  thouu;h  in  the  sanie  instru- 
ment; or  where  the  breach  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  may  be  fully  rejiaireil,  and 
one  of  the  conditions  prei-edent  for  ob- 
taining relief  may  be  Kuch  reparation. 
IbiiL,  392. 

32.  Where  the  covenant  was,  l)y  the 
owners  of  a  patent,  that  no  right  to  use 
the  invention  should  bo  conveyed  with- 
out the  assent  and  concurrence  of  all 


thfMO  liiti>ri<Hli<d,  //«'/(/,  thtit  n  pnrly  who 
had  been  ffuilly  of  ii  lireiich  llierrof 
llioiigli  through  u  iiiimippri'lu'imiuti  df 
ihe  eoititrticlion  of  the  iigrct>tiu>iit,  cui|. 
not  maintain  a  i'l  II  for  an  injunction  to 
rentraiii  the  oilier  covenanter  from  i\ 
oiinilar  violation.     //><W.,  :t|)2, 

a.l.  The  Circuit  CoiirtH  of  the  Tniti'il 
SlatcN,  having  jnrii«diction  in  opiiiy  ,,r 
controverHieM  ariNing  under  the  I'niifil 
SlatcM  patent  lawN,  do  not  net  aw  nticil 
lury  to  n  court  of  law,  and  tlurcforciln 
not  reipiirt'  the  patentee  lirst  to  e<itiili 
lish  IiIn  legal  right  in  a  court  of  law, 
and  by  the  vi-rdii-t  of  a  jury,  fininlif^ 
v.  J^itfini),  ;»  WaJ,  .Ir.— <titii;ii,  J.; 
I'a.,  IHIU. 

31.  A  court  of  law  may  treble  a  vor- 
diet  for  "a«'tual  damage"  in  a  palent 
suit,  where  the  defendant  has  ncti>il 
wantonly  or  vexatiously,  but  »  court  of 
etpiity  can  inilict  no  exemplary  or  puni- 
tive damages  as  u  court  of  law  ina\. 
Ihiil. 

3B.  A  patentee  whoHo  invention  is 
only  valuable  because  used  by  all  wlio 
pay  a  license  fee,  and  who  sulicrs  no 
other  wrong  than  the  detention  of  siuli 
fee,  needs  none  of  tlu.  retnedieH  which 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  chancellor  to  give 
for  such  protectior  Lii'tiiij^ton  v, 
Jofies,  3  Wall,  Ji.  (iitiKU,  .1.;  I'a,, 
IHOI. 

3U.  A  court  of  law  is  his  proper  rc« 
sort  ;  the  only  remedy  to  which  lie  is 
entitled  being  a  judgment  for  a  givon 
sum  of  money,  with  interest ;  andtlit'ic' 
he  may  recover  a  penalty  to  the  extent 
of  treble  damages,  if  the  judge  sees  fil 
to  inflict  it.  IVmilties  and  punitive  dam- 
ages can  be  recovered  only  in  courts  ut' 
law.     If)i(l 

37.  Although  the  statute  gives  origi 
nal  cognizance  of  ])atent  controversies, 
equally  to  courts  of  ecjuity  as  to  courts 


lUITY,  H.  a. 


367 


otW(ti((*L  mtx^  rumm  vot  what  to  uuNt«iii,  kto. 


ol'  litMt  nil  (lUtlikctloii  uiM  tu  tliu  ruiiio- 
ilitf*  grikiiit*<l  liy  iiiu'li  ii'i))iiiiitl  U  not 
aboliMltu'l  l  *"**'!>  outtrt  will  ^^\vv  tlii< 
rtMiiuily  piKHiliitr  to  itN  own  t'linotitMiH. 
'I'lm  r»'ii»'«IUm  of  a  Conirt  of  Chunr«<ry 
iiru  !)>'  li^jiiiit'tioti  ikiiil  lUM'oiiiit,  iiikI  ii 
cuurt  «»f"  i-qnily  caiiiii>t  taki*  jiiriHilii- 
liirti  to  fiiloroo  A  |M'nall,y,  or  iiMTrly  pii- 
iillivtf  ilitinuKUN.  A  o<Mirl  of  law  oikiiiiot 
iiiMio  nil  iiijuiifltioii,  l)iil  utifon'o  |HMinl- 
tifit  ittiil  ptiiiitivu  (Uiim)()>N.     Iftiil, 


•i.  On'ijinal  Dill;  jutrttit  to}  what 
to  «if  forth  ;  m\lnj'iirti>iiiim<$«  of  f 
amentlinent  ami  liitminaat  of. 

I.  A  Itill  lll*'il  for  (111  iiijiiiK-tioii  nIioiiIiI 
sit  I'oilli  lliHt,  iiflnr  lilt!  issiiiiijr  of  the 
iiuti'iit,  tilt*  (;oiii|il!kin:iiit  liiul  put  Ii'ih  in- 
volition  into  nHi>,  or  huil  noM  tin*  Niitiit* 
for  Ik  valuiildu  conMiilcriition,  niitl  im,  ut 
:it  till!  titnu  of  tlio  tiling  of  tlio  hill,  in 

lilt'  I'XclllMivO  |»OSMl!H.sion  (»f  Hlll'll   |llltt'Ilt. 

hmrn  V.  Cooper,  4  Wash.,  I'UO,  -JOl.— 
Wahiiinoton,  J.;  Pa.,  iHi'l. 

'i.  A  hill  for  an  iiijiiii(;tioii  Hlit)iil<I  he 
vcrilitMl  hy  th(!  oath  of  tlit-  piiil y  filiiiu 
ii,  us  to  lilt!  truth  of  thf  allt'j^iitioiiH  coii- 
luinuil  in  it,  and  that  the  patoiitt'i!  was, 
ti)  tlio  host  of  his  knowlodgi',  tho  true 
aiitl  first  inventor  of  the  thiiij^  pat- 
('iitL><l,  ami  that  the  same  liatl  not,  to 
his  km»\vleili;e  aiitl  hilief,  hi'Cii  in  use 
or  boon  ilt'serihed  heforo  hi.s  invention 
or  iliscovory  thereof.  Jioffirs  v.  Ahhot, 
4  Wash.,  514. — \Vasiii\(iton,  J.;  Pa., 
1825. 

3.  Whether  nn  assignee  of  part  of  a 
piitent,  cireuinscriheJ  a.s  to  tho  interest 
by  local  limits,  can,  in  his  own  name,  or 
with  the  patentee,  ni.'iintain  a  suit  at 
l;i\v  or  not,  there  ean  exist  no  doubt 
but  that  he  may  support  a  suit  in  equity 
to  enjoin  tliird  persona  from  infringing 


tlio  patent,  nnil  fi>r  nn  ni'etmnt.  OgU 
V.  A,3/»,  4  Waith.,  flH4, — Wahulmutox, 
J.;  I 'a.,  IHitJ. 

4.  A  hill  tlleil  for  the  Mpeeille  perfttrni' 
aneo  of  u  (Mtntraet  ri'Npe«>ting  u  patent* 
right  inuti  eiMititin  the  proper  averinentit 
to  give  jiirii*<|u'tion  to  the  lUMirt,  hy  rea^ 
Noik  ot  the  (iA'(m'70<' of  tin*  parlieN.  The 
fuel  of  the  Huhjeet  matter  of  the  eon- 
traet  heing  a  patent  tloes  not  give  tin* 
('ireuit  (.JourtM  jurisilietion.  Iturr  v. 
(ir<>jnri/,  '2  I'aine,  420,  4J».— TlloMI*- 
Ho.N,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  1828. 

6.  An  assignee  of  a  p.art  intereiit 
whii'h  is  exeliisivt!  in  a  patent,  may,  ut 
law  or  in  eipiity,  maintain  a  ikiiit  for  in< 
fringement,  wilhoi:t  joining  the  paten- 
tee. Su  held,  in  faet,  the  hill  heing 
llletl  hy  thf  assignee  alone.  Itruaki*  v. 
Hii'kioll,  .1  MiLeaii,  'J50.— Ml  I.i:.\N, 
J.;  Ohio,  lH4:i. 

U.  An  assignor  who  retains  an  inter- 
est in  a  patent,  nuiy  he  joiiu'd  as  a  party 
<;omplainant  with  an  assigiuM!  ttf  the  ex- 
elusive  interest  in  u  eertain  territory  in 
which  Hiieh  assignor  has  no  interest,  in 
a  hill  for  an  injunctitm  to  restrain  tho 
violation  of  the  patent  in  that  territory. 
Wooilirorth  v.  Wilson,  4  How.,  71ti. — 
Xklson,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  18tr». 

1.  It  is  not  neeessary  that  the  bill 
shoulil  allege  or  speeiiieally  tlescribe  all 
th(!  evideiiet!  whitih  is  to  bu  put  in  in  tho 
ease;  but  the  bill  must  contain  allega- 
tions broad  enough  to  cover  any  evi- 
dence, before  it  beeomes  .athnissiblc. 
Nisfnith  V.  Culvert,  1  Wood,  it  Min., 
44. — WooDUUUY,  .1. ;  IMass.,  184.'). 

8.  A  person  interestetl  in  a  patent, 
but  not  within  tho  particular  district 
where  the  suit  is  brought,  may  bo  made 
a  party  ct^mplainant  in  a  bill  to  restrain 
an  infringement  within  such  tlistrict,  as 
ho  ia  interested  in  protecting  himself 
.against  an  infringement  out  of  that  dia- 


m 


c 


?!|V./'l 


^^ 


i^  .  Hf*' 


'i^C.^' 


"»<>' 


hi.    W- 

i»      'IIP  I         " 


208 


EQUITY,  B.  2. 


OUIUINAIi  bill;  PAIITIES  TO;  WHAT   TO  CONTAIN,  KTO. 


trii't.     Jluck  V   Cohf>^  0  Ljiw  Uip.,  O. 
S,,  347.— C%  NKi.iNii,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

0.  Wlu'tlirr  in  :i  bill  pni;  iig  for  an 
injim  'tioii,  a  niisJoiiuliT  of  partioM  as 
jdaintilfs  wouiil  dofoat  tlio  ])rayorfor  an 
injunction  to  use  a  niaoliinc  in  wliich 
any  of  fhom  arc  interest I'd.  Wotxl- 
worth  V.  I  tall,  1  Wooil.  it  Min.,  258. — 
WooniijUY,  J.;  Masa.,  1840. 

10.  An  nssignco  of  an  invention  by  vir- 
tue of  I'.n  assigiinicnt  made  before  pat- 
ent issued,  may  file  a  bill  in  his  own 
name,  under  §  10  of  the  act  of  18ai», 
ame'.iding  §  16  of  the  act  of  18;J0, 
against  a  i)atentoe  to  Avhoni  a  patent 
issued,  upon  the  interfering  applications, 
of  his  assignor  and  such  patentee,  for 
t'lie  i)urpos'3  of  annulling  the  patent  is- 
sued, and  having  one  granted  .to  him  as 
assigtice.  Gay  v.  Cvr/idl,  1  IJlati'hf., 
607,  50!).— Ni-Lsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

11.  And  such  assignment  need  not 
bo  recorded  before  suit  brought ;  it  will 
be  sufficient  if  it  is  recorded  before  pat- 
ent issued.     Jlud.,  500. 

12.  An  objection  to  the  joinder  of 
an  assignor  with  an  assignee,  as  com- 
plainants in  a  bill,  cannot  bo  taken  on 
appeal,  it  being  then  too  late.  It  should 
have  been  taken  by  demurrer,  before 
the  hearing  on  the  merits.  TAvingston 
V.  Woodworth,  15  How.,  557. — Danikl, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

13.  G.  tiled  his  bill  against  B.  for  an 
'ufringement  of  a  patent,  and  an  injunc- 
tion was  granted  thereon.  G.  after- 
ward moved  to  amend  by  adding  other 
parties  plaintiif,  averring  that  under  an 
asrrceraent  made  between  himself  and 
such  parties,  and  still  iu  force,  they  be- 
came the  owners  of  an  exclusive  inter- 
est in  the  patent  which  B.  h.ad  uifringed, 
and  that  B.  was  aware  of  their  interest 
in  the  patent ;  Held.,  that  such  amend- 
ments could  not  be  allowed,  as  they 


woidd  amoiuit  to  the  institutiiin  df  ;i 
tU'W  suit,  both  as  to  pliiintiiVs  and  tin; 
right  of  action,  and  that  that  exceeded 
the  power  of  amendnu'ut.  (tinnlyatr 
V.  Jioume,  3  Blatchf.,  208. — Nklsox, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

14.  A  motion  to  dismiss  the  bill  of 
the  complainants,  tiled  for  an  injuiution 
on  the  ground  that  the  defendants  \ym\ 
parted  with  all  their  interest  in  the  suit, 
will  be  denied  if  such  assignnu'iit  lias 
been  made  after  the  time  when  a  ('(im- 
putiition  of  j)rofita  ended.  .Itean  \, 
Mason.,  20  How.,  204.— Mi'Lkan,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

15.  A  bill  is  not  multifarious  In'caiiso 
it  embraces  more  tiiau  one  p.ittni, 
which  it  is  alleged  the  defendant  in- 
fringes ;  at  least,  such  will  not  be  die 
case  if  the  defendant's  macliiiies  in- 
fringe  all  the  patents,  or  coritMins  ilm 
improvements  embraced  in  the  scviial 
patents  alleged  to  be  infringed.  Nomse 
\.  Allen,  MS. — Nklson,  J. ;  N.Y.,  18r)8. 

16.  A  bill  was  liled  to  restrain  tlioiii- 
IVingement  of  four  separate  })atents,  iiiul 
was  demurred  to  on  the  groui.d  that 
the  matters  set  up  were  distinct  and 
separate  and  comi)e]led  the  defendiuit 
to  unite  separate  and  distinct  niatttrs 
of  defence ;  Held,  that  although  tlio 
objection  to  tlie  bill  on  the  ground  of 
multifariousness,  in  a  general  sense, 
might  be  well  founded,  yet  as  all  the 
patents  were  charged  to  be  infringed 
by  the  defendants,  they  were  to  that 
extent  connected  together,  and  that  the 
cojivenience  of  jiarties,  as  well  as  the 
saving  of  expense  in  the  litigation,  jus- 
tified the  embracing  of  all  the  patents 
in  one  suit.     Ibid. 

17.  Query,  Whether  several  patents 
could  be  embraced  iu  one  <uit,  if  the 
improvement  described  in  one  p.iteMt 
had  been  used  in  one  machine,  and  ii:i 


EQUITY,  B.  3. 


200 


HUI'PI.KHBNTAI,   AND   CROHfl   1111.1.;    DILI.  i)t  IHHOVKKY. 


ininrovoiiu'Ht  tlcHcnlu'*!  in  aiiotlior  p.-it- 
otit  liii'l  hoxiu  used  in  Ji  dilU'rent  nm- 
thinc,     If'id' 

18.  It  is  not  necessary  that  the  bill 
phoiiM  set  forth  tlie  dedni-tion  o*'  title 
in  the  complainant,  A  simple  averment 
tliiit  the  title  to  the  patents  is  in  the 
comiiliiinant  is  suflieient.     I/ml. 

11),  Where  one  person  lias  the  legal 
title  to  a  patent,  and  another  person  has 
an  equitable  right  in  the  same,  and  a 
suit  in  equity  is  instituted  for  an  in- 
fringement, and  asking  an  injnnetion 
and  an  .'U'comit,  the  person  having  tl»e 
loijal  title,  and  the  one  having  the  equit- 
able right,  should  join  as  eoinplainants, 
Sliiitjison  V.  Rogers,  4  Blatchl. — jnoku- 
siii.i.,  J. ;  Ct,,  1 859, 

20,  Where  an  inventor  died  before 
application  for  a  patent,  and  devised  his 
property  to  A  and  IJ,  and  afterward  his 
executor  applied  for  and  obtained  a  pat- 
ent for  an  invention  of  the  devisor,  and 
then  sold  the  patent  to  O,  wl>o  after- 
ward sold  it  again  to  A,  Held,  in  a  bill 
filed  against  D  for  an  infringement  and 
an  account,  that  B  should  be  made  a 
party  complainant  with  A,  as  having  au 
equitable  title  and  interest  under  the 
will.    Ibid. 

21,  A  party  who  relies  upon  tlie  ver- 
dict of  a  jury  and  the  judgment  of  a 
court  of  law  for  the  establishment  of  his 
title,  as  a  foundation  of  his  claim,  to  be 
ijuieted  in  the  possession  and  enjoyment 
of  it,  and  for  protecting  him  against  in- 
fringement by  others,  must  aver  in  his 
bill  that  such  proceedings  have  taken 
place.  Parker  v.  Brant,  MS, — ^Gkieb, 
J.;  Pa.,  1850. 

3.  Supplemental  and  Cross  Hill;  Hill 
of  Discovery. 

1.  Where   an    injunction    has  been 


•granted  on  an  original  patent,  and  dur- 
ing its  existence  the  patent  is  surren- 
derecl  and  a  new  one  issued,  a  supple- 
mtnital  l)ill,  founded  on  tin*  renewed 
patent,  is  necessary,in  onler  to  contimiu 
such  injimdion,  Woodworth  v.  Stone, 
.3  Story,  750,— Stouv,  J,;  I\Iass.,  1845. 

2.  Where  on  an  original  l)ill  a  provis- 
ional  injunction  had  been  grantecl  re- 
straining the  defendant  from  furlher 
making  and  selling  a  cert.'iin  article,  and 
sni/se(|uent  to  the  filing  of  the  original 
]>ill  !ind  the  issuance  of  such  injunction, 
.■mother  party  had  become  connectiMl 
with  the  subject  matter  of  the  Kiiit,  and 
it  Avas  alleged  that  lie  was  doing  those 
things  which  tlio  court  had  previously 
restrained,  and  a  discovery  was  sought, 
Ifeld,  such  party  was  properly  brought 
before  the  coiu't  by  a  8upj)lementul  bill. 
rarkfmrst  v.  Kinsman,  2  IJl.'itdif.,  73- 
75,— IJiiiTS,  J,  ;  N.  Y,,  1848. 

3.  A  supplemental  bill  may  br.  f,l(>d 
jit  any  stage  of  the  cause,  e'-'U  after 
decree  rendered.     Ibid.,  7Q. 

4.  It  is  essential  to  a  valid  bill  of  dis- 
covery, in  respect  to  a  patent,  that  it  set 
ft)rth  a  title  in  the  party  which  is  sufli- 
eient to  support  or  defend  a  suit,  and 
that  it  pray  a  discovery  })ertinent  to  th.at 
title  and  nothing  beyond.  Young  v. 
Colt,  2  Blatchf,,  377.  Betts,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1852. 

5.  A  defendant  in  a  suit  in  equity 
founded  on  an  infringement  of  a  patent, 
cannot  by  a  cross  bill,  whicli  sets  up  no 
title  in  himself,  demand  a  discovery 
from  the  plaintiff  in  the  original  suit, 
who  has  aJpr^7?^ayac^e  title,  as  to  the 
source  or  validity  of  that  title.  Ibid., 
311. 

6.  Where  such  a  bill  cannot  be  sus- 
tained as  a  bill  of  discovery,  it  cannot 
be  retained  for  the  purpose  of  relief, 
unless  the  bill  makes  out  a  case  for  re- 


SIC] 

'Mir 


'**<t^:-.. 


«'< 


m»t^l 


"55 '^!H  •  •  i 


VW^l^ 


yWW-^WW^' 


.Aai^MWr-^'^nBtl 


'm^ 


i 


m^t^t 


*•;*-. 


^ 

»^^  ''^^a 


270 


EQUITY,  B.  4-5 


^'.;'T* 


^ 


,^-^ 


'ti^^vu 


..it: 


rKJirilKKIl.      ,»NHWKU;     WHAT   TO    BKT    FOKTII;    KTC. 


liof    iiKlojtendciitly    of    the    discovery 
sought  for.     Jbid.y  a78. 

4.  Demurrer. 
See  also  Plkadino. 

1.  A  special  deinnrrerto  a  bill  should 
point  out  spccitically,  by  paragraph, 
page,  or  folio,  or  other  mode  of  refer- 
once,  the  parts  of  the  bill  to  which  it  is 
intended  to  apply,  or  it  will  be  held  in- 
sufticient.  Atwill  v.  Ferrett,  2  Blatchf., 
43,  44.— Bims,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IstO. 

2.  An  object'on  to  the  form  of  a  bill, 
as  tl'.at  no  oath  was  tiled  with  it,  or  tha. 
it  Avas  not  supported  by  evidence,  should 
be  made  when  the  respoiulents  appear. 
It  is  too  late  to  make  it  after  a  hearing 
and  order  to  tile  evidence.  Woodworth 
\.  Edicards,  3  Wood.  &  Min.,  124.— 
WoonnuKV,  J. ;  Mass.,  1847. 

3.  On  a  special  demurrer  to  a  bill, 
the  allegations  of  fact  in  the  bill,  will, 
on  the  hearing  of  the  demurrer,  be  con- 
sidered as  true.     Ibid.,  120. 

4.  In  a  general  sense,  a  bill  in  equity 
is  demurrable  on  the  ground  of  multi- 
fariousness, if  it  set  lip  matters  which 
are  distinct  and  independent,  .ind  which 
call  for  separate  defences  ;  but  where  a 
bill  Avas  filed  for  the  infringem.^nt  of 
several  patents,  all  of  which  were  in- 
fi-inged  by  the  defendant's  machine, 
JMd,  that  to  this  extent  the  several 
jjatonts  wore  all  connected  together, 
and  that  the  convenience  of  ])arties,  as 
well  as  a  saving  of  expense  in  the  liti- 
gation, justified  embracing  .all  the  pat- 
ents in  one  suit.  Wourse  v.  Allen,  IMS. 
—Nelson,  J.;  X.  Y.,  185S. 

5.  Whether  several  patents  could  be 
embraced  in  one  suit,  if  one  patent  was 
used  in  one  machine,  and  another  in  a 
difForent  machine ;  query.    Ibid. 


C.  It  is  not  a  ground  of  dcmunvr  that 
such  a  bill  does  iiot  contain  the  (lediic- 
tion  of  title  in  the  complainaiit.  A  sim- 
ple averment  of  title  is  BulJieicnt.  Ihii 

6.  Anstoer ;  what  to  set  forth  ;  w/ini 
considered  only  as  an  affidavit  - 
aniend/ncnt  of. 

See  also  Defences  ;  General  Tssi-k. 

1.  Exceptions  to  an  answer  should 
state  the  charges  in  the  bill,  and  tlic  in- 
terrogatory applicable  thereto,  to  wliicli 
the  answt  r  is  addressed,  aiul  tlicii  tlu' 
terms  of  the  answer,  verbatim,  kg  that 
the  court  may  at  once  perceive  tlie 
ground  of  the  exception,  and  ascertain 
its  suf!iriency.  Brooks  v.  dhjam^  \ 
Story,  300  — Storv,  J. ;  Mass.,  Is4n. 

2.  In  the  case  of  an  interrogatory 
perlnent  to  a  ch.argc  in  the  bill,  and 
requiring  the  defendant  to  answer  it 
'  as  to  his  knowledge,  remembrance,  in- 
formation and  belief,"  it  is  not  sufticicnt 
for  the  defendant  to  answer  as  to  his 
knowledge,  but  he  must  answer  also  iis 
to  his  information  and  belief.  Ibid., 
301. 

3.  An  .answer  to  such  an  interrogatory 
"  that  the  defendant  had  no  knowledge, 
information,  and  be'.ief,  that  the  diargo 
was  not  true,"'  is  liable  to  exception 
that  it  did  not  state  whether  the  de- 
fendant believed  it  to  be  true.  Ihiil^ 
301. 

4.  Whenever  a  defendant  does  not 
deny  .any  particular  allegation  of  fact, 
but  states  his  belief  thereof,  he  either 
admits  th.at  it  is  true,  or  that  he  docs 
not  moan  to  controvert  it.  But  a  mere 
statement  by  the  defendant  in  liis  .an- 
swer that  he  has  no  knowledge  tli.it  the 
fact  is  as  stated,  without  any  answer  as 
to  his  belief  concerning  it,  is  not  such 


f^^ 


EQUITY,  B.  6. 


2T1 


ANHWKIl;    WHAT   TO  8RT   KOHTII ;    AMEXDMKNT   OF. 


nn  adriiisHion  us  can  bo  rocoivod  as  evi- 
(U'lK'C  of  the  liU't.     Ibid.,  'MYZ. 

5.  Tlio  di'feiulant  in  c'(juity  is  'boimd 
t(,  answiT  in  direct  and  iini'(]uiv()cal 
terms  as  to  the  state  of  his  mind  witii 
regard  to  every  fact  stated  in  the  bil. , 
to  which  he  is  interro<^atcd,  nither  that 
lie  docs  believe,  or  that  lie  does  not  1)l«- 
lievc  the  matter  inqiurid  ol',  or  that  he 
cannot  form  any  belief,  or  has  not  any 
belief  concerning  the  matter  ;  and  ac- 
cording? as  the  answer  shall  be  one  way 
Mf  the  other,  that  he  calls  npon  the 
iilainlift'  for  proof  thereof,  or  that  he 
aJiiiits  it,  or  that  he  waives  any  contro- 
versy about  it.     Ibid.,  304. 

C.  If  a  defendant  to  a  bill  fdod  for  an 
infringement  of  a  patent  wish  to  avail 
liimself  of  the  defence  of  abandonment 
or  acquiescence  of  the  j)laintitr  in  the 
|)ubUc  use  of  li's  invention,  he  must 
set  forth  such  defence  in  his  answer, 
iintl  put  it  in  issue.  If  the  point  is  not 
put  in  issue,  any  evidence  as  to  it  will 
be  irrelevant,  and  cannot  be  looked  to. 

Wyeth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  284.~SrouY, 
J,;  Mass.,  1840. 

7.  In  a  motion  as  to  an  injunction, 
the  answer  of  the  defendant  is  to  be 
considered  only  as  an  affidavit.  Cooper 
V.  Matthews,  8  Law  Kep.,  O.  S.,  415,— 
IJAunvix,  J.;  Pa.,  1842. 

8.  On  a  motion  for  an  injunction,  if 
tlie  complai.iants  have  called  hi  \\\^iv 
liill  for  the  defendants  to  answer,  and 
they  have  filed  such  answer,  thouifh 
voluntarily  and  before  the  entry  of  any 
rule  to  answer,  it  seems  that  such  an- 
swer will  be  treated  as  an  ans\ver,  and 
not  merely  as  an  affidavit.  Brooks  v. 
Bkknell,  3  McLean,  254. — McLean,  J. ; 
Ohio,  1843. 

9.  Where  an  answer  is  responsive  to 
the  bill  and  under  oath,  and  denies  the 
iiiiVingomcnt,  something  more  than  the 


evidence  of  one  witness  must  be  ]>ro- 
duced  to  overcome  it,  ami  justify  an 
injunction,,  Woodworth  v.  I/<ill,  1 
Wood,  tfe  Mill.,  252. — W^oonnrijv,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1840. 

10.  Where  a  bill  asks  for  an  injunc- 
tion against  the  use  of  a  patent  and  for 
an  accoimt,  an  .answer  denying  the  va- 
lidity of  the  patent  and  the  iidVingement 
is  8uffi(  lent  for  the  purpose  of  obtain- 
ing an  order  for  an  issue  at  law  to  try 
the  vjilidity  of  the  patent,  though  it 
does  not  set  out  the  names  of  the  }ier- 
sons  who  used  the  thing  patented,  or 
knev/  it  before  the  patentee,  nor  the 
names  of  the  places  where;  known  or 
use.i.  Orr  v.  Merrill,  1  W^ood.  «fe  Min., 
378. — WooDiiuuv,  J. ;  IMe.,  1840. 

11.  IJut  the  answer,  if  intended  to 
form  an  issue  to  try  tlic  validity  of  a 
p.itent,  because  the  thing  jiatented  was 
I'lOt  original,  should  set  out  the  names 
of  places  and  persons  where  and  by 
whom  tlie  thing  had  been  used  before 
the  plaintiff's  invention.     Ibid.,  378. 

12.  If  a  demurrer  is  overruled  the 
respondent  may  still  have  leave  to  an- 
swer  the   bill   on    payment    of   costs. 

Woodworth  v.  Edwards,  3  Wood.  & 
i\Iin.,  130. — Woodhury,  J. ;  Mass., 
1847. 

13.  In  equity,  where  a  bill  contains 
no  interrogatories,  when  they  are  neces- 
sary, the  defendant  is  not  bound  to  an- 
swer it,  and  he  cannot  legally  be  in  de- 
fault for  not  answering,  and  consequently 
no  decree  pro  confesso  can  be  entered 
against  him.  Wilson  v.  Stolley,  4  Mc- 
Lean, 274.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

14.  The  practice  of  treating  .in  .inswer 
upon  a  motion  for  an  injunctif)n  direct- 
ly and  unequivocally  denying  the  facts 
set  forth  in  the  bill,  merely  as  an  affi- 
davit, which  might  be  contradicted  by 
other  affidavits,  and  should   not   have 


mm*^ 


rn^i 


•<>«., 

1!»» 


'^P^M 


>yc 


ilfti 


.-i-!,jif( 


'^^^^, 


^^ww 


219 


KQT'ITY,  C. 


?<i 


£|j<.^4.. 


!l»U:!i 


lli. 


.'i2te» 


|t«v.. 


:i.;^v.w 


US 


JIUIMDICTIOX  AS  Tl)  TUAI)K-M  AllKH. 


M:''") 


the  tccliiiical  cnVt-t  of  precluding  coii- 
tradictory  tcstiniDiiy,  is  a  lolaxatioii  of 
the  Mt'ttletl  rules  «f  i)ra(*tico  in  Kiiglisli 
courts  of  equity,  wliicli  hIiouM  bo  fol- 
lowed, luik'ss  eliaiiged  by  tlie  written 
rules  of  the  Circuit  Courts,  as  esfabiish- 
ecl  by  the  Supreme  Court  or  by  thein- 
solves.  Parker  v.  Sears,  MS. — Gkiek, 
J. ;  Pa.,  ]  850. 

]5.  The  affidavit  and  answer,  cspeo- 
ially  if  accompanied  with  one  or  two 
depositions  of  witnesses,  denying  the 
infringement,  should  be  considered  as 
conclusive  on  motions  for  preliminary 
injunctions.     Ibid. 

10.  Even  after  a  trial  at  law  and  a 
verdict  for  the  plaintiff  upon  his  patent, 
and  the  denial  of  a  motion  for  a  new 
trial,  and  a  bill  filed  for  a  perpetual  in- 
junction, an  amendment  to  the  answer 
will  be  allowed,  where  new  and  impor- 
tant evidence  has  been  discovered  af- 
fecting the  novelty  of  the  plaintiff's  in- 
vention, and  an  order  granted  for  a 
feigned  issue.  Foote  v.  Sllhsy,  1  Blatclif , 
645,  548.— Nelsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

17.  An  assertion  in  an  answer  to 
a  bill  liled  for  the  infringement  of  a 
patent,  that  the  defendant  had  not  used 
the  compound  in  the  proportions  de- 
scribed in  the  plaintiff's  patent,  but  has 
used  other  and  better  compounds,  is  a 
mere  evasion,  or  rather  an  admission 
that  he  has  been  attempting  to  evade 
■while  actually  infringing  the  patent. 
Goodyear  v.  Day^  MS. — Griek,  J. ; 
N.  J.;  1852. 

18.  A  defendant  who  appears  and 
puts  in  an  answer,  waives  all  objections 
to  the  regularity  of  the  service  upon  him 
of  the  subpoBna  to  appear  and  answer. 
Goodyear  v.  Chaffee,  3  Blatchf.,  270. 
— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

19.  A  motion  to  allow  an  answer  to 
be  filed  in  a  patent  case  made  after  the 


bill  has  liecii  taken  jm*  coiifiHHo,  is  ad- 
dressed  to  the  discretion  of  the  court. 
Dean  v.  Mason,  20  How.,  204  Mc- 
Lean, J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  \%f^  I. 

C    JirUIHDKTIO.V  AH  TO   TuADK-MaUKS. 

See  also  iNJUNtTioK,  C. 

1.  A  i)arty  has  a  riglit  to  call  upon 
a  court  of  equity  to  restrain  adcli'iid- 
ant  from  fraudulently  using  the  words 
and  <levice8  which  he  has  previously 
taken  for  the  purpose  of  distinguisliin'r 
Ills  property.  Taylor  v.  Carpe)it<r,  i 
Sand.,Ch.,  612.— Ijeakdsi.ev,.!.  ;  N.Y,, 
1840. 

2.  A  court  of  equity  is  not  hound 
to  protect  the  purduiser  of  another's 
secret  for  preparing  a  sj^ecifio  ailiele, 
and  of  the  right  to  use  his  name  as  a 
trade-mark  in  the  sale  of  such  article  in 
the  name  of  the  original  manufactur- 
er. Partridge  v.  3fencA\  How.  App. 
Cas.,  559,  501.— Gardiner,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1848. 

3.  It  is  no  answer  that  the  couiiiluin- 
ant  o})tained  the  secret  from  the  ori<'-nal 
manufacturer,  or  that  the  article  sold  is 
in  all  respects  equal  to  that  offered  by 
the  original  proprietor.     Ibid.,  551). 

4.  The  privilege  of  deceiving  the 
public,  even  for  its  own  benefit,  is  not 
the  subject  of  commerce.     Ibid.,  559. 

5.  Such  a  proceeding  is  a  decep- 
tion upon  the  public,  inducing  the  be- 
lief they  are  purchasing  the  goods  of 
the  original  manufacturer,  when  in  truth 
he  has  no  concern  in  it.     Ibid.,  560. 

0.  The  jurisdiction  that  courts  of 
equity  exercise  in  respect  to  trade-marks 
is  of  recent  origin,  but  in  ri  >  v  ;  ,% 
lished  upon  just  and  rea' o  ribk^  grcuiii-. 
AmoskeaffMff'itf.  Co.  v.  iif\ar.,'>.'hu].. 
S.  C,  004, 005. '  )uEu,  J .  ■  y .  Y.,  W-j. 


'■fe 


EQUITY,  C. 


Jt'UIHr>lCTION   A8  TO  TKADK-MAIIKS 


7.  A  ii:irty  i.-*  t'lititli'd  to  thu  protec- 
tion of  tlu!  law  ill  tlic  exclusive'  use  of 
IiiHtnulc  mark,  ami  tlic  iiili'n.'sts  of  tlic 
imlilic  as  will  as  his  own  riMjiiiro  that  it 
bhouM  Ik'  o;ivcii.      Ibid,  OO.J. 

8.  A  court  of  ocjuily  in  refusing  to 
restrain  the  violation  of  another's  traile- 
iii;irk  woiiM  violate  the  principles  upon 
which  a  lart^e  portion  of  its  jurisdiction 
is  founded.      Ibid.,  000, 

9.  A  court  of  e(piity  will  restrain  u 
\vroii<4docr  in  such  cases,  on  the  ground 
of  protecting  a  party  in  the  exercise  of 
a  legal  right,  the  suppression  of  fraud, 
and  preventing  a  mischief  which  might 
otherwise  prove  irreparable.    Ihid.,  000. 

10.  A  complainant  c.innot  claim  the 
protection  of  a  court  of  eipiily  to  re- 
strain a  fraudulent  use  of  liis  trade- 
mark on  the  ground  cither  of  liaving 
an  exclusive  right  as  an  inventor  in  the 
thing  manufactured  Ity  him,  or  an  ex- 
clusive right  as  author  in  liis  lahel.  Cof- 
feen  v.  Brmiton,  4  McLean,  517. — 
McLkav,  J.;  Ind.,  1849. 

11.  An  intentional  fraud  is  not  neces- 
sary to  entitle  a  plaintift'  to  such  pro- 
tection.    Ibid.,  519, 

12.  The  fact  that  the  use  of  words 
as  trade-marks,  indicating  quality  mere- 
ly, may  to  some  extent  inislcad  purchas- 
eis,  or  induce  them  to  believe  that  ar- 
ticles manufactured  by  one  person  are 
those  manufactured  by  anotlier,  will  not 
ji  ilfy  the  court  in  aifording  protection 
to  the  use  of  such  names,  if  such  im- 
pression is  not  one  which  was  intended 
to  he  derived  from  them,  Stokes  v. 
lamlgraff,  17  Barb.,  S.  C,  012.— 
Strong,  J, ;  'A.  Y,,  18r)3. 

13.  The  ground  xipon  wliich  a  court 
of  equity  exercises  jurisdiction  in  trade- 
mark cases  is  the  prevention  of  fraud, 
and  of  damages  conse(pieut   upon    it, 

ihat  might  bo  irreparable.      Gillett  v. 
18 


Iuttk\  3  Duer,  020,— Boswoinii,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  IH54. 

14.  Courts  of  equity  do  not  interfere 
hy  injunction  in  cases  of  violation  of 
trade-marks,  except  in  aid  of  a  legal 
right.  If  the  fact  of  the  plaintillV  right 
in  a  trade-mark,  or  the  defenda..(s'  in- 
terference with  it,  be  doubtful,  the 
plaintill's  will  be  left  to  establish  their 
title  at  law.  Merrimack  Mxmif.  Co.  v. 
Garner,  4  E.  1),  Smith's  Kep.,  :t90,— 
I)Ai.v,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  185r., 

15,  It  maybe  that  a  i)arty  would  not 
bo  ])erinitted  to  manufacture  and  vend 
an  inferior  article,  and  put  it  forth  to 
the  public  as  of  the  same  (piality  and 
kind  as  that  of  another,  but  whether  he 
could  be  restrained  by  injunction  it 
doubtful.     Ibid,  S92, 

10.  When  the  power  of  a  court  of 
cfpiity  has  been  invoked,  it  has  been  t<« 
restrain  the  defendant  from  making  \\\^ 
goods  and  selling  them  as  and  for  the 
goods  manufactured  by  the  plaintiff,  on 
the  ground  that  such  a  fraud  was  an  inju- 
ry to  the  plaintiff,  and  tending  to  mislead 
and  deceive  the  public,  iS((fnucl  v,  lier- 
ffer,  24  Barb.,  S.  C,  105. — Daviks,  J  ; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

17.  The  ])laintiff,  a  manufacturer  of 
watches,  claimed  the  right,  as  assignee, 
to  stamp  his  watches  with  the  name  of 
onelberson  Brindle.  The  defend.ints  sold 
watches  manufactured  by  said  Brindle 
himself,  and  stamped  with  his  nanif. 
Held,  that  the  plaintiff  was  not  entitled 
to  an  injunction  to  restrain  the  defend- 
ants from  selling  the  original  article,  and 
thus  protect  the  plaintiff  in  selling  the 
simulated.     Ibid,  105, 

18.  A  tradesman,  to  bring  his  privi- 
lege of  using  a  particidar  mark  under 
the  protection  of  equity,  is  not  bound 
to  prove  that  it  has  been  copied  in  every 
particular  by  another.    It  is  enough  for 


VXIVVVY,  (\ 


Jl'lllMDU'riON   AN  TO  TUAHK-MAHKIt. 


*-  "^-^fc.; 


•^ii^J^ 


*<4i|' 


'^ 


■i»>-7         R  -1^ 


Iiiiii  (o  ''lii>\v  lli.'if  llii'  n'i»r»<H»'i(1;i(i<itis 
oiuploM'il  lii'Dr  Niii'li  rrsi<iii1ilaiit'i>  to  liis 
iiHto  1t«>  «<:iltMital<>il  It)  iiii'>l«<iitl  llii>  |>iil)lii' 
j'jt'iii'rallx,  \\\\o  iiic  |iiir('li!iN('i-H  ol'tlit'  iir 
(it'll',  :iiiil  It)  in.'ikt'  it  pic^s  >\it1i  tlittii  I'tir 
iht'  art  it'll'  sdM  l>y  liiiii.  W'u/tun  v. 
Cr.iir/,}/,  ;]  l>I«U'lit;,  -tlT. — IIkith,  ,1.; 
N.  Y.,  isAd. 

ID.  ir  n  iilninfilV  «'i»moH  into  n  roiirt 
of  I'tjiiity  (t<  t'laiin  ii'lii'l'  aijainst  (in* 
lVan>l  I'l"  t>tliors,  hi'  must  be  iVi'i'  liimm'ir 
iVtuii  till' im|uilatit»u.  /'Iti'hft/c  \.  HV//.v, 
l:l   Il.nx.rr.,  ;ist>.~   Pi  i:u.  .1.;   N.   Y., 

'20.  \C  sail's  t>t'  ail  art  it'll'  iiiailt'  l>y  a 
I'laiiititr  ait'  ollVi'ti'tl,  or  mniLjIit  1<)  Ih', 
li\  inisfi'pfi'soiitatinn  aiitl  T'lsi'lun'il,  lif 
oaiiuol  l>t>  lisd'iH'il  (t>  wlit'ii  lie  .i  m- 
I'laiiis  that  liv  tlu'  rraiuliilfnt  rivalry  of 
oiliiM's  liis  own  iVaiiiliilt'iil  pinlits  avo 
dimiiiislit'tl.  An  t'\tliisi\  c  |irivili'i;«'  ftir 
iloc'i>i\  iiiij  tlio  pulilit'  is  ti<M  owo  tliat  a 
(Murt   of   otjuity    will    aid    oy  saiiclitni. 

'Jl.  ^VIuM•c  iho  plaint ilVs  wimv  ontrapj- 
ml  in  inanufai'turiiig  aiiil  st'lliiii::  :>'<  :»>"li- 
oK'  i-alU'tl  till'  "  Halm  o(  a  Tlunisaiul 
Flt>\vors,"  .'iiiti  wliit'li  tlu'v  roj  ivsoiitcd 
a"  "tlio  Vi'iy  l>alm  aiitl  oxtrafl  of  ht'al- 
inji  Uli>sst>ms,"  l>u(  whitli  in  I'ai't  was 
ttnly  A  litiniil  soa]»,  an<l  st>ii<jlil  to  if 
strain  tho  litiViulants  iVom  ilt^iinj  tlif 
saint'  tliinjr.  7/(/(/,  that  tlio  nanio  was 
intonilotl  to  tkvoivo  tlu>  piiMio.  ami  that 
the  plaintiff  oouUl  nt>t  bt.>  pitXi'i'lt'ii  in 
snoh  a  j^rivili'go.     //)/<f.,  ;?l)0-;5i>i'. 

'2'2.  Tho  |irt>tootioi>  of  tra<lo marks 
original otl  with  tho  ooininon  law  doc- 
trijie  tliat  ho  who  soU  his  own  ware  as 
another's,  was  resptmsiblo  both  to  the 
party  whose  eustoni  he  hail  tVauilnlentlv 
obtained,  .inti  to  him  tVoni  whom  he 
drew  it  away  ;  ami  it  was  immaterial  in 
what  way  ho  carried  on  the  imposition, 
■whether  by  verbal    representations,  or 


HumihitiDiis  tif  mark"*,  iisftl  f<»  desiirum,, 
iht'  wall's,  or  otluT  itnfiiia  of  owwt^y 
ship.  Ciinnin  v.  /'''///,  I'ptoii  tm  Tiailc. 
Marks,  ll»;i,  MM.  Koiikhtsun,  .), ;  \. 
v.,    IHC.O. 

'2;i.  'I'wo  print'iples  are  aillicritl  iMin 
:»ll  east's  in  eipiity  an  Id  res( raining  (||,i 
nsi' tit"  traile  marks  ;  lirsl,  iIh-  init'iii  tn 
pass  i(ir  the  >;i)ot|s  of  the  ili'liinliiiit  ns 
lhi>s('  i)f  (he  plainlilV  must  i'\is(.  iliuuijli 
njiiiit's  may  Ik'  nsi'ij,  oipially  with  niliir 
th'xiees,  jis  iiislnunenlH  of  mich  iViiiiil. 
'Jtl.  that  (he  mere  ii^e  i>l"  tlu'  ii:itni> 
.'iltxie,  not  intli«'atiiiLj  any  ti\\ niMsliiii, 
t>ri}:;in,  tir  mamifafliin'  of  the  ;iiii,.|ii 
si)|t|,  anil  (hi'refiire  by  itself  nut  iiistni- 
nienlil  in  ri'piesi'iitinjr  it>  a  piuclia'^t'r 
that  the  fioiwls  bttiij^ht  by  him,  nt'  ijic 
'-iipp.'setl  pirate,  were  those  nf  (he  ,(i|||. 
plain.-ml,  aid  only  tlesi^iialiiiir  nr  i'xm;,'- 
irenitinu;  the  malerials,  kiiitl,  tpialilv, 
ileslineil  use,  or  elass  of  fiistoineis  of 
the  artit'lt's  sold,  eaniiot  bf  prutet'ii'tl, 
without  piMof  of  iV.iuduIeiit  inlfiit  in 
sneh  nse.     //»/«/.,  lO'J. 

•Jl.  \  foiirt  of  eipiity  will  nt)(  inicr. 
t't'ie  to  jiroteet  ii  par(y  in  the  use  ef 
ir.itK'-marks  whieh  are  employetl  tctlf 
eeive  (he  publit',  ami  t.,  It'ccixo  di,.,,, 
by  frautliilent  represonlatioiis  eonlaiiu'il 
in  the  labels  ami  ileviees  wliifli  mi' 
elainit'il  to  t'i>nstiliitt'  whtilly  t>r  in  |i;irl 
sutli  ir.itle-marks.  An  intent  tn  tlet'civo 
the  piiblio  18  not  favored.  //o/>h  v. 
Fi'tjm'<iii>,  10  How.  l*r.,  .^T1.-  l)"s- 
wt>KTii,  .T.;  N.  Y.,  18(50. 

-.''.  \Vhere  the  plaintid'inaiiulacliiriil 
a  skin  powtler  ealletl  "  Meeii  I'liii," 
whieh  was  roprosontoil  as  made  in  l.mi- 
don,  and  "patrtMiizetl  by  her  majesty  tho 
Cjneen,"  when  in  taet  it  was  maile  in 
New  York,  aiitl  the  tleleiitlaiit  niamiliu'- 
turod  a  like  artielo,  rejirt'senliiij;  it  us 
"patronized  by  her  maji'sty  the  Km- 
press,"  ILldy  that  tho  ot.mrt  wi.;:ld  m '. 


K<JIf|V,\T,KNTH. 


278 


IMMIUINK    AN   ill,    A><n    AI'I'I  li'AMUN    lir. 


irninl  nil  injiiii'liiin  ;  not  liccniiMp  of  nny 
n'^itiil  lor  iIk'  •loriMiiliinl,  Inil  not  In  us 
(t'lHi  ill  (li'Ot'ivin^  till'  |iiililic.  //</(/.,  571. 
<>i\.  CliaiHMM'y  will  nut  intiTli'ir  liy  iii- 
Juiii'lioii  ill  i|iirHli)iiiM  tif  li')i<lr  iimrk  lie 
twccii  the  vt'inlt'i'H  of  |iult'iil  iiii<<liriiirs, 
liciiig  (|iiii<'k  liH'<riclii(>H  ;  Hiirli  (|iii'><li))iiH 
li;iviii){  toil  liltli*  In  coiMiiii'iiil  iIm'Iii  hii 
cillirr  niili'.  //'<if/i  V.  \\'n)//if,  11  Wall, 
Jr.— (luiKH,  .1. ;  I'm. 


KCiinVALKNTS. 

Sec  III s< I  KoitM  ;  Invkntiovh,  C. 

I.  Tlic  Hiilistitiiti(»ti  or  !i|i|»rK'ali()n  of 
II  kiimvii   iiit'flianic'il   n|iiiva!t'iit,  as   tlii' 
I'lulli'SH  screw  ami  wln-cl  in  tint  )n'iijilir 
rvi'l'  !i  i|u:i(liaiit    to  Htct'rin^  vi'Hst'lH,  to 
wliit'li  it  lia<l  never  Iteloie  liceii  a|i|»Iit'i|, 
is  iidl  invention.      |t  \h  mily  tlie  a|i|irha 
lidii  oj'  an  (nilinary  |mmvit  Io  an  <n<lina 
ry  iiiir|"iHe,   ami   does    not    entitle    tlie 
|i:irty  Miakiii;.;  tlir  a|)|ilii'alion  to  ii  patent. 
('ih'/ii'iiiii'  V.  W'dfiTtinfii,  MS.  ( A|»|>.  ('as.) 
-Ckaniii,  t'li.  .1.     h.  ('.,  iH»4. 

'2.  'i'lie  Hiili'-i  iHiti<»n  ofoiie  ineeli:ini(;al 
|i(i\v(r  in  a  niaeliiiie,  as  the  wlii'el  ami 
iivic,  in  the  place  of  n  Hcrow,  to  ae- 
loinplish  the  .s;uiie  result,  i,s  a  mere  f'or- 
miil  iiltcraliori  ami  no  invention,  /{/tf/ir/i. 
ami-Stock  Far.  v.  W"nia;  I  I5l:ilelir., 
'.'Ts.— Nklhov,  J. ;  Ct.,  lH4<i. 

'.].  So  also  in  I'liimli.anrs  ni.'ichine  fur 
tiiriiiiii,'  irreujiilar  fornis,  it  wan  consi<l- 
I'lcil  iinin.'ilerial  whether  the  lateral 
iiiotiea  w;is  yivcn  to  tho  pattern  ami 
roujih  niateri.il,  (tr  to  the  cutter  ami 
tViclion  wheels,  the  parts  actini;  upon 
1  ;\i'li  other  relatively  the  Maine.  Ifn-l., 
•278. 

t.  A  mere  ehanijo  in  form  or  propor- 
vou,  or   a  substitution    of  mechanical 


ineaiiH  or  mptivalentfl,  in  any  one  or  all 
the  elemeiiiM  of  ii  comliiiiation,  proiluc- 
iii^  tim  Kiiine  reNillls,  iloeH  not  eoiiMtiliito 
a  Niilistiinliiil  <liircienee.  (inrlmin  V. 
Mixhi'y  I  Aiiier.  liaw  Jour.,  N.  S,,  ffl.'l. 

Si'itAoii;,  .1. ;  MiiHN.,  I  Hill, 

T).  Ily  eipiivaleiitH  in  inai'hinery  in 
meant  the  HuiiNlitnlion  of  merely  one 
inechanic.'il  power  for  another,  or  ono 
ohvioiis  iiml  eiistoniary  mode  for  another 
of  ellccliii)^  a  like  result.  Sttiith  V. 
lhtwnhiijy'S\^.     Woooiinuv,  .1.;  JNIasH., 

I  H.Ml. 

II.  If  two  inachineR  are  ((piiviihiits, 
with  slij^ht  changes,  the  one  may  lio 
ininle  to  do  what  can  he  performed  hy 
tlio  other.      I  hill. 

7.  If  the  same  general  plan  of  a  ma- 
chine he  taken  and  applied  for  the  sainu 
pMijiose,  although  llie  mode  rd' const  ruc- 
tion may  he  varied,  it  will  he  snhstnn- 
tially  the  Hame,  and  is  only  what  is  call- 
ed a  mcchanic.al  ecpiivalcnt,  or  anollicp 
way  (d"  doiii^  the  s;um!  thin^,  l»y  meaiiH 
of  niechanical  skill,  which,  however 
meritorious  and  iTedituhle,  in  not  an  in- 
vention. Mi'ditrtn'u'lc  v.  HiyniDitr,  2 
lllatchf,  'JUl,  '2»H.     Nki,kon,  .1. ;   N.  V'., 

K.  The  use  of  11  known  <'«piivalent  Ih 
an  infriiif^eirient ;  altlion<^h  the  patentee 
has  not  expressly  claimed  e<piiv;ilents, 
he  is  understood  to  emhr.'ice  them,  an<l 
ill  contemplation  of  law  does  enihraco 
them,  without  .any  expresH  imntion, 
Kifdin  v.  F'lrr,  i  Curt.,  263.— Ctinis, 
.1.  ;    M.iss.,  1852. 

1).  IJut  the  patentee  in  not  ohli;^e<l  to 
emhr.acu  ccpiivalcnts  in  hlH  (rlaim.  Ho 
may,  if  he  cboow,  confine  himself  to 
the  sj>ecifi(!  iiifjredients  or  things,  aiuf 
oxjircssly  exclude  all  others,  or  expres-,- 
ly  cxcludo  some  or  one  other.  If  lie 
does  80,  tho  use  of  the  thing  disclaimed 
is  no  infringement.     Ihid..,  203, 


? 


"i^i 


•1  ' 


^i 


■««*J'.'I5S 


'^i,^, 


^^5^ 


^^W» 


VvMuM^ 


276 


KgUIVAIACNTS. 


UUCTHINR   AH  TO,    ANU   AI'I'UCATION   Of. 


fC 


u> 


'  ^'IT'*';    ^"^ 


ki... /Iti 


"-^    ■       r(^ 


10.  Tlic  (locti'ino  of  till)  UNO  of  Jiio- 
«'li:uiU-al  i><|uiviili>iitH  is  not  contiiioil  in 
tlinsc  I'lciiu'iitK  wli'u-h  iUf  hlriouly  huiIi 
ill  tlu'  Hiii'iu'c  of  iiH'j'liaiiics.  Thort' mo 
(lilU'ri'iit  Wfll-kiiowii  «Uvi(H«*,  niiy  oiio 
o**  wliich  may  bo  iKlaptcil  to  cfffct  a 
givt'ii  ri'siilt,  aci'ordiiii;  to  tlio  jij(l;;ni«iil 
of  (lie  coiisfnictor.  Tlic  mcit'  siiltsiitii- 
lioii  of  one  of  flu's*'  for  anotluT  doi"* 
not  Ix'loDg  to  the  Bubjoct  of  invoiitioii, 
but  of  construction.  Fosfir  v.  Mnoir, 
1  Curt,,  '21)1.— Cruris,  .1.;  Mass.,  lS.5l>. 

1  I.  A  macliine,  const iiictod  lo  accom- 
plish a  particular  object  or  purpose,  may 
often  be  materially  «'han<^ctl  from  its 
on<;inal  construction,  .'ind  yet  work  very 
\v«'ll.  There  are  mechanical  e(|uivalents 
by  the  use  of  which  the  whole  features 
may  be  chanfjed,  and  u  ujreat  departure 
made  from  the  app.'irent  principle  and 
combination  of  the  machin",  and  yet  it 
may  operate  well,  lihim-luird  v.  Jiara, 
$  r.latchf.,  419,  420.— Nki.son,  J.;  Ct., 

\2.  The  pubstitutioti  of  a  mccluuiical 
equivalent  i.s  not  a  subst.antiai  cliange. 
There  are  many  (b'vici's  in  construction 
that  can  bo  made  by  a  skilful  mechanic, 
ditVering  very  mu(;h  in  appearance,  btit 
which  in  the  eye  of  the  patent  law  are 
regarded  as  identicil.  2\ith((m  v.  Le 
Uoy,  2  iJlatchf.,  480.— Nelson,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1852. 

i:i.  Any  machine  which  has  been  con- 
structed may  bo  very  m.aterially  chang- 
ed in  its  mechanical  arrangement  and 
Construction,  and  yet  it  nuiy  accomj)lish 
the  object  and  purpo.sc  for  wliich  it  was 
designed.     Ibid.,  487. 

14.  When  a  power  is  necessary  for 
working  a  machine,  the  inventor  or  pro- 
jjrietor  has  a  right  to  make  his  selection 
of  any  description  of  power  known  to 
the  mechanic  arts.  It  is  of  no  impor- 
tance whether  such    power    ia  hand, 


Ml«>am,  liorMo  power,  electricity,  or  any 
other  power.  The  ttubHtitution  aiul  ustt 
of  one  power,  as  eh'clricily,  in  the  plact.> 
of  another,  as  hand  power,  does  nut 
nuiko  the  machine  ditferent,  or  previni 
its  infringing  on  another.  The  one  u 
iuit  an  eipiivalent  of  the  other.  <'ri- 
hitri',  V.  AYorfoti,  MS. — Nki.kon,  J.;  N, 
Y.,  lHr,;t. 

15.  The(hictrinoof  .nechanic.'il  etpiiv- 
aleiits  depends  upon  the  truth  thai  tlic 
idt'iitlty  i>/' jntr/xint;  and  not  of  form  m' 
nanu',  is  the  true  criterion  of  judging  dj' 
the  similarity  or  ilissimilarity  of  two 
pieces  of  mechanism.  YtdrKl  i/  v. 
lii'oiiktiilil,  MS.  (Apj).  Cas.) — .M(>k.«,i:i.i,, 
J.;  ])'.  ('.,  1s.->:j. 

10.  Where  two  devices  aro  eap;ililo 
e.aeh  of  doing  the  same  thing,  and  in 
substantially  the  same  WMy,  they  must 
be  ecpiivalents  of  each  otlu-r,  ami 
when  Olio  has  been  usetl,  the  other  is 
not  patentable.  Jioiitjhton,  Ex  ptirk, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoKSKij,,  J.;  D.C., 
1854. 

17.  Whether  one  tiling  is  a  mci'liaii 
ic:d  equivalent  for  anotlmr,  is  an  iiifci- 
ence  to  be  drawn  from  all  the  eirciini- 
staiices  of  the  ease,  by  aHonding  to  the 
consider.ition  whether  If/e  c/»ritrivancu.s 
used  by  the  one  party  aro  urn  il  for  the 
naniepurpoHf,  performs  the  siimn  i/ii/iri, 
or  is  applicable  to  the  snmc!  object  as 
the  contrivaiico  tised  by  the  other  party 

nui. 

18.  The  phrase  "or  the  equivalent 
therefor,"  in  macliinery,  extends  to  ini- 
jtrovements  substanti.illy  the  same  us 
those  described,  involving  the  same 
principle,  and  emljracing  all  alterations 
merely  colorable,  but  does  not  inchule  a 
claim  to  any  other  invention,  equivalent, 
or  equal  to  the  one  described.  This 
would  be  to  include  all  modifications  or 
iniproveuienta  in  the  machine,    McCur- 


KQIIIVALEN1>. 


277 


DOOTRIMI  AS  TO,   AND  APFMOATtOR  Of. 


Ill 


ii'k  V.  AfunHi/,  (i  IMcLcun,  ftrt?.— Mr- 


Lkav,  J. ;  III.,  1885. 

1J>.  Tlif  Hiihsiilulion  <>r  one  iin clinii- 
ir:il  i><|iiival<  lit  :im  ii  rml  in  |>lac<>  of  an 
i>iiilli"«H  fliiiin,  to  ai>(!oiii|tlisli  ii  like  |iiir 


(isi!  and  w  illi  likf  cftVrt,  in  not  the  Miilt- 


jcct  of  a  patent.    S/min  v.  (Jmiififr,  MS, 
(App.  Cas.)— .MoKHi:i,i,,  J,;  \).V.,  Ih: 


material  variations  or  rraiidiileiit  i*v;i- 
Nioiis.  That  is  !i  Kiiit^taiiti.'il  identity 
wliicli  eoinprelieiids  the  application  of 
the  prhii'lpfi'  n['  [\w  invention.  If  a 
party  jidopm  a  dilVerent  iiiodtf  of  earry- 
iiiji;  the  mnno  prineiplu  intd  cflui't,  and 
the  prineiph'  adniits  of  ii  variety  of 
foniiH,  there  is  mi  identity  «tf  principlp, 
20.  Hy  an  ahiine  of  this  (h>elrine  of    thoii;,'h  nut  ,'in  ideiility  of  mode.     l*<i'J»'. 


inoclianieul  twpiivaleiitH,  experts  eaii  di' 
nioiistrate  every  inaehiiie  whieh  elf.-ets 
a  certain  piirpos(>  to  l»e  Hulistantiaiiy  t!ie 
Kimo  with  every  other  wliicli  etVi-cts  the 
Hiiiiie  purpose.  SickU'a  v.  Glnu,  Miiniif, 
6V).,  MS.— (iuiKit,  J. ;  N.  J.,  IH-id. 

21.  If  the  pat«'nt«'e  lie  an  ori;x>"!'l  '"■ 
veiitor  of  a  machine  or  tiling,  he  has 
till'  riiiht  to  treat  as  infringers  all  who 
make  a  like  invention  operaliii<;  on  the 
wune  principles,  and  p(M-forminjjj  the 
^aiiie  functions  hy  anaIoL;ous  means  or 
(iiuivalcnt  ciMnhinnlions,  oven  thoti;^h 
the  infrin<j;ing  machiiio  mny  l»o  lUl  ini- 
pruveinent  on  the  original  and  palenleij 
(die.  McCormirh'  \.  T(ff''<>ff, '20  How., 
10").— (tiuki{,  J. ;  Slip.  Ct.,  lH."i7. 

22.  lint  if  his  invention  lie  but  an 
iiuproveniont  on  a  known  machine,  he 
{•aiiiiot  treat  another  as  an  infringer  who 
lias  improved  the  original  iiiaehiiie  l»y 
using  a  dilVerent  form  or  comhiiiation 
lierforniing  the  same  function.  The  in- 
ventor of  a  iirst  iinproveinent  cannot  in- 
voke the  doctrine  of  mechanical  ecpiiv- 
nlunts  to  suppress  all  other  improve- 
ments which  are  not  mere  colorable 
invasions.     Ibid.,  405. 

2.3.  Tlie  use,  in  a  combin.ation,  of  one 
C((ftivalent  for  another,  does  not  render 
it  new  in  the  sense  of  the  patent  laws, 
liiif  8ome  new  mode  of  operation  must 
he  introduced.  Forhnsh  v.  Goo/r,  10 
Mo.  Law  Itep.,  G04. — Cuirris,  J. ;  Mass., 
1857. 

2i    Substantial  identity  excludes  im- 


V.  /'Irn/y   MS. — Wir.KiNs,   J.  ;    .Mich. 
1H57. 

'!!>.  The  same  pnnclple  may  be  used 
without  an  exact  identity,  bv  inechan- 


y 


e(piivalents  or  eontriv  iiices,  an« 


I  if 


so  there  wt)uhl  be  a  Kiibstantial  identity, 
or  such  an  arrangement  of  mechnnisni 
which  product's  the  sanu;  service,  or 
produces  the  sanus  effect  in  the  saiiH' 
way,  or  Hubstaiitially  in  the  H.anio  way. 
ffiid. 

20.  If  a  change  introduced  constitute 
a  mechanical  e(piivalent  in  reference  to 
the  means  used  by  another,  and  besideM 
being  such  iiii  i-'piivalent  accomplishes 
some  other  advantages  beyond  the  ef- 
fect or  purpose  a(!complish(>(l  by  such 
puteiilee,  Htlch  fiuilier  advantagu  may 
make  it  a  patentable  subject,  or  an  im- 
provement upon  the  former  invention. 
/fi/ifxird,  /''je p(ir(i\  jSIH.  (App.  Cas.)— 
MousKix,  .1. ;  1).  C,  1857. 

27.  The  substantial  equiv.alent  o '  a 
thing  is  the  same  as  the  thing  itself,  so 
that  if  two  machines  do  the  same  work 
in  substantially  the  same  way,  and  .ac- 
complish substantially  the  same  result, 
they  are  the  same  ;  and  so  if  parts  of  the 
two  m.achines  do  the  s.ame  work,  in  sub- 
Htantially  the  same  way,  and  accomplish 
substantially  the  same  result,  those  parts 
are  the  same,  .although  they  may  differ 
ill  form  or  sh.aiie  ;  but  in  both  cases,  if 
the  two  things  perform  different  work, 
or  in  a  w.ay  substanti.ally  different,  or  do' 
not  accomplish  substantially  the  same 


^1 


^'^i 


'»*'V 


i  i  1  ii i 


27fl 


KBTOl'l'EL. 


APTMCATION  Or  MtCTIIIXI  or,   IN   I'ATINT  ('A»tm, 


*^h,J^,. 


1'%,. 


rc«iiili,  llicii  fhi'v  an' »iil»Htantiiilly  tllrtVr- 
<Mil.  ('<i/ioon  V,  yi,V/<«/,  .MS. — ('l,lKl''i>iU>, 
J.;  Ml'.,  1850. 

2^.  Sli),'lit  (lin»'r«'no<'N  in  c1fi?r»»o  <'nii- 
iu»t  lie  ri'gardi'tl  an  <»l'  wt'i^'lit  in  .lutiT- 
iiiinin};  qiii'Mtions  of  HiiIiMlaiitial  .<<iniili(r- 
ity, <>i'  Hul)MtanliaI  ilinrn-upt'.  ()n(!  may 
1m!  loii^'i'  </r  Klioitcr,  wiirk  iM'lttT  or 
w'oix',  afi<l  yt't  tlio  two  !•»•  siilistanfially 
till'  waiiu' ;  whrtlior  tlif  (lirtorciict'  in  ih>- 
Pfrec  conHtituti's  a  sultNtantial  diftiTonct' 
Ih  a  qiU'Htion  tor  the  Jury.  Mcro  dillrr- 
eiicc  in  (h'urcn  is,  however,  entitled  to 
bill  litlle  weij;llf.      ff't'tf. 

20.  Ttio  turm  oiiuivaient  has  two 
nieaiiinj^s.  The  one  rt'hitoH  to  the  re- 
Biiltx  that  ai'  iirodiieed,  and  the  other 
to  tiie  incrhaiiisni  hy  wl.ich  tlioso  re- 
sults are  jirodiiceil.  Jo/uisot,  \,  Jionf, 
3IS.  — Si'KAdi  K,  J. ;   Mass.,  1858. 

Uo.  Two  thiiij^s  in.iy  he  e(|iiiv!ilent  as 
])rodiieiiig  tlie  saiiu)  re-iilts,  when  they 
are  not  the  same  meehanical  means. 
MechanicftI  equivalents  are  Ppoken  of 
as  difl'ereiit  from  equivalents  thai  mere- 
ly |iii,dil('e  the  s.liiu'  resiiIlH.      lf>i(f. 

31.  A  mecli-mieal  e(|uivalent,  as  gen- 
erally understc  'd  is  where  the  one  may 
be  adopted  instead  of  the  other,  l»y  u 
])erson  skilled  in  the  art,  from  his  knowl- 
odj^e  of  tin  art,  as  jirodiiciii!^  a  pressure 
in  a  maehino  by  u  spring,  or  by  u  weight. 

.'12.  But  there  may  bo  eqiiiv.alents  to 
produce  the  same  rcsult.s,  each  of  which 
is  an  independent  matter  of  invention, 
and  in  that  sense  they  are  not  mecluui- 
ical  equivalents,  as  the  invention  and 
use  of  a  pump  to  raise  water  instead 
of  drawing  the  water  by  a  rope  and 
I^'ail.     Ibid. 

33.  However  the  appearance  of  a 
thing  may  be  altered,  if  the  as{)ect,  the 
form,  the  appearances  presented,  are 
changed  only  by  the  use  of  mechanical 


oquivnleiits,  tlu'H  it  JH  subHtuiitially  th|) 
mune  thing.     IftitL 

.14.  And,  if  iin  invention  is  a  Huhitti. 
tiition  for  the  original  invention,  then  it 
is  not  Hiibstantially  the  name.     //>;</. 

aa.  Whetlier  two  things  an,  or  an> 
not  e(|iii\alent  is  matter  of  Kkill  and 
Honnd  judgment  (for  the  deterniiiiatii.ii 
of  the  ortlce),  whitdi  can  in  no  w.iy  he 
limited,  or  restrained  by  the  :ldlni>^silln't 
i»r  (b'ui.'ilK  of  parties.  Jlntrliinson  v. 
M<y,r»,  MS.  (App.  Can.)— .Mkuuk  k, 
J.;  I).  C,  1801. 


KSTOlTia.. 

1.  An  offer  to  take  a  license  from  .) 
patentee  to  uho  hi.s  invention  does  nut 
take  away  the  right  of  the  jjerson  mak- 
ing such  offer  to  deny  th.at  the  patentee 
was  the  original  inventor,  J'Jiyms  v. 
J'Aitan,  Pet.  C.  C,  347. — Wa81ii.\uto«, 
J.;  Pa.,  1810. 

2.  A  grant  of  a  subsequent  patent  for 
an  invention  is  an  est..ppel  to  the  p.i  en- 
tec  to  set  up  any  prior  :,'rant  for  tho 
yame  invention,  whicdi  in  inconsistent 
with  the  terms  of  the  List  grant.  Bar- 
r>t(  v.  Ilfdl,  1  Mas.  473. — Stouy,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1818. 

3.  l(  several  patents  are  taken  out 
by  several  patentees  for  a  several  inven- 
tion, and  the  same  patentees  afterward 
take  out  a  joint  j)atent  for  the  same  as 
a  joint  invention,  the  parties  are  not  al> 
solutely  estopped  by  tlu  former  patents 
from  asserting  the  invention  to  be  joint, 
but  the  former  patents  are  very  strong 
evidence  again.st  the  joint  invention. 
Ibid.,  474. 

4.  An  inventor  can  h-ave  but  a  single 
valid  patent  for  his  invention.  The  lirst 
he  obtains,  while  it  remains  um-epealed, 
is  an  estoppel  to  any  future  patent  for 


*-iiv, 


POl'PEL. 


270 


APFMCATmir  or  pocrtdiii  or,  in  fathmt  oai 


tlu»  oiiino  hivi-'iitloii.     OiTlomn  V.  Amo»- 
fixfi/ X'n'l  FiK'.,  2  Ma   ,  .')l.-— Story,  T.; 

5.  I ?i  nil*  action  of  (H»vi>nniif  brnkt-n, 
till' tloi'liirtttloii  ftviMTiMl  tlint  th<  piirtit-M 
wi-w  Joint  Invtin'TH  of  a  ui'MihiiH',  ninl 
tliiit  [\\*'y  novoimiitt'tl  to  co-oporiito  to 
niHMin"  tlu-  l»«'n»'fit  thorc'if,  uiul  tliat  oiw 
(ilii'uld  liftvo  He/Mu-t'(l  to  liim  rortiiui 
^latfs,  mill  Hiy  oIIut  cortain  oIIut  wtatos, 
mill  iliut  luitlitM"  slumlfl  HHi'  or  x-ll  die 
iiiiiiliiiH'  ill  till'  toif'iforit'H  of  tlii>  wilii'r; 
(111(1  till  I!  iilU'j;u«l  povcnniit  brokf*,  Jfi'fd, 
llijit  llu'  ilcfi'inlaiif  ill  such  action  c-ouM 
lint  |)l<'!ii|  lliiil.  rnitlicr  parfy  was  flu<  iii- 
vintiif,  or  that  wopurate  patLiits  li:nl 
lii'i'ii  i-'>iipi|  to  each.  Steni'HM  v.  /inr 
j;ff.  1  I'ick.,  44.'J,  447.— WiMiK,  J.; 
.Muss.,  IH'JM. 

0.  Anil  after  havinir  ohtaiiu-il  a  joint 
jititi'iit.  ni'itluT  party  coulil  sot  up  tin- 
|):i(ir  separate  patents;  and  that  neither 
was  estopped  hy  llie  separate  patents 
fruin  iissertiiij^  that  the  invention  was 
joint.     Ibid.,  447. 

7.  An  assit^nnient  of  nn  invention 
ht'foie  a  [)atent  is  obtained  is  a  good 
tr.uisfor  of  the  ripht  of  the  patentee 
wlu'M  lie  obtains  ;i  patent,  an-l  he  would 
bo  estopped  from  settinp;  up  any  adve^^e 
title.  IkrhcH  v.  Adams,  4  Mas.,  15. — 
iSruKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1825. 

8.  Whether  a  disclaimer  of  all  title 
uiiiler  a  former  patent,  as  to  the  parts 
clftiiiied  in  a  subsequent  patent,  would 
not  openite  as  an  cHtoppel  to  any  renie- 
ily  whiili  might  be  prosecuted  for  a  vio- 
lution  of  such  former  patent ;  queri/. 
IVeaawcll  v.  JJladen,  4  Wash.,  700. — 
Wasuixiton,  J.;  Pa.,  1827. 

9.  A  (iisolaimcr,  at  the  close  of  a  spec- 
ification, estops  the  patentee  from  set- 
tiiii^  up  any  privilege  lo  the  part  dis- 
claimed. Whitney  v.  Kntmett,  llald. 
Hep.,  :n.']. — Bai.dwix,  J.;  ]*a.,  isai. 


10.  Tf  a  ilefeiidant,  in  an  action  ft* 
«pe«'tinjjf  a  patent,  him  iidverti<*ed  tho 
thing  p.'iteiited,  nml  vliieh  had  been  noM 
by  him  a^  a  UMefiil  invention,  and  one 
that  lias  HiiperMeded  otherH,  he  will  not, 
in  any  aetioii  against  jiim,  be  allowed  to 
deny  its  mility.  Stnnhy  v.  Whipide, 
'1  MeL.ian,  ,Jl». — McLkan,  .1.;  Oldo, 
lH:if>. 

1 1 .  Wlu  .  a  pnrty  claims  to  establish 
his  rights  rm  'ly  by  un  estoppel,  tli<'  in- 
>triiment  )»y  which  the  •  loppel  is  hujh 
ported  should  l)e  precise,  elear,  n»>d  tui- 
eipiivocal,  and  not  dependi\ig  on  ■!  'ubt- 
fill  inferenee.  Ilii'h  \.  JIot<'/,/c,sn,  10 
Conn.,    418. —  Wii.i.iAMs,  Ci,.  J.;    Ot., 

' 1844. 

12.  'Hie  taking  of  a  license,  to  une  ft 
patent-right  for  a  «iine,  cannot  bir  con- 
sidered as  an  aeknowledgmi  iit  of  a 
right  in  the  licenser  iH'yond  the  termi- 
nation of  such  ]i''ense.     Ihid.,  418. 

13.  Where  it  was  stipulated  between 
A  !ind  15,  that  I'  should  be  cut. (led  to 
us(!  A's  patent  tioee  days  in  a  week  un- 
til a  given  date,  and  that  A  wo  ild  not 
prosecute  any  action  .against  11  for  any 
former  violation,  provided  li  should  not 
use  such  patent  after  the  speeilied  date, 
or  by  .any  other  machine  iufringe  .Va 
right,  Ifdd,  tliat  such  proviso,  introduc- 
ed by  the  plaintirt",  and  not  placing  any 
personal  obligation  on  the  defendant, 
did  not  operate  as  an  estoppel  ag.'un:^t 
15  to  prevent  him  showing  the  truth  in 
reg.ard  to  tho  validity  of  the  right  of  A. 
Ibid.,  4li),  420. 

14.  The  bringing  of  an  action  for  ar- 
rears duo  on  a  license  to  use  a  patent  is 
no  waiver  of  a  right  to  enforce  a  forfeit- 
ure of  such  license  for  the  non-payment 
of  the  price  agreed  for  such  use.  Arm- 
at)  my  s.Ilanlenbeck,  3  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs., 
45.— IJiCTTS,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1844. 

15.  Ibit  the  confession  of  a  judgment 


W4 


,-t. 


^'^■^Wi 


"M^ 


>./, 


/I  Hi,  , 


•^^vr 


_rHirt^4^aBcatt^«i 


m. 


«-■  ■1,ti"%^^^ 


'M.  i 


iix. 


■■"  %:. 


-~^i\ 


w  ln#'i 


■itv 


mi 
u 


WW^Brf 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


111 


1.0 


'.I 


11.25 


us 

Itt 


110 


1 2.5 
12-2 

20 


M.  1116 


72 


A> 


Hiotogr^hic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


^''     ^v.     '%" 


33  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  MS80 

(716)  972-4503 


IPWP""P 


'^■^.S^:-  ' 


.'HO 


ESTOrrKT.. 


IC^.W 


i 


f 


i*a 


Al'i'I  ICVTION   OK    DOCTUIN'E  Of,    IV   I'ATl'.NT  CASKS. 


in  .1  suit  broiii^lit  to  recover  such  arrciirs 
is  an  adnission  of  sucli  j)ayniciils  hcint,' | 
in  arrcar,  and  the  tlcfcndant  will  not  af- 
terward be  alK)\ved  to  go  hdiind  hucIi 
judi;niciit,  and  jir'jvc  that  there  was  no 
dci'auit  in  payment.     //><(/.,  45. 

1(5.  If  u  licensee  or  j^rantee  acknowl- 
edifc,  nn<ler  liis  hand  and  seal,  the  valid- 
ity of  the  {grantor's  title;  (jwry,  Is  he 
nut  esto]  |>eil  from  denying  it  ';  lin^oks 
Y.Sfoilii/,  :t  MiLean,  5'J(3. — M<Iii:AX,  J.; 
Ohio,  IS4."). 

17.  If  .a  patentee  used  certain  words 
in  his  first  specification,  and  aiterwanl 
v.ithdraw  tlie.n  in  his  aiucndcd  specili- 
cation  in  a  reissued  patent,  he  is  iu)t 
estopped  by  the  words  which  have  been 
yo  withdrawn  and  cancelled.  Allen  v. 
Jilitnt,  2  Wood.  &  JMin.,  14:3,  144.— 
WooDiiiuv,  J. ;  Mass.,  lH4(j. 

18.  K.  purcliased  an  interest  in  a  \n\i- 
ent,  and  agreed  with  the  patentee,  npon 
certain  conditions,  to  give  his  ]>ersonal 
attention  to  manufacturing  of  machines 
under  the  patent ;  afterward  lie  made 
a  second  agreement  with  the  patentee, 
whereby  he,  K.,  agreed  to  discontiime 
such  manufacture,  aid  the  patentee  was 
to  carry  it  on,  rendering  to  K.  a  certain 
proportion  of  the  prolits;  Held,  that  by 
virtue  of  such  agreements  K.  was  estop- 
ped, in  an  action  brought  ag.ainst  him 
by  tlie  patentee  for  continuing  such 
manufacture,  and  for  an  account,  from 
setting  up  the  defence  that  such  paten- 
tee "was  not  the  original  and  first  inven- 
tor of  the  thing  patented.  Park'hurst 
V.  Kinsman,  1  Blatdif.,  400,  495.— 
Nklsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1849.  [Affirmed, 
post  21.] 

19.  Declarations  on  the  part  of  anin- 
A'cntor,  that  he  did  not  intend  to  take 
out  0  patent,  but  to  let  the  public  have 
his  invention,  would  estop  such  party, 
or  any  one  holding  imder  him,  from  as- 


serting his  right,  as  by  action  of  in- 
fringemcnt,  against  a  person  acting  on 
the  faith  of  such  declarations,  which  aro 
etpiivalcnt  to  a  license,  l^ltta  v.  //(///, 
ii  IJIatchf,  237,  238.— Nklso.n,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1H51. 

20.  I),  having,  during  the  inndcncy 
of  certain  action-  against  him,  iuoiight 
by  Ct.  for  the  infringement  of  (J.'s  pat- 
ents, mad')  a  settlement  with  ('.,  and 
having  secured  tho*  exclusive  right  to  use 
said  (l.'s  patents,  and  also  consentiiii'' 
that  a  judgment  should  be  taken  against 
him  in  one  of  such  suits;  Jldtl,  that  I). 
had  thereby  admitted  the  vulldity  of 
( it. 's  patents,  and  that  he  was  estopped 
from  denying  their  validity  in  any  siil)- 
se(pient  suit  that  might  be  brought 
against  him  by  G.  Goodyciir  v.  Dny^ 
MS. — DioKKKsox,  Guiurw,  JJ. ;  N.  J., 
1852. 

21.  An  agreement  made  with  a  i)at- 
enUe  to  manufacture  his  i)atented  ma- 
chines upon  certain  conditions,  and  mak- 
ing and  selling  such  machines  under  the 
patentee's  title,  astopa  such  party,  in  an 
action  for  an  account  brought  by  the  pat- 
entee, from  alleging  the  invalidity  of  the 
patent.  Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst,  IS 
How.,  293. — Curtis,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1855. 

22.  II.  purchased  of  B.  the  right  to 
construct  and  use  an  alleged  patented 
machine,  and  covenanted  "  to  receive 
the  said  right  as  good  and  available  to 
all  intents  and  purposes,  and  that  the 
same  and  the  transfer  shall  not  be  liable 
to  any  objections  for  any  supposed  de- 
fect in,  or  objection  to,  the  said  letters 
patent,  if  such  supposed  defect  or  ob- 
jection should  at  anytime  arise."  Held, 
that  the  vendee  in  an  action  for  the 
price,  was  estopped  from  alleging  the 
invalidity  of  the  patent.  Ileilner  v. 
Battiuy  27  Penn.,  517,  520,  524.— 
WooDWAKD,  J.;  Pa.,  1856. 


;*^»% 


EVIDENCE,  A. 


281 


IlIMUIKV  OP   PUOOr,    ox   WHOM    UKS. 


•2;\.  And  siu'h  estoppel  applies  as  well 
to  the  olyeetioii  that  the  reissued  patent 
\v;i8  not  for  (lie  same  hivenlioii  as  tlie 
(iriLtiiiiil,  as  to  tliat  ajfuiiist  llu'  originality 
uf  tlie  invention.     J/thf.,  5*24. 

24.  An  assignpient  of  an  interest  in 
a]iiiteiit  prechujcs  the  assignor  from  as- 
serting that  what  he  sold  was  useless. 
T/i'inMS  V.  Qitiiitdrd,  5  Duer,  82. — 
DiKU,.!.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

25.  Where  the  defendant  purchased 
an  interest  in  a  patent,  and  gave  his 
note  for  the  agreed  price,  and  at\erward 
assigned  his  interest  in  tlic  invention 
■iiul  patent,  and  sucli  assignment  recited 
llie  assigmiient  to  himself  of  the  pat- 
ent-right, and  purported  to  transfev  it 
as  it  was  transferred  to  him,  Jfeld,  in 
!iii  action  on  sucili  note,  against  the  de- 
fendant, that  ho  could  not  set  up  that 
tiic  invention  was  of  no  value,  hut  that 
he  was  estopped  by  his  own  assignment 
from  qu-^stioning  the  patent  and  inven- 
tion.    Jfrid.,  82. 

20.  There  is  nothing  to  estop  the  gov- 
eniinent  of  the  United  States  from 
showing  a  patent,  which  it  had  grar.ted, 
to  have  been  a  nullity  ab  initio,  owing 
to  the  non-existence  of  the  condition 
]ircccdent  of  novelty  of  the  invention. 
A7«y  v.  United  /States,  10  Mo.  Law. 
Kep.,  031.     (Ct.  Claims,  1857.) 

27.  Where  admissions  are  made  by  a 
party  to  induce  others  to  act  upon  them, 
such  admissions  do  not  operate  merely 
as  presumptive  evidence  of  the  actual 
truth  of  the  facts,  which  must  give  way 
to  jtositive  proof  of  the  contrary,  but 
preclude  or  estop  the  party,  on  grounds 
of  policy.  Carroll  v.  Gambrill,  MS. 
(App.Cas.)— MoRSELL,  J.;  I).  C,  1853. 

28.  If  the  defendants  have  used  the 
plaintiff's  invention,  or  something  sub- 
stantially like  it,  they  are  estopped  from 
denying  its  utility,  for  use  implies  utili- 


ty, and  it  is  fair  to  presume  that  they 
would  not  use  it  if  they  thought  il  of 
no  utility,      ('olmi'tii  v. /<<c«or,  MS. — j 
Lkavht,  J.;  Ohio,  1850. 

29.  The  mere  takijig  a  license  does 
not  estop  the  licensee  tlenying  the  v.a- 
lidily  of  a  patent.  3fi't''/ii'll  v.  Jiart'liy, 
MS.— SiiiPMAN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  ISOO. 

30.  In  order  to  establish  a  right  by 
estoppel,  the  instrument  in  support  of 
tlie  estoppel  must  be  precise  and  cer- 
tain, and  must  cover  a  range  as  wide  as 
th(!  elfect  sought  to  bo  given  to  it. 
Ibid 

31.  The  use  by  a  defendant  of  the 
])laintiirs  invention,  or  something  sid)- 
stantially  like  it,  estops  him  denying  the 
utility  of  siU'h  invention;  the  use  of  the 
thing  patent(!d,  implies  that  the  jiarty 
thought  it  of  some  utility.  Vance  v, 
Campbell,  SIS. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1860. 

32.  The  mere  fact  that  a  party  is  a 
witness  to  the  application  of  another 
for  a  patent  for  a  particular  invention, 
docs  not  estop  such  party  from  after- 
Avr.rd  claiming  to  be  himself  the  origin- 
al inventor  of  such  invention.  Herring 
V.  Leffin(jwell,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Dun- 
lop,  J. ;  D.  C,  1861. 

33.  It  is  competent  for  such  party  to 
show  that  ho  .was  deceived  as  to  the 
character  of  the  paper  he  was  witness- 
ing, and  if  hij^  sign.'iturc  Avas  obtained 
by  misrepresentation,  it  will  be  treated 
as  if  it  had  never  been  made.     Ibid. 


EVIDENCE  IN  PATENT  CASES. 


A.    Burden  or  Proof,  ON  WHOM  Lies.  ..  282 
D.    Presumptions 283 


^i 


h 


''•*'w.wUuvU»(li^ 


F.VIDENC'K,  A. 


ikr.'^^ 


n 


..-« -"*^ 
^.::-' 


i<:r 


m 


^.■, 


*!>,» 


I'**^..  ^ 


"<»liK 


UL'UDKN'   OK  I'KOOr,    OK    WIlOU    I.IK.S. 


C      Dlll'ohlTK  XH 

1.  /V  /j«'»(C  f.Mj',  und/ir  Arts  of  Con- 

[tresn 2Hr> 

2.  Vmli-r  Rukof  Court  or  Cinumia- 

sioii 'JH7 

3.  Und,-r  links  of  the  Patent   Office.   'J«8 

II.       DkCI.AUAIKiS.S  AND  AC'TH  OF    rAUTlKH, 

AND   'rilllll)    I'KUHONS 'J!)(> 

I'J.       I'AItdl,,  AND  HK0O!»nAUY  KVIKEXCK.  .  .  .     ^'.CJ 

!•'.  I'lUILlc;  UKfOKDS  AND  I'Ai'Kim;  Vku- 
DICT 2'M 

ii,       WlTNKSHKS 

1.  Ctniijii  Iniry  ami   Credit  of 

<>.  Of  WltiH'Hs.nKi'iicnill.v     .   295 

o.  of  Asji).'niir  of  Ilivi'iitloli  ill  llltrrlV- 
niuvs -08 

2.  Kidjiiiuatiiin   and  liiipiarlinu'tit 

of 'JOH 

3.  Parties,  Kjtamination  of IIOO 

n.       Rri.KH      S   TO   PAimCUI-AH  KaOTS  AND 


ISSL'KS 


1.  Ahaudonment.  . .     300 

2.  Fniudiilfnt  IntciU :!0'.> 

3.  Iiifrin'jenicnt 302 

4.  Invention,  and    Orijiualiiy  and 

Priority   of 304 

0.  Invention,  Novelty,  and  Utility  of  307 


A.    Burden    op    Prook,    on   v.iiom 

LIES. 

1.  Ill  a  proceeding  under  ^10  of  the 
act  of  1793,  the  burdon  of  proof  lies 
upon  the  ])laiiitiff  to  sliow  that  the  pat- 
ent Avas  ohtaii'c'd  siirrej)titiously,  or  up- 
on false  suggestions.  Stearns  v.  Jiar- 
rett,  1  Mas.,  175. — Sto^y,  J.;  Mass., 
1816. 

2.  In  a  patent  ease,  the  0)ii(s  jy^ohandl 
Is  on  the  defendant  toshowtliat  tliepro- 
)HM' notice  has  been  given  under  the  stat- 
ute to  enable  him  to  examine  witnesses  to 
show  that  the  invention  of  the  plain- 
tiff had  been  known  or  used  before  his 
invention ;  and  if  tlie  notice  is  not  giv- 
en, such  evidence  cannot  be  received. 
Phil.  <£•  IVcu.  R.  11.  v.  Stimjison,  14 
l*et.,  459.— Story,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 


;i.  Though  doubt  and  unccrfaintj  nrt> 
fatal  to  a  motion  to  grant  an  injnnctidti 
they  are  good  cause'  forconliniiing  it  ;,|| 
a  nuitiou  to  dissolve ;  the  burden  of 
proof  being  on  tlie  plaintilf  in  one  oaso 
and  on  tlii^  defendant  in  tlie  tiiliir. 
C'oojter  V.  J/<it(/i('irn,  8  Law  Ifep.,  41g, 
—Baldwin,  J. ;  Pii.,  1842. 

4.  Where  the  defence  Ih,  that  the  in- 
vention is  nut  so  described  as  to  enalilo 
a  skilful  nu'chanic  to  construct  a  iiiu. 
chine,  the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  the 
defendants  to  show  such  to  be  the  caso. 
lirooAs  V.  Jti'kiicU.,  .S  McLean,  445 
447. — jMcLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  I844. 

5.  So  also  when  (he  defence  is  niadp 
that  the  patentee  is  not  the  original  in- 
ventor of  tlu'  thing  patented  to  him. 
Ihiif.,  45  L 

fl.  As  to  wlu'tlu'r  tlK>  defeiid:nitsli;ivo 
inlVinged  the  jdaintitFs  jt.atent,  the  Imr- 
den  of  proof  lies  on  the  plain!  ill's,  lild,^ 
453. 

7.  If  a  defence  of  ])rior  invention  is 
made  to  an  action  of  infringement,  the 
burden  of  proof  as  to  such  point  lies 
willi  the  defendant.  lie  nmst  satisfy 
the  jury  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt. 
that  there  was  a  prior  invention,  be- 
cause the  nlaintiif  has  a  right  to  rest  up- 
on his  patent,  until  its  validity  is  over 
thrown.  Wcs/thurnv.  Gould.,  3  Story, 
142.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

8.  The  burden  of  proof  is  upon  the 
jilaintift'  to  show  that  there  has  been  an 
infringenuMit  of  his  right.     Ibid.,,  140. 

9.  The  burden  of  proof  that  a  com- 
bination is  not  ncAV,  is  on  the  party  de- 
nying that  it  is  new.  llovey  v.  Henry., 
3  AVest  Law  Jour.,  154. — Woodiiuky, 
J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

10.  If  a  party  set  up  a  sale  for  more 
than  two  years  before  the  application 
for  a  patent,  the  burden  of  proof  lies 
on  the  party  making  such  defence,  and 


LVllJENCE,  H. 


288 


rUKSUMI'TlOXM. 


he  must  i'st:il)Iisli  tlio  fact  of  sut-li  salt' 
HO  as  to  justify  a  jury  in  takiiij,'  away 
till'  piulHTty   (»f   tlio  jilaiiitilf.      ////V/., 

11.  WliiTo  a  I'laintilV  has  inado  out 
;\  vriimt  fu(  ie  ('a«i>  of  iiifriii^ciiu'iif,  and 
till'  (Iffi'mlant  uiidt'i-liikes  to  make  out 
a  siH'ci.iI  ilclt'Mrc,  as  tliat  tlio  invt'htion 
lia.l  lici'ii  usL'd  at  ililU'rciit  places  hcfoic 
iii.iiiititf's  iiivoiitioii,  the  defendant  must 
niidtr  these  particulars  ]irol»al)le,  and 
iiiii>t  tinn  the  scales  in  his  favor.  Al- 
ii n  V.  lihtiit,  2  Wood.  «fe  Min.,  It.'). — 
JSrouY,  •^  ;  Mass.,  iKK}. 

12.  if  A  make  a  machine  for  U,  at 
ji's  rcipie^t,  for  his  benefit  and  al  his 
expense,  the  presumption  is,  that  it  was 
iiiiule  .'icciirdinij;  to  ll's  <lirections,  an<l 
if  siicli  lact  is  denied  by  A,  the  burden 
ot'  proof  is  on  A,  to  show  that  it  was 
iKit  made  aocordin      to   ITs  directions. 

Witrmr  V.  iiooihji'jir^  3IS.  (App.  Cas.) 
-Ci!AN<ii,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C,  1840. 

i;i.  The  constructor  of  a  machine  is 
piesiiiiied  to  be  the  inventor;  and  the 
liunlen  of  proof  is  on  him  who  denies 
the  fact  and  chiims  to  be  the  inventor. 
Adiitison  V.  lio<tri/man,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— CuANCii,  Ch.  J.;  1).  C,  1847. 

14.  It  rests  upon  those  who  seek  to 
defeat  a  patent  granted  to  an  alien,  on 
the  ground  that  it  has  not  been  put  on 
Hiile  within  the  time  prescribed  by  the 
st;»tute,  to  show  that  such  a  patentee 
neglected  or  refused  to  sell  the  inven- 
tion for  reasonable  prices  when  applica- 
tieii  was  made  to  purchase.  2lit/iatn 
\.  Loirfier,  2  IJIatchf.,  51. — Nklsox, 
REITS,  ,IJ. ;  N.  Y.,  1847. 
•  15.  On  the  question  of  infringement, 
the  hm-den  of  proof  is  on  tlie  plaintMV. 
He  must  show  satisfactorily  that  the 
ilofoiidaiit  has  violated  his  exclusive 
nu'lit.  /'(ir/cer  v.  iStilis,  5  ^[cLean,  02. 
— Lv.wri",  J.J  Ohio,  1849. 


10.  \Vher(^  Hii  eipiilable  title  to  an 
interest  in  :i  patent  is  Het  up  uguinst  ii 
hiniiijulf  pnrch:»ser  of  and  the  holder 
of  the  legal  title,  the  Inndeii  of  protd' 
lies  with  him  impeaching  tlut  legal  title. 
(iihHon  V.  (Jook,  2  IMatehf,  151.  —Nel- 
son, .1.  ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

17.  The  presumption  of  law  is  that  a 
patentee  is  the  tirst  inventor  of  the  thing 
patented  to  him,  and  the  burden  of 
proof  is  on  the  party  denying  it  to  dis- 
prove the  fact.  Pitta  v.  Jlall,  2  IMatchf., 
2;il.— Nki.son,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IH.51. 

18.  The  burden  of  fihowing  that  a 
patentee  was  not  the  first  and  original 
inventor,  and  of  the  inutility  of  the  pat- 
ent, rests  upon  tlm  defendant.  Winnns 
v.  N.  y.  it  II<(>'.  li.  A'.,  ai  .lour.  Kr. 
Inst.,  :!d  Ser.,  320.— Xi:i.hox,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  185.-). 

19.  If  the  defence  is  set  tijt,  that  the 
patentee  is  not  the  tirst  and  original  in- 
ventor of  the  thing  patented  to  him, 
the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  defend- 
ant to  sliow  a  prior  invention,  and,  if 
hi'  does  not,  the  verdict  must  be  for  the 
plaintiff.  Cahoon  v.  lling^  MS.— Clif- 
Koui),  .!.;  Me.,  1859. 

20.  On  the  question  of  infringement, 
the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  plaintiff. 
Ibid.  Also  Johnson  v.  Jioot^  MS. — 
SrKAGUE,  J;  Mass.,  1858;  and  Latta 
V.  Hhawh^  MS. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1859. 

21.  It  is  incumbent  upon  the  plaintiff 
to  nuvke  out  affirmatively,  by  proof,  tliat 
his  invention  has  been  infringed,  before 
he  can  recover.  Jndson  v.  Cope,,  MS. 
— JjEAvnT,  J.  ;  Ohio,  1800. 

II.      PUKSUMPTIONS. 

See  also  Patent,  P.  2  :  Reissue  op 
Patent,  C. 

1.  It  is  11  presumption  of  law,  that 


i    4 


M 


^i»:> 


V-Ci 


•  ■'■jc;.. 


'ri%|fi 


Li  hm 


284 


KVIDKNTE,  n.  C. 


I'llKStMI'TKINS. 


tiei'OHITION  ;    WHAT   IH. 


iKr.^: 


f!-.^ 


^ 


^^M 


iS'^^ 


Tfci|||g|^„. 


[<S 


ia  ^^' 


Wjj 


Vn<i 


^ 


%. 


'Ill 


'^*fcK 


i,'*"!*!*! 


•wlicii  fi  patt'iit  lias  liccii  olttaiiicd,  cvcry 
man  who  Kiiltsciniciilly  takcH  out,  a  pat- 
ent for  a  similar  macliiiic,  lia''  a  kriowl- 
«'<lj^C'  of  till'  preccdiiit^pati'iit.  Odiornc 
V.  Whiklen,  '2  (Jail.,  55. — Stoky,  J.; 
.Mass.,  1H14. 

2.  It  is  also  a  prostimptioii  of  fact, 
tlint  every  tnaii  having  within  his  power 
tho  nionns  of  iiiforinalion,  and  desirous 
of  securint;  to  hitiisclf  the  Itciiefit  of  a 
patent,  will  aseertaiu  whether  any  one 
on  the  jiuhlic  reeords  has  aeipured  a 
j)rior  rif^ht.     /fnd.,  55. 

rt.  It  is  a  presumption  of  law,  tliat  all 
I>ulilie  otlicers  perform  their  proper  ofli- 
eial  duties,  mitil  the  eontrary  is  proved. 
Where  an  act  is  to  bo  done,  as  a  ]>atent 
to  be  granted  or  reissued  uponevidenee 
anil  ]»roofs  to  be  laid  before^  a  judilie 
oflieer,  upon  which  he  is  to  deeide,  the 
fact  that  he  has  done  the  .act,  or  grajited 
the  patent,  xn  jm  ma  facie  evidence  that 
the  proofs  have  been  regularly  made, 
and  were  satisfactory.  Phil,  <6  Tren. 
Ji.  li.  V.  Sth}ijh'<o/i,  U  Pet.,  458.— 
Story,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

4.  If  a  jierson  construct  .a  machine, 
in  the  absence  of  all  evidence  to  the 
contrary,  the  presumption  is  that  he  is 
also  the  inventor,  and  the  burden  of 
proof  is  thrown  upon  another  claiming 
to  be  the  inventor,  to  show  th.it  he  sug- 
gested the  idea,  or  made  the  invention. 
Atkinson  v.  lioardman,  IMS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Ckanoii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1847. 

5.  It  is  a  presumption  of  law  that  a 
patentee  is  the  first  inventor  of  the  thuig 
patented  to  him.  Pitts  v.  Jfall,  2 
IJlatchf.,  231.— Nei.sox,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1851. 

G.  It  is  a  presumption  of  law  that 
what  the  patentee  does  not  distinctly 
assert  to  be  his  invention  was  known 
before.  Smith  v.  Higgina,  jVIS. — l>Errs, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 


7.  It  is  to  be  assunu'd,  that  persons 
obtaining  patents  have  aeipiainted  tlitin- 
si'lves  with  the  state  of  tht;  art  in  wliidi, 
they  are  interested,  as  made  known  in 
books,  or  by  machines  built  :uid  put  in 
use,  and  evidence  is  not  iidmi^silih.  to 
prove  the  contrary;  nor  is  it  matter  of 
infjuiry  whether  m.'ichines  described  in 
printed  works  were  ever  practically  put 
to  use  or  not.     Ihiil. 

H.  The  legal  presumjition  is,  fVoni 
the  r.ction  of  the  I'ut'.uit  Office,  that  ii 
reissued  patent  is  for  the  satnc  invi-i,. 
tioii  as  the  original  ])atent.  IFiiswy  y, 
McCor'  ick,  AIS. — McLiiAN,  ,J.;  [\\,^ 
1H59. 

9.  All  persons  are  bound  to  take 
knowledge  of  the  doings  of  tlit;  I'atciit 
Oflice,  in  relation  to  iiventions.  Miirnj 
v.  Trotter,  3IS.  (Apj).  Cas.}— Dinlui", 
J.;  D.  C,  1800. 

10.  The  la- /requiring  that  an  inventor 
should  describe  his  invention  with  a 
accuracy  and  fulness,  and  it  being  the 
duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  to 
see  this  is  done,  the  presumj»tion  is  that 
the  patent  ha^i  been  issued  upon  suftieitMit 
foundation  ;  and  the  court  must  bo  well 
satisfied  there  is  a  material  insufficiency 
or  defect  in  the  specification,  before  it 
will  pronounce  any  patent  a  nullity  and 
void.  ,hul"<on  v.  Go2ie,  MS. — Lkavht, 
J.  ;  Ohio,  1800. 

11.  There  is  a  presumption  .irisinj; 
from  the  p.atent  itself,  that  an  invention 
is  of  some  degree  of  utility ;  but  this  is 
not  conclusive,  and  the  other  party  may 
show  tha'i,  it  is  useless  and  worthless. 
Lee  V.  Blandy,  MS. — McLean,  Leav- 
ITT,  J  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

C  Depositions. 

1 .  In  legal  language  a  deposition  is 
evidence  given  by  a  witness  umlcr  in- 


^ 


;■-•*«.,  t' 


'■:.**. 


EVIDENCE,  C. 


285 


DKPOHITIGMt;   IIH  BIN!  KHflK. 


ti'iT«.i,'«torio«,  oral  or  written,  ami  iixii- 
■illy  writti'i)  down  l»y  an  otlicial  [M-rson  ; 
whilo  till  alliilavit  is  tlie  iiuTc  voluntary 
iut  t-'f  tlic  party  niakinj^  tin-  oatli,  ami 
i^  .rciKTally  takrn  without  the  uc«iui- 
eH'.iu'e  of  tho  oiio  a<{ainst  whom  it  Jh 
l„  !)('  used.  Slhnpson  v.  /tioni-n,  3 
r.liitek.  4r)«.— TJktth,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1H5(J. 

•j.  |)('|in-.itioii  is  a  t^cnoricM'xprossion, 
eiiilH'acini^  all  written  I'vidiiicf,  vcriHiMl 
byoatii,  and  includes  aflidavits,  but  in 
lui'al  lun<,'uai,'c  a  distin(!tion  is  maintainofl 
ill  ciiurts  of  law  and  cliancory  hctwecn 
(Jo[)ositit)ii!>  .  "   I  alHdavits.     Jbid,^  450. 

1.  De  bene  esse. 

1.  TIio  act  of  Congri'ss— judiciary 
act  of  IT'S',)— relating  tu  taking  of  dc- 
positioiis  de  bene  exse,  must  nccessar''y 
1)1-  so  construed,  as  to  confine  its  '^[inr- 
atioii  to  depositions  taken  within  the 
iJistrift  where  tho  witness  lives,  ))tort' 
tluin  one  hundred  miles  from  tlie  place 
of  trial ;  because  process  to  compel  at- 
tendance could  run  to  any  greater  dis- 
t;mco  within  the  district/  on  that  ac- 
count the  deposition  is  to  be  de  bene 
esse.  A  subpoena  could  not  at  tliat  time 
run  into  another  district.  Evans  v. 
Iletdck,  3  Wash.,  417.— Wasiiingtox, 
J.;  Pa.,  1818. 

2.  The  act  of  March  2,  1792,  whicli 
declared  that  process  for  the  attendance 
of  witnesses  in  one  district  might  run 
into  another,  provided  the  witnesses  did 
not  live  more  th.in  one  lumdred  miles 
from  the  place  of  trial,  does  not  affect 
the  construction  above  given  of  tho 
judiciary  act  of  1789.     Ibid.,  417. 

3.  Depositions  may  however  be  taken 
ilitferently  from  what  the  law  or  rules 
of  court  prescribe  under  the  agreement 
of  the  parties,  or  under  any  special  rule 
of  the  court,  in  any  particular  case. 
Ibid.,  418. 


4.  A  deposition  taken  de  bene  east! 
which  has  been  read  in  evidence  with- 
out ol>je('tion,  cannot  be  ftuhso<jU"nt!y 
objected  to  and  njected,  because  the 
court  after  it  lia<l  been  so  read  refused 
to  allow  another  deposition  to  be  read, 
on  account  of  an  exception  which  would 
have  applied  to  ami  excluded  the  depo- 
sition actutdiv  re.'id,  had  it  been  taken. 
fbid.,  4 in.     [Atlirmed,  po.tt  9.) 

."5.  Where  a  deposition  de  bene  esse  is 
offered  in  evidence,  the  party  olVering  it 
mu>t  prove  that  he  has  useil  due  dili- 
gence to  procure  the  attcmlance  of  th<,> 
witness,  and  ])articularly  that  h(^  has 
made  inquiries  .at  the  last  place  of  abode 
of  witness,  in  order  to  have  him  served 
with  a  subpu'iia.  Pettibone  v.  Dcrrintjer, 
'  4  Wash.,  219.— Wasiiinuto.v,  J.  ;  Pa., 
1818. 

0.  It  is  no  objection  to  reading  tho 
deposition  of  a  witness  residing  more 
than  one  hundred  miles  from  the  place 
of  trial,  that  ho  had  been  in  the  place 
where  tho  court  s.it  during  its  sitting, 
it  appearing  that  the  fact  of  the  witness 
being  so  present  was  unknown  to  the 
party  at  whose  instance  tho  deposition 
was  taken.  Whether  the  case  would 
have  been  altered  if  the  party  had 
known  of  the  presence  of  the  witness  ; 
query.   Ibid.,  219. 

7.  Depositions  taken  without  a  com- 
mission or  rule  of  court,  in  another 
state,  more  than  one  hundred  miles  from 
the  place  of  trial,  but  conforming  in  all 
respects  to  §  30  of  the  judiciary  act  of 
1789,  may  be  read  in  evidence.  Ibid., 
219. 

8.  A  deposition  taken  under  §  30  of 
tho  act  of  1789  cannot  be  read,  unless 
the  judge  certifies  that  it  was  reduced 
to  Avriting,  either  by  himself  or  by  the 
witness  in  his  presc7ire.     Ibid.,  219. 

9.  A  deposition  which  has  once  been 


en 

«ti;ii 


''^Wk- 


•»sU-i 


*»f'mUuy^ 


'iy'\ 


,.%!5fejr.^^ 


286 


KVn)KNCK,  C.   I. 


■*v/'S5 


tH'  . 


% 


4  Ite-' 


i       *««'■ 


>^^ 


I'^fi 


k 


&:» 


"«'.  -  if  mil 


DKIKWITtONa;  ItN  BBMI  MM. 


S'.itroduccfl  ill  a  cauHc  with  tlic  nc(|iii('s- 
ociK'c  !ui<l  coiisciit  (if  flic  <)|(|>f)sil('  |t!ir(y, 
caiiimt  lie  al'trrwiinl  ohjci-lcMl  (o.  /'Ji<>oih 
V.  Jfcffirk,  7  Wlii-at.,  470.— Story,  J.  ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  IH22. 

10.  No  |iiacti('(',  liowovcr  c'onv«'iii«'iit, 
can  jrivu  validity  to  (k>|it)Niti()nH  which 
arc  not  taken  according  to  law,  iinlcNs 
tho  partieH  e.xprcsHly  waive  tlic  olycc- 
tion,  or  by  prcviouH  coiiNcnt  ajj^rcc  to 
havo  tlu'in  taken  and  niado  evidence. 
Evaiia  V.  I'hton.,  7  Wheat.,  420. — 
Stouy,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1822. 

11.  Tho  act  of  Congress  (.ict  of  17«0, 
ch.  20,  ^  .^O,  1  Stat,  at  Largo,  100) 
as  to  the  taking  the  testimony  of  wit- 
nesses residing  more  than  ono  hundred 
miles  from  tho  place  of  trial  by  depo- 
sitions, is  not  peremptory,  that  under 
such  circumstances  their  depositions 
shall  be  taken  and  nsed,  l)ut  only  that 
they  may  bo  taken  and  nsed.  It  is  a 
mere  option  given  to  the  party  who 
wishes  to  use  the  testimony  of  the  wit- 
nesses. Tho  witnesses  may  be  produced 
and  if  so  produced,  full  costs  of  their 
personal  travel  and  attendance  will  bo 
allowed  in  tho  costs.  Pronty  v.  lluyglcs^ 
2  Story,  200.— Stouy,  J.;  IMass.,  1842. 

12.  A  deposition  should  not  be  taken 
during  tho  sitting  of  the  court  at  which 
the  cause  is  to  be  tried,  excej)t  by  con- 
sent of  parties  or  order  of  the  court. 
Aller  V.  Jilunt,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  137. 
— WoonnuuY,  J.;  Mass.,  1846. 

13.  Semhle,  Th.it  if  the  opposite  party 
had  counsel  residing  where  the  depo- 
sition was  taken,  and  who  had  acted  in 
a  former  tri.al,  though  such  counsel  was 
not  entered  on  the  record,  if  this  fact 
was  known  to  the  party  taking  the  do- . 
]iosition,  that  notice  of  its  taking  sliould 
have  been  given  to  such  counsel.  Ibid., 
137. 

14.  Whether,  if  the  suit  is  against 


two,  though  only  one  has  been  Hcrvi-il 
with  process,  if  will  ''c  suflliii  nt  if  ilj,. 
<-aptiou  of  the  suit  in  the  deposition 
describen  tho  Huit  as  only  ag;iiii<<t  the 
«nie  served;  f/uir;/.     lf>i<f.,  137. 

l.^.  If  a  deposition  is  taken  witlioiit 
notice,  a  continu:mce  will  be  allowed  t) 
enable  the  other  party  to  crosvevainiii,? 
the  wittiess  or  repel  his  testimony.  //>;,/. 
13H. 

10.  Where  prior  to  the  t.nking  of  (|(,. 
positions  lie  ficne  <'««^,  the  opposite  partv 
h:id  had  notice  of  tho  names  and  places 
of  residence  «if  the  witnesses  iiitendcl 
to  be  examined,  and  h.ad  also  been  initi- 
lied  that  if  they  would  <lcsignate  aLjcnts 
at  tlioso  places,  on  whom  fuller  notices 
could  be  served  of  the  particul.ar  tiiiios 
and  places  of  their  exaniinafioM,  hut 
such  i»arty  refused  t(»  appoint  any  such 
agents,  and  declined  to  take  any  part 
in  the  proceedings,  7/J(/,  that  such 
party  was  not  entitled  to  a  stay  to  cross- 
examine  such  witnesses.  }'^im  Jfoalc 
v.  I'emUeton,  2  Blatchf.,  94,  ttu.— Bkhs, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

17.  Under  rule  08  in  equity  it  is  in 
the  discretion  of  the  court  whether  the 
cause  shall  be  stayed  to  allow  a  paitv 
to  cross-examine  a  witness,  or  take  a 
new  deposition  of  the  witness,  whose 
testimony  has  been  t.aken  de  henc  esse, 
without  notice  under  §  30  of  the  judi. 
ciary  act  of  1780.     Ibid.,  05. 

18.  Before  such  discretion  will  he  ex- 
ercised, facts,  as  that  the  testimony  of 
the  witness  was  adverse  to  such  jiarty, 
o'-  that  there  are  facts  within  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  witness  not  stated,  which 
may  be  important  in  the  cause,  must  be 
laid  before  the  court  showing  the  ne- 
cessity or  propriety  of  a  further  exam- 
ination of  the  Avitness.     Ibid.,  95. 

19.  Depositions  (in  a  patent  suit) 
taken  under  the  act  of  Congress,  even 


Vii^C 


EVIDKNCK,  C   '2. 


987 


DRPawrio.iiP,  t'xuRR  Ri'i.H  or  ct>vin,  oit  (dmuiiwiox. 


thi»iifx''  t"l"'"  «-'•'  j>(irti\,  ar*>  ro«'«)j;niy,»'il 
a«  h'^Jil  l»'Nliiinniy  l»y  tliu  art  of  Con- 
rjri'!**,  iukI  »r«'  iiviulaljli'  for  cltliiT  k'hIi'. 
J,„hi>ii  V.  0</w,  iMS.— IjcAViTi,  J.; 
Ohio,  IH«0. 

2.   Under  linh'  of  duurt,  or  CommU- 

I.  A  ilfpositioii  of  a  witnt'ss  rt'*i(r;iiy 
\rllh  n  a  diHtricI  inoru  tliaii  <»k>  liuinlrcil 
null's  from  thu  placu  of  trial,  ti.kcii  iiii- 
iliT  a  rule  of  court,  not  in  conforinity 
witli  tlio  rcfjiiircnu'iits  of  ^  ;i()  of  tlu' 
net  of  I 'HO,  caiiiiot  lie  nail  in  I'vidt-nrc. 
JiMtiH  V.  Iktti'h;  :)  Wash.,  4lH  ;  Fmua 
V.  I'Mt'iu,  :J  Wasli.,  444. — WAsmvciTON, 
.!.;  I'll.,  IHIH. 

J.  Where;  witncssos  hvt!  out  of  a  <lis- 
tii't,  and  more  than  one  hundred  miles 
iVom  the  phice  (jf  trial,  their  depositions, 
it'  taken,  must  ht^  uiKh'r  a  conunission, 
;iinl  will  he  ahsolut".  J'Jrnnxv.  J[ttti<'k\ 
It  Wash.,  418.— WASiiiNtiTo.v,  J;  Pa., 
1818. 

.t.  Depositions  may  ho  taken  dilfer- 
iiitly  from  what  the  law  or  the  rtdes  of 
court  preserihe,  un<ler  the  a!j;i'eement  of 
,he  parties,  or  under  any  speoi.'il  ride  of 
ihe  court,  in  any  particular  case.  Ibid., 
418. 

1.  Where  depositions  arc;  taken  under 
an  order  of  court  re(ihirin<^  notice  to  be 
j,'iven  to  the  opposite  party,  and  the  no- 
tice was  so  short  that  the  party  and  liis 
counsel  were  unable  to  see  each  other 
and  confer  toj^ether  before  tlie  time  ar- 
rived, and  reach  the  place  of  taking 
them,  time  will  be  allowed  to  such  p.ar- 
ty  to  take  the  depositions  over  again, 
and  cross-examine  the  witnesses,  if  de- 
sired. Aiken  v.  Bern  is,  3  Wood,  tfc  Min., 
351. — WooDiU'KY,  J.  ;  Mass.,  1847. 

5.  An  examiner  to  take  testimony  is 
not  created  or  appointed  at  the  instance 
of  suitors,  but  is  au  oflicer  of  the  vourt, 


to  i'.\e<'ul«'  the  fuiietions  appropri.Hte  to 
liis  ottice,  however  his  appointni«-nt  nuiy 
bo  ni.'ide.       \'iln    llimk  V.   I\  ndliti>n,   'J 

IM.aft  hf,  »(!.— N'ki.hon,  IIkits,  .1.1. ;  X. 

v.,   IHIH. 

0.  The  same  power  which  enables  the 
court  t<»  name  commissioners,  sutticu.H 
lor  the  apjiointnient  of  masters  and  ex- 
aminers. 'I'he  process  acts  of  IT!'-  aU'l 
|h4'_'  gave  tliis  power  of  appointment, 
to  be  i'xercisi'd  pursuant  to  the  dlroo 
tions  of  till-  Supreme  Court.      Iftid.,  01. 

7.  Kule  H:J  in  eipiity  sam-tions  the  ap- 
pointment of  standing  masters  and  of 
nuisters  y>/v>  hur  rice.  Hut  the  Circu't 
Courts  could,  without  this  rule,  ha\v, 
appointed  masters  jtro  hdc  vice,  in  their 
dis<'reti(Ui.      Ihid.,  02. 

8.  The  language  of  rule  78  is  satisfied 
by  designating  in  a  common  order,  or 
l»y  nu're  notilicatioii,  the  ofticer  before 
\.'hom  the  examination  is  to  be  taken. 
This  is  in  ell'ect  appointing  him  ex.am- 
iner  in  the  cause,  although  he  should 
not  be  commissioned  anew.     Ihid.,  02. 

n.  It  is  a  matter  of  dis(rretion  with 
the  court  whether  there  shall  be  appoint- 
ed standing  examiners,  to  take  deposi- 
tions, or  whether  they  shall  bo  named 
as  the  occasion  arises  for  their  services 
in  any  cause.     Ibid.,  0;14. 

10.  Where  the  plaintiff  in  a  suit  at 
eijuity,  after  the  cause  was  at  issue,  pro- 
ceeded to  take  his  proofs  before  one  of 
the  standing  examiners  of  the  court, 
without  his  having  been  specially  ap- 
l)ointed  as  cxaiuiner  in  the  cause,  IMd, 
that  the  examiner  was  competent  to  take 
the  proof.     Ibid.,  80,  0.1. 

11.  An  oral  exanunation  of  a  witness 
before  an  examiner,  without  any  agree- 
ment between  the  parties  to  waive 
written  interrogations,  is,  under  rule  07 
in  equity,  Supreme  Court  rules,  irregu- 
lar.    Ibid.i  03. 


•■•■■'A  ,,' 


TJS) 


K 


''•i 

•• 

m  ■ 

--^m 

.^  ^  Li, i-i  ULLAn 


w  'i,.f' I 


■■11  '  !;'■•»■■.„. 1 


If 


]^sm:!' 


28f( 


KVII)K\<K,  C.  :i. 


t)KI>IMirtU»«S   IMilU   Id  l,M  iir  I'ATKXT  orfioB. 


.{km'' 


k!'v.  J^^. 


[fl^f^ 


'Si:,.L 


12.  Ainl  MiK'Ii  iiii  jii;r«'t'iiK'rit  oii^lit  to 
liu  ill  writiiiu.     Ifn'il.,  u;(. 

i:i.  VVIitM'tt  a  |iiii't)'  liiiN  Imil  iKtiii'*' 
that  ill!  fxainiiiiitiiiii  wnn  (<>  lie  taken, 
ur  lia<i  Im'i'Ii  tukcii,  orally,  iiiiil  iU'iiuicM- 
Cf(|  ill  it,  lu'  waivi's  liin  l«';,'al  iii4;lit  to 
r('<iiiiit'    writ  till    iiili'iTogiiioiiiH    (o    he 

111.- 1.    r/>i<i.,  m. 

I  I,  WluMtf  iiinii'  than  till  iDonthM 
hati  flajtsfil  since  an  mal  e\aiiiination 
had  been  taken,  of  which  tlu'  (let'eiiiiant 
)m<l  notice,  mill  niun>  than  tlve  inontliH 
hail<'la|)Hei|  Niriee  pniflieatioii,  //'/'/,  that 
the  <hfiii(lant  had  been  j^iiilty  of  laches, 
and  that  it  was  too  late  to  raise  tho  ol»- 
jeclioii  that  tlu- testimony  had  buuii  tak- 
en orally.     //>/</.,  9;J,  04. 


3.   Under  Jiitlea  of  the  J'atcnt   Office. 

1.  Kvidonee  taken  umler  the  nilcM 
ostahlished  l»y  the  C-ominissioner  of 
Patents,  under  the  statute,  must  not 
only  be  taken  a;jfree!d)ly  to  those  rules, 
but  must  bo  evidence  competent  in  law. 
Arnold  V.  liinhop,  MS.  (App,  Cas.). — 
CjtAXcii,  Ch.  J.;  D.C,  1841. 

2.  After  u  deposition  has  been  taken 
under  such  rules,  a  revocation  of  them 
cannot  aflect  that  dejtosition,  and  will 
nfleet  only  subsequent  i)roceodinffs.  I  hid. 

3.  Lateness  of  time  of  notice  of  tak- 
inj;  dej)ositions  under  tho  rules  of  the 
Patent  Office  is  no  cause  for  rejecting 
the  depositions  taken  ;  but  it  may,  per- 
liaps,  be  tjood  ground  for  an  application 
to  the  Commissioner  to  allow  further 
time  to  take  other  testimony.     Ibid. 

4.  IJut  if  tho  magistrate  before  whom 
a  deposition  is  taken  fails  to  certify 
thereon  th.at  it  was  seahnl  up  by  him, 
it  is  sufficient  groimd  for  exchiding  such 
deposition  from  the  consideration  of  the 
Commissioner.     Ilnd.,  28. 


S.  A  notice  of  taking  di'pooitloiis  ^ 
a  place  four  liiindred  miles  diHtaiii 
Mcrvi'd  eleven  days  before  the  time  fnf 
taking  hucIi  depositions,  \s  siilticicnt. 
Smith  V.  Flli'k;  tf/ir,  .MS.  (App,  Can.)^ 
CuAMii,  Ch.  J.;  I).  ('.,  IslM. 

tl.  Where  deptiHilions  had  lueti  cuf. 
rectly  taken,  but  had  not  been  ti'mi>- 
mitted  ill  the  form  retpiired,  so  th^it 
they  could,  under  rule  4,  be  I'nii.ui!- 
ind\ty  the  Coinmissii>iier,  /A/«/,  nevcp. 
theless,  that  tho  Commissioner  liad  ,i 
right  to  postpone  the  tieariiig,  to  uljuu 
the  parties  to  cure  the  informality,  ifln. 
deemed  such  action  necessary  to  further 
the  ends  of  Justice.  'I'heri'  is  uotliin:.' 
in  the  laws  or  rules  of  the  I'alent  i)\]\^^^. 
preventing  the  Commissioner  iVoiii  ho 
doing,      //lid. 

7.  The  rule  referred  to  doi's  not  pr,- 
hibit  tho  Commissioner  from  Intkni'i 
itito  the  deposition  iriforniiil'/  tiansniii- 
ted,  or  reading  it  and  iiscertaiuiug  its 
contents;  but  only  prohibits  him  iVdiii 
(•(nisidcriiii/  it  as  evidence  touching  ila 
matter  in  issue.     Ifjid. 

8.  lly  an  agreement  of  parties,  tlic 
testimony  of  witnesses  oilierwise  incnin. 
peteiit  may  bo  received  .and  considered. 
Warner  v.  Goodi/ear,  MS.  (App.  Cas.| 

CiiANcn,  Ch.  J. ;  D.  C,  1846. 

(t.  Depositions,  to  bo  used  in  a  m;it- 
ter  of  interference  before  the  Coiiwnis- 
sioner  of  Patents,  taken  without  notice 
to  the  opposing  party,  cannot  be  iistd 
against  him,  unless  ho  lias  waived  lii> 
right  to  notice,  and  .agreed  to  atlniit 
them  to  bo  read  in  evidence.  Perry  v, 
Cornell,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Cba.vcii,  Cli. 
J.;  1).  C,  1847. 

10.  And  notice  given  by  pucli  i)arty 
to  the  opposing  counsel  to  produce  mi 'Ii 
de])Ositions  to  a  Commissioner  for  ex- 
amination, .and  an  offer  by  such  counsel 
to  again  produce  t  lie  witnesses  for  cross- 


«.!'■, 


St'.A^. 


^>%> 

^'■W 


'^Cw 


KVIUENCR,  C.  a. 


>iH» 


ii's,  till' 
iiu'oiii- 
clcred 
.  C'as.) 


<i 


1  !i  m;il- 

'oimnis- 

not'u'i' 

|)0    USiil 
IVt'll    ll'h 

:iJuiit 
\\'rri/  V. 
fcu,  Cli. 

li  party 
lice  sucli 
I'or  ex- 
Icouiisi'l 
br  cross- 


rii)N%  Dimn  Rti.rN  or  tativt  owwm. 


PfnniiiitUion,  ami  n  rffiinal  to  rToniwxnm- 
ini'  tln'rit  wIk'ii  iirmliu'i'd,  in  not  n  wtiivor 
of  iiiitic*'.     Ifiiit. 

II.  Atliilavits  (III  which  to  move  for 
nil  «'iiliii;,'<'m<'iit  <»f  ihr  tiiiu'  t«»  lake  tc**- 
tiiiiiiiiy  ill  till  iiitcrti>r«>ii('t>,  on  t\\v  ^roiinil 
tliitt  tho  inoviii<;  |);irty  coiild  not  ohtaiti 
the  jiltcmhiiu'u  ot*  hin  witii»'-><«'s  at  the 
tinio  :i|i|><iint(<il  to  takt'  thi'ir  I'vmniiiu- 
tiiHi,  i*hiiiilil  stall'  th«'  iiaiiu's,  coiiiiictcii 
cv,  iiikI  materiality  of  the  witiu'SMrs  to 
lie  t'xaiiiiiu'il.      (f  /iiilti/  V.  Siiilfhy  MS. 

(Apjl.      t'UH.) — MollnKI.I.,     ,1.  ;       I).     I'., 

I'.*.  Such  an  application  Ih  in  the  <liH- 
crt'ti"n  of  till'  CoininissioiHT,  nml  it  will 
]it>  picHiinieil  that  his  (U'cision  on  it  has 
Ik'1'11  .soiimlly  exorcised.      Ihiil. 

i:i.  Depositions  taken  on  the  part  of 
A  in  an  interference  between  the  appli- 
cations of  A  and  n — the  latter  as  as- 
nijjjnec  of  C — may  be  read  in  evi<leiicc 
111)011  a  second  interference  declared  be- 
twcon  such  application  of  A  and  H, 
ami  a  subsequent  application  of  I),  of 
whose  application  H  was  also  the  as- 
signt'O,  and  the  real  party  in  interest — 
all  such  applications  being  in  respect  to 
till' same  subject.  McConniek  \.  Ketch- 
urn,  MS.  (App.  CaH.) — MoKsEix,  J. ;  D. 
C,  1853. 

14.  It  would  bo  unnecessarily  oppres- 
sive to  require  the  party,  merely  to 
gratify  form,  to  take  the  testimony 
anew.    Ihhl. 

15.  Depositions  cannot  be  taken  be- 
fiiiu  a  magistrate  or  person  who  is  the 
attorney  or  of  counsel  for  either  party, 
or  interested  in  the  event  of  the  action. 
XHtols  V.  Jfinris,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
MoKSKi.i,,  J.;  I).  C,  1854. 

It).  The  rules  of  the  l*atcnt  Office  as 
1"  tlie  taking  of  testimony,  jjrescribed 
mi'lor  §  12  of  the  act  of  1839,  are  to  bo 
'>ist  and  reasonable,   according  to  the 

la 


eM|tibliH|);>d  principicM  and  precctiontN  in 
liko  cases.      fh'ui. 

17.  Where  an  interferencg  \\\\%  boon 
declared  between  certain  luties,  and 
testitiiony  taken,  and  then  another  a|>- 
plication  is  iinnle  by  another  party,  and 
he  •  made  a  party  to  the  interferonco, 
but  the  Hiibject  matter  u\'  all  the  appli- 
cations  is  the  same,  the  teHtiiiuiny  taken 
on  the  first  interference  may  be  used  on 
the  second,  without  being  retaken. 
(Iiirtf.r  V.  Cnrtrr,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
.MoitHKi.i.,  .T. ;  D.  ('.,  IH,').'). 

IH.  It  seems  that  testiiuoiiy  taken  on 
a  former  interference  is  admissible  on 
a  second  one,  and  this  though  the  sec- 
ond iiiterfereiice  is  decl.iri'd  al\er  an  as- 
signment to  aiii>lher  parly.  1'J'iiinn  v. 
/ifr/i(mfn,  MS.  (App.  Cas,)— Mkkiihk, 
J.;  D.  C,  1H69. 

10.  A  second   interference    is  only  a 

* 

rehearing  of  the  s.-imo  case,     Iftid. 

20.  The  rules  and  regulations  of  tho 
Patent  Olllce  :is  to  taking  testimony  in 
cases  of  interference,  are  binding  upon 
the  parties,  and  each  is  entitled  to  tho 
benefits  of  them,  ami  mil  11  abrogated, 
are  as  binding  upon  the  Commissioner 
himself,  as  if  enacted  by  the  statnte  it- 
self. 0' Ilitra  V.  Jftwes,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.) — MousKM,,  J.;  D.  C,  1850, 

21.  Tho  rules  of  the  Patent  Office  as 
to  tho  taking  of  depositions,  give  to 
either  of  tho  litigant  parties  the  right 
to  take  depositions,  withor't  restraint, 
up  to  tho  day  of  hearing  li.\ed  by  tho 
Patent  Office,  or  to  a  day  near  enough 
to  give  time  for  the  transmission  of  tho 
evidence  to  tho  Patent  Office.  Spear  v. 
Abbott,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — UuNi.of,  J.;. 
D.  C,  1850, 

22.  The  proceedings  in  tho  Patent 
Office  in  contostetl  cases,  h.avo  no  re- 
semblance to  trials  at  law  ;  a  party  can- 
not be  compelled  to  examine  all  his  wit- 


•im\ 

111 

'4 


•W0' 


'       \ 


A 


uni 


^-■•'^-3^^ 


m 

■Alii 


=^*^ 


*«05 


'.■•i....i^<rf 


^  ni 


(M^**!^fc^ 


20O 


KVIDKN'l  R,  P. 


MOtABATlOW  AMD  Ml*  Of  9AMnM  AND  THIHD  MMMI^ 


r^W' 


./ 


c 


t^"**'^! 


'N^'i  ^'^^ 


fec::^^ 


'^»! 


ill  I'hirf  ln'Tin'  li«' cli>«t.»*  IiInojhmi* 
Injif  c'Vtiinitiiitinti.     //</(/, 

2:1.  Till'  ittlii  i-r  hi'liin'  w  luttii  ti>Mtiiiii>- 
ny  ipt  lakcii,  xltotilil  Mt;tri)l  itiilillVri'iit  l>i'- 
twcfri  tlM>  |iiit-ti«4,  in  no  mich  rulution  to 
I'llliiT  of  ilii'Mi  us  to  Itiim  him  in  t'livor 
o(  oiH'  nioft'  ilmti  tlir  oiIht;  nii»riM"<|M- 
ciiillyliv  nIioiiIiI  not  Im*  intcri'Nlt>i|  in  tin* 
(|iit>«tionN  III  ixmii'.  t'lillins  v,  W/tife, 
MS.  (A|.|..  Ca>«.)-MoUHKU„  J. ;  I).  C, 

lH<l(t. 

•H.  A  Htockiiolili-r  In  a  conipiiny  cnn> 
not  li>;{tilly  lu't  as  an  <>nt(U>r  tu  tiiku<l«>p' 
oHJlionN  ill  nil  intiTt'ii-riii-c,  in  tin*  rt'siilt 
of  uliiili  Kiicli  I'oiiitmny  in  iiitrrcNli'ii. 
J/>i./. 

2A.  If  olijt'ciion  IH  not  tii!i<i<*  to  t)i(> 
ootiipi'tcTjcy  of  a  wiliicsH  om  IiIm  cxtiiuni- 
atioii,  ami  linili  |iai'tii'H  cvainiiii'  tiiiii,  it 
will  Ik-  to<»  l.ili'  to  laiHi'  llii'  olijcctioM  an 
to  liis  coiiiix'ti'iicy,  oil  a|>i»c'al.  Allitn  v. 
Alfn;  MS.  (App.  C:w.)  -Mouski.i,,  J,; 

'2i\.  Wlirrc  no  notice  of  tiic  takiiit;  tif 
depositions  lias  been  given  to  the  oppo- 
Bito  party,  but  Kiieli  opposite  j)arty  or 
his  eounsel  ai'o  present  when  theyaie 
taken,  such  depo-iilioiis  will  not  be  ex- 
clinleil  because  of  w.'inl  of  notice,  aii<l 
particularly  if  taketi  by  consent  of  p.'ir- 
tios.  WdlAc)'  V.  Fitrf)t:<>,  .MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Dkm.oi.,  J.;  I).  C,  ISO  I. 

27.  The  object  of  notice  is  to  bring 
the  adverser  l>arty  before  the  exainiiiiiig 
orticu-r.  Whero  the  party  attends  be- 
fore KUch  orticer,  such  notice  is  mere 
form,  and  technicality,  whicli  is  covered 
by  rule  1)0.     IfnU. 

D.      DlCCr.AltATIONS  AN.)  AOTS  OK  PaR- 
TIKS  AND  TlIinD  PkUKONS. 

1.  The  declarations  of  a  party,  at  a 
given  time,  that  he  had  invented  a  nia- 
chioe  afterward  ]»atented,  aud  which  he 


tlicn  de-tcribr,),  niay  hv  received  In  cvi. 
deiiee;  but  tlu'y  are  liof  proof  tli;it  In- 
was  the  inventor,  but  only  that  lii>  nn\,[ 
h«»  wasi.  h'luinn  \ .  /A  //I'X,  :i  Wttnli., 
410. — U'ahiiinoton,  .1.;  I*u.,  Ih|h. 

'2.  A  witness  cannot,  lie  culled  in  i,.,. 
lify  as  to  what  third  parties  may  lm\t> 
staled  an  to  an  invention  -hucIi  hcin,; 
mere  liearMay  eviileiiee.  The  parties  fri.tu 
whom  the  witnesH  received  the  inrnrini. 
tion  should  liuvo  bvun  called.  //^iV. 
III. 

.M.  The  letturn  of  n  parly  to  the  prop- 
er odieer  of  the  government  applvin;^ 
for  a  |ialent  for  his  invention,  are  ail- 
missibh'  as  evidi'iiee  as  to  ilu;  fmi 
of  IiIh  being  the  inventor,  on  u  Miit 
brought  under  liis  patent.  l*iit!hi,m 
V.  Ihrrhtijii',  4  Wash.,  21').— Wakp- 
IN  iioN,  .1.;  I'a.,  JHlH. 

4.  The  fact  of  making  and  e.\hihiliii;r 
an  artii'le  never  before  Been  (»r  lieanl 
of  by  the  witnes«i!s,  is  at  least  j^lnm 
fiii'U:  (v\idence  of  invention  on  llie  pa-t 
of  th(>  maker,  until  othi>r  evidciicu  is 
given  to  [trove  that  the  same  artu-Iu 
was  invented,  known,  or  in  use,  at  a 
prior  time,  and  itiat  the  patentee  liail 
only  eiiibotlied  the  eonceptions  ami 
ideas  of  some  otlier  persons.  Vennwk 
V.  lHitln<pn\  4  Wash.,  541. — Wasiiint,. 
TON,  .1.;  Pa.,  iH'J.'i. 

h.  Hut  if  the  maker  make  no  claim 
to  being  the  original  inventor,  this  llicl 
m.iy  be  opposed  to  Hueli  jtrima  fii<'ie 
evidence,  ami  from  it  may  be  urged  the 
probability  that  he  diil  no  more  tli.iu 
give  form  and  Hubstauce  to  the  in  voli- 
tion of  some  other  person.     Jfiid.,  5\2. 

0.  The  testimony  of  a  witness  that 
he  fiuggested  an  invention  to  a  patentee, 
is  in  the  nature  of  confessions,  and  this 
is  always  regarded  as  i.n  miccrtaiiikiinl 
of  evidence.  Al'Ien  v.  Deiretj,  1  Story, 
330.— Stoisv,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 


Itiliitiii}; 
r  licaiil 
t  jtrlimt 

till'  i>i\-t 
iico  U 

ilttU'lt' 

',  nt  a 

'('  Imil 

i-i    mill 

II  n  nek 

Asiiixr,. 

i(>  flulm 

lliis  I'llCl 

II  fii>'k 
I'L'i'il  tlie 
ire  tli.iii 
iiivi'ii- 
./(/.,  M'^. 
CSS  that 
i:it('ntt'0, 

mill  tliis 
tiiiiikiiiil 

1  Story. 


KVrDKNCK,  I). 


3P1 


MKLAKATtORt  *KI>  ACT*  Of  rARttM  A«»  tMIM»  flMOMk 


Tlu'  il<Tlm-iitii*ii<«  iukI  roiivormillntii* 


\'i,  Th(«  ilfi'ltirtitintm  nf  mi  tK^vwi  \n 


of  It  |>iitiMili>'>,  m«>r>  !y  ul1lrMilii(f  llitit  iit  rt'tiition  irt  n  I)iih|ii(>n<«  l>*  wlilfli  lii'«  iivC^*il* 

.diiH'  forru'i'  |M'ri<»il   l.i'   lnv«'nti'<l  thtil  cy  i>xli'ii<l)'i|,  riif  ii  |iiirt  of  tlio  n  ■*  «/«*• 

|i:ii-tii'ular  iiricliiii)',  ttrc  not  (iiltiiiH<til)li> ;  ^r,  utwl  Wiinl  iIm'   [  riiici|ial   iih  il'  iiiiuK* 

liiif  IiIm  ili'cltiriitiiMiM  nml  rntivi'malloiiN,  \>y  hliiiMott'.     Aihn  \.  Urmit,  :i  WimhI, 

.ci'iiiK  il>'kt  III'  liml  iiiitilu  HI)  irivi'iiiioii,  Ai   Min.,   :iJMi,    :tAa. —  Woudiicicy,    J.; 

iii'l  il«>M('ril)ii);(  ilK  ilct.'iiN,  nml  «'X|ilaiii  Miinn.,  1^47. 

iii){  iiM  i>|M<ritii<>itM,  ar«!  pri)|i«>i'l)' •<\hlt'ti(-if  Ml.  On  thin  ;;rniini|,  tli«'  iiilnii^iMiitng 

(if  nri  nMortion  of  IiIk  ri;xlii.  At.  tlittt  titiic, !  nml  tlocliu-tttioiirt  of  tt  iori>ii'>.iii   ttt' tlio 

:wt  iiti  iiivontitr,  to  tho  oxti'iit  ot  tlio  fitciH  i|t>ri'ii(lmit  ax  to  tlio  itiitii)M>r  of  nrtidc* 

:iM>l  lictitiU  tiiitilc  known  liy  hill),  tlii)iit;li  inii<lv  >\liirli  w<tu  an  infrin^iiiii'nt   on 

mil  (if  tlh'ir  I'xUti'nco  nt  un  iintiT<><ii>iit  tlu'  |>liiintiir<4  |i:it<>nt,  were  licM  ii'lmiHti. 

,l;ilc.      P/iil.  tts  7'rt'ii,  /i.    A*.  V.  Stinifh  l»li<;  Iml  it   hIuhiIiI  Ik-  inmlr  to  ii|nu'ar 


.,./(,  I  I  IVt.,  40'.».— Srof.v,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 

IHJO. 


tJiut  hlH  n;;  nry  ixtctKlcil  to  llu>  partio* 
iilar  biiMini'MH,  ami  whcthor  tliu  tlvclarn* 


H.  Sn«'h    f'onvcrsntions    nml    <l('('lara-  tioiis  witp  ma<K' uliili-  lu<  wan  mi^ajx''"! 

tioHH,  c'oupii'd  with  a  ilrscriplion  of  tho  in   it,  an<l  not  aflerwarU.     Ibitl,^  ;IjO, 

tmtiin>  unti  oliji>cts  of  the  invention,  arc  M/Vft. 

to  lit'    <l('«'tnt'il  11  pnrt  of  tlio  rc«  !/i'*t<» .      II.  Tlic  ttrcl.-irntiotiN  ami  niltni>«sioii!t 

mill  l»';(itiiiiat<'  t>vitl«'iit'«'  tliat  tlu'  Invt'ii-  of  an  a^^ij^nor  of  r.  patent,  al^iT  In'  'las 

I'ma  was  llu-n  known  to  .md  clainicd  by  iiartcd   with  lii«4  inttTt'xt   in  il,  arc    in- 

liliii,  and    Hxi's  its  ori^/iri,  at   loant,  an  ndniissililc   ritlicr   to  hIiow^   a  want  of 


eiirly  an  that  period.     //>/(/.,  402. 

',1.  The  inuro  dt'claralioi   of  an  invcnt- 


tltlj  in  him,  or  to  affi'ct  th«  <piality  of 
tho  nrtich',  «tr  to  iiiip-ir  tlu"  rij,'litH  of 


or,  that  at  a  certain  tiim  ..<•  had  mad.'  the  j);irchaicr  in  any  p'spcct.  Miny 
tlio  invention,  is  not  cvid"nce.  i'orh-  v.  Jinjijir,  i  iSlatchf.,  ;J70.---Nkkson, 
rme  v.    Waterman,  MS.  (App.   Cas.)   J. ;  N.  Y.,  1H4H. 


-(•iiAv«:u,  Ch.  J. ;  I).  C,  1844. 


15.  Where   in   an  action  for  the  in 


10.  Tlui  declarations  of  H  party,  tn.ade  I  frin^^emerit,  the  defendant  oirered  to 
Iti'fore  a  dispute  arose,  and  pro'iiiif  the  show  tli.at  one  of  the  patentees  of  an 
I'xislencc  of  certain  inventions  in  con- 1  article,  afU'r  hu  had  nssijriied  all  hln 
iicttion  with  certain  acts  before  a  par-  interest  in  tho  patent,  liad  declatxvl 
ticular  date,  may  be  received,  as  devd- 1  that  the  thinj;  j)atente<l  had  been  aban- 
o]ii!ii;  a  link  in  a  transactiim.  //Ixvy  v. '  doned,  an<l  had  failed,  and  was  wort h- 
Stcvciis,  1  Wood,  tfc  Min.,  21)2. — Wuuu-.less,  lltil,,  that  such  declarations  were 


iiiKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 
11.  In   cases    of  interferini;  npplici- 


inadinissible.     //>/</.,  370. 

10.  Tho   declarations   of  n  patent co 


tioiis,  the  declarations  of  the  parties  who  li:id  i)artcd  with  all  his  interest 
themselves  in  their  own  favor,  in  the  under  the  i)atent,  that  he  had  never 
absence  of  each  other,  are  not  conipe-   completed  his  invention,   is  only  he.'ir- 


tent  evidence  for  any  purp<ise  Init  to 


say  evidence,  and  therefore  not  ndniis- 


ascertain  when  and  what  they  respect- ^  sible ;  but    if  admissible,  are   not  evi 
ively  claimed  to  have  invented.     Atkiii-'  deuce  which  would  disparaiije  the  rij^lit 
son  V.  Jionrdinan,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — |  or  title    of  those    holding    under   him, 
CuANCii,  Ch,  J.;  D.  C,  1847.  I  without  notice  of  the  facts  alleged  iu 


-St;. 


'¥*^?V»  <-  w< 


M* 


in^r 


v....  ^^J 


f^L. 


S98 


EVIDENCE,  D. 


SEtXAHATIONB  AND  ACTS  OF  J-ABTIlt  AND  TlllBD   I'KRflONB. 


*««r^«i- 


^. 


tiut'li  cK'cliir.'itioiis.  ir//wf)«  V.  iShnp- 
Hon,  9  I  low.,  121,  12L».— Waynk,  J.; 
hup.  C't.,  1S41). 

17.  Tho  doclaralioiiM  of  a  party  do- 
Bcrihing,  at  a  particular  ♦inio,  an  alloj^jcd 
invention,  .to  admissiblo  to  hIiow  what 
lio  knew,  or  had  inventiMl  at  tlie  tinu' 
Butli  di".-!arations  wire  niado,  providt!<l 
tlu'y  were  inado  before  a  dispute  or 
conlesl  hail  arisen.  Yearslcy  v.  lirook- 
field,  jMS.  (Ai)p.  Cas.) — Mouseli,,  J. ; 
IX  C,  18:,;}. 

18.  The  declarations  of  a  third  party 
in  an  interference  that  lie  was  a  part 
invintor,  arc  admissilde  to  show  that 
neither  of  the  applicants  are  entitled  to 
ft  patent ;  'out  such  declarations  would 
not  be  evidence  for  such  party  in  a 
application  for  himself.     Ibid. 

19.  It  seems  that  evidence  as  to  the 
conversations  and  declarations  of  an  in- 
ventor as  to  his  invention,  and  Avhich 
referred  to  a  specimen  or  model  of  bis 
invention  which  had  been  actually  nuule 
by  him,  and  which  was  in  his  posses- 
r/ion  at  the  time  of  such  convers.itions 
ftnd  declarations,  cannot  be  received 
without  the  production  of  such  original 
model  or  specimen,  or  without  its  non- 
production  being  accounted  for.  llich- 
ardson  v.  Hicks,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
MoKSKLL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1854. 

20.  Nor  can  an  exhibit  bo  introduced 
in  evidence  for  the  purpose  of  showhig 
that  it  is  like  such  original  model  or 
fipecimen,  but  the  original  must  be  pro- 
duced, or  its  non-production  accounted 
for.     Ibid. 

21.  The  conversations  and  declara- 
tions of  a  party  as  to  an  invention  are 
evidence  of  his  right  at  that  time  only 
to  the  extent  of  the  facts  and  details 
which  he  then  describes  and  makes 
known.  Garrett  v.  Davidson,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — MoESELL,  J. ;  D.  C,  \Q51. 


22.  Admissions  or  declarations  as  to 
an  invention  made  in  a  way  of  coni- 
protniso,  ai.d  without  I'lc  atlnuHsiou  of 
any  particular  f;icts,  are  not  .admissihle 
as  evidence;  but  if  nuide  voluntaij,,-, 
without  any  pentling  negotiation,  it 
seems  they  are  admissible.  (tihlm  v. 
Jidinsan,  MS.  (Api».  Cas.) — Mousixl, 
J.;  I).  C,   1800. 

23.  The  mere  fact  that  a  ji.arty  is  a 
witness  to  the  application  of  aiiotlier 
for  a  patent  for  a  particular  invention, 
does  not  estop  such  party  from  after- 
ward claiming  to  be  himself  the  orii;iii;il 
inventor  of  such  invention.  Jlcrriiig  v. 
Ij>ffin<jwdl,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Du.M.or, 
J.;  1).  C,  1801. 

24.  It  is  competent  for  such  party 
to  show  that  he  was  dece'ved  as  to 
the  character  of  the  paper  he  was  wit- 
nessing, and  if  his  signature  was  ob- 
tained by  misrepresentation  ii  will  be 
treated  as  if  it  had  never  been  niailc. 
Ibid. 

25.  Wher.  A,  when  actijig  as  an 
agent  to  sell  the  patent  of  another,  made 
an  invention  of  hia  own  in  respect  to 
the  same  article,  but  thinking  that  his 
agency  was  a  bar  to  his  m.aking  any 
etfort  to  introduce  his  own,  and  being 
also  poor,  made  an  agreement  with  B 
to  manufacture  such  invention  and  sell 
it  as  B's,  and  did  so,  representing  it  in 
certain  places  as  B's  invention;  and  B 
afterward  applied  for  a  patent  for  such 
invention,  and  set  xip  that  snch  repre- 
sentations estopped  A  from  claiming  the 
invention  as  his  own  ;  Held,  that  under 
the  circumstances  such  representations 
of  A  would  have  only  the  efllct  to 
give,  in  such  plajes,  tho  same  validity 
to  such  sales  as  if  made  in  A's  own 
name  and  no  further,  and  did  not  pre- 
clude A  from  showing  that  he  was  in 
fact  the  original  inventor  over  E,  and 


n\ 


EVIDENCE,  E. 


>9J 


PAROL   AND  SECONDAKT    KVIIIRNOB. 


that  as  Huch  ho  wan  cntUIed  to  u  patent 
for  lliu  Haid  iiiveutiun.     Ibid. 

E,  Pakol  and  Skcondauy  Eviuenck. 

1.  The  letters  of  a  party  when  ap- 
plying for  a])ateut,  are  properly  adniis- 
siblo  in  evidence  in  his  own  hehalf. 
Vdtibone  v.  Derringer^  4  Wash.,  219. 
— W'asiiinoton,  J.;  I'a.,  1818. 

2.  In  an  action  for  infringement  of  n 
patent,  the  minutes  of  a  company  of 
wliii'li  the  plaintitls  were  meinliers,  and 
!it  whose  snggestion  and  expense  the 
subject  of  the  patent  was  claimed  to 
iiave  been  invented,  may  be  read  in 
evidence  to  i)rove  that  the  plaintills 
were  not  the  original  inventors  of  the 
tiling  jiatented  ;  but  not  It)  show  that 
tiie  iilaintifFs  had  8urr«'ptitiously  obtain- 
ed the  patent  for  another'.s  invention, 
unless  notice  of  such  defence  and  inten- 
tion had  heen  given  to  the  plaintiffs. 
Pcnnovk  v.  Diahxjiie,  4  "Wash.,  645. — 
Washington,  J. ;  l*a.,  1825. 

3.  But  other  entries  in  such  book  of 
minutes  camiot  be  read  by  the  plaintiffs 
to  show  that  the  company  acknowl- 
edgt  d  the  plaintiffs  to  be  the  inventors 
of  the  thing  patented,  the  defendants 
in  the  suit  not  being  members  of  such 
company.     Ibid.,  545. 

4.  The  books  of  a  party  are  not  evi- 
dence as  to  invention,  unless  called  for 
by  the  other  party,  or  their  contents 
inquired  of  by  him.  Stanley  v.  Whipple, 
2  McLean,  39. — McLkan,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1839. 

5.  Parol  evidence  bearing  upon  writ- 
ten contracts,  or  papers  in  respect  to 
patent  interests,  ought  not  to  be  admit- 
ted without  the  production  of  such  con- 
tracts or  papers  to  enable  the  court  and 
jury  to  seeVhelher  the  admission  of 
the  parol  evidence  will  trench  upon  the 


rule  that  parol  evidence  is  not  adinia- 
sible  to  vary  or  contradict  written  eon- 
tracts  or  papers.  Phil,  tt  Tnn.  It.  It. 
V.  Sfinifisoii,  14  Pet.,  401. — Stouy,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

0.  A  letter  of  a  third  party,  though 
sent  under  cover  of  one  from  the  inven- 
tor to  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  is 
not  evidence  as  to  priority  of  invention. 
Cochrane  v.  Waterinan,  ^IS.  (App. 
Cas.)— CuANCii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1844. 

7.  A  di'cd  or  documentary  exhibit, 
showing  that  a  witness  had  }).'irti'd  with 
all  his  interest  in  an  invention,  may  bo 
allowed  to  be  i)ut  in  evidence  in  a  suit 
after  the  general  evidence  hasi  been  pub- 
lished. ^tTesniith  v.  Calvert,  1  Wood. 
&  Min.,  42. — WoonnuuY,  J. ;  Mass., 
1845. 

8.  Parol  evidence  is  not  admissible 
to  j)rove  the  contents  of  papers,  as  a 
letter  and  drawings,  alleged  to  have 
been  sent  by  mail  to  the  plaintifl'  until 
proof  is  furnished  to  the  court  that  they 
h.'kve  been  lost,  or  have  gone  into  i)hiin- 
tifPs  custody.  If  sent  by  mail  they 
must  be  shown  to  have  been  received, 
particularly  where  the  party  to  whom 
mailed  denies  on  oath  that  they  ever 
were  received.  Allen  v.  Uliait,  2  Wood. 
&  Min.,  130,  131. — WooDiiuuY,  J.; 
U:\sH.,  1840. 

9.  The  mere  putting  of  letters  in  the 
I»ost-ofHce  is  not  sufhcient  evidence  of 
their  bei:<g  received,  when  such  fact  of 
reception  is  endeavored  to  be  made  a 
ground  for  the  introductioi\  of  second- 
ary evidence  as  to  the  contents  of  tho 
letters  so  sent.     Ibid.,  131. 

10.  Oral  evidence  of  the  intent  and 
meaning  of  parties  in  explanation  of  a 
written  instrument  respecting  a  patent- 
right  is  wholly  inadmissible  ;  the  agree 
ment  being  in  writing  must  speak  for 
itself.     TVoy  Iron  d;  Nail  Fac.  v.  Cor- 


4tm^'\m^jwLli 


11  t 


■Nif^iwiy 


'«ia;,/ 


^m 

*!'■'*!% 


m 


"'^•-W 


I 


-»s^ 


'^^'K.h^ 


fi 


294 


KVIDKNCK,  F. 


PUULIO    KKOOKDS   AND   i'APEUH;    TKUUICT. 


ni/if/,  1  niatdif.,  472. — Nelson,  J.;  N. 
Y.,   ISl!). 

11.  CVrtifii'iitos  of  inannfiii'turcrH  and 
otluirs  as  to  an  invention,  in  order  to  be 
received  and  considered  upon  an  apjdiea- 
tion  i'ur  a  patent  hIiouIcI  bo  t.'ikon  under 
oath.  Jillnon  v.  Whiaor,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Ckanch,  Cli.  J. ;  1).  C,  1850. 

12.  Copies  of  orii^inal  nienioranduiuH 
and  drawin'^s  are  not  admissible  in  evi- 
dence as  confirmatory  of  the  tcstiniojiy 
of  the  p.irty  who  made  them  (sec  10 
Tet.,  4.38,  430);  the  originals  might 
have  been  used  to  refresli  the  memory 
of  tlie  witness.  Jones  v.  Wetherell, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MonsEix,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1855. 

F,     rrni.ic  llKcouns  and  I'Ai>Ens ; 
Verdict. 

1.  An  exemplification  of  a  sjMci/ii'ution 
of  a  patent  is  made  evidence  by  §  2  of 
the  act  of  Congress  of  1793.  The  ex- 
emplification of  tho  jMttent  itself  stands 
upon  the  common  law,  as  being  an  ex- 
emplification of  a  record  of  a  public 
document,  and  is  alwaya  to  be  received 
as  evidence.  Peck  v.  Farrinyton,  9 
\V\mu1.,  44.— Savage,  Ch.  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1832. 

2.  A  certified  copy  of  a  patent,  sur- 
rendered and  cancelled,  is  admissible  in 
evidence,  to  show  that  an  improvement 
Bubsequontly  patented  is  not  origin.nl, 
though  it  does  not  specify  when  it  Avas 
cancelled,  or  how,  or  for  what  defect. 
Delano  v.  Scott,  Gilpin,  496. — IIopkin- 
80 X,  J.;  Pn.,  1834. 

3.  A  former  anjl  defective  certified 
copy  o  a  patent  may  be  corrected  by 
anoth'  fidl  and  corrected  certified  copy, 
and  tlic  defective  one  cannot  affect  the 
one  that  is  complete.  Brooks  v.  Bick- 
nelly  3  McLean,  434. — McLkan,  J. ; 
Ohio,  1844. 


4.  Certifie»l  copies  of  assignments  of 
patents  on  record  are  competent  evi- 
dence of  the  originals,  ami  the  proiluf- 
tion  of  the  originals  cannot  be  com- 
pelled.    I  hid.,  430. 

5.  Papers  or  drawings  on  file  in  tlin 
Patent  Otlico  are  public  records,  and 
certified  copies  of  them  nnist  be  ro- 
celved  in  evidence  when  oft'ered.  If 
they  are  disconhmt,  one  may  destroy 
the  effect  of  the  other.  ]Jut  they  ncud 
not  concur  in  every  j)articular.  Knur- 
son  v.  Jfot/i/,  2  Blatchf.,  12. — Nelsox, 
IJeits,  J.T. ;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

0.  A  verdict  upon  an  issue  ordered 
by  a  court  of  equity  is  in  no  just  seiisi* 
final  upon  the  facts  it  finds,  or  binding 
upon  the  judgment  of  the  court,  until  a 
subsecpu'iit  hearing  upon  its  n;erits,  and 
a  decree  rendered  thereon  l)y  the  court. 
Allen  V.  Blunt,  3  Story,  740. — Stoi:y, 
J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

7.  Whether  a  verdict  given  in  a  suit 
a,t  law  is  evt'r  evidence  of  any  thing 
but  the  fact  that  it  was  rendered,  unhiss 
a  judgment  has  been  duly  rendered 
thereon.     Ibid.,  740. 

8.  If  cojjies  of  a  patent  are  erroneous, 
the  Connnissioncr  of  Patents  has  the 
power,  and  ought  to  make  them  con- 
form to  the  i)atent  itself  and  to  the  rec- 
ord. Woodworth  v.  Hull,  1  Wood.  & 
]Min.,  200. — WoonnuKY,  J. ;  Mass., 
1840. 

9.  Whether  original  letters  of  the 
Commissioner  of  Patents,  coming  from 
a  public  officer,  under  an  official  o.atIi, 
and  on  official  business,  are  not  legal 
and  competent  evidence  in  the  light  of 
a  public  record  or  document,  as  to  the 
matters  referred  to  therein ;  query.  Al- 
len V.  Blunt,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  128, 
129. — WooDBUKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1846, 

10.  A  former  verdict  of /(Jismissal  be- 
tween the  same  parties  on  an  issue  out 


wJ^iT. 


EVIDENCE,  O.  1.  ff. 


206 


!1P»1 


WITNKSH.      (JOMPETKNCY    AM)    CUKDir   (•»';    (IKNKRAI.I.Y. 


of  chancery  in  a  bill  asking  for  nn  in- 
juiulit)!!,  and  upon  an  original  Hpecifica- 
tiuii,  is  not  adniiHsiblu  in  cvidunci'  in  a 
unit  at  law  i'or  damages  for  violation  of 
(he  patent,  with  corrected  Hpeciticatioiis, 
iiml  in  no  case  is  Kueh  a  verdict  a  bur  to 
tlic  second  action,  unless  judgment  was 
rciulcred  on  such  verdict  against  the 
jiliiiiitiff,  or  such  verdict  of  dismissal 
was  on  the  merits.     Ibid.,  l;J'2,  134. 

11.  A  verdict  in  a  patent  case  and  sus- 
taining a  patent,  can  in  no  case  be  ovi- 
ilcncc  at  law  or  in  equity,  and  in  another 
action  brought  by  a  witness  called  by 
the  plaintirt'  on  the  trial  in  the  former 
action,  an<l  who  was  interested  in  the 
sanu!  patent,  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing his  title  to  the  patent,  as  it  is  a 
j)rocce(ling  inter  aliia.  Hiu'k  v.  lltr- 
nuoivc,  1  IJlatchf.,  324. — Nelson,  J.; 
X.  Y.,  1848. 

I'J,  I  Jut  such  verdict  would  bo  admis- 
sible on  a  motion  for  a  provisional  in- 
junction, as  affording  strong  evidence 
of  the  validity  of  the  patent,  .ind  of  his 
title.  It  is  evidence,  however,  only  in 
cases  where  his  o'vn  deposition  woidd 
bj!  competent ;  cases  in  which  the  ai)pli- 
cation  is  to  the  sound  discretion  of  the 
court.     Ibid.,  324,  325. 

13.  Certified  copies  of  papers  in  the 
Patent  Office  must  be  received  aspriina 
jacie  evidence  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  originals  on  file,  and  absolute  evi- 
eiice  of  the  correctness  of  tlie  copies 
from  the  record.  Parher  v.  Ilaworth,  4 
McLean,  371. — McLean,  J.;  111.,  1848. 

14.  The  rendition  of  a  verdict  in  a 
patent  case  in  favor  of  a  plaintiff  is  not 
conclusive  upon  the  right  of  such  party 
to  an  injunction.  Many  v.  Sizer,  MS. 
—Woodbury,  Spraguk,  JJ.  ;  Mass., 
1840. 

15.  Where  a  patentee  and  his  as- 
signee brought  a  suit  in  equity,  in  the 


Circuit  Court  in  Louisiana,  umlcr  ^  10 
of  the  act  of  1830,  against  a  junior  pat- 
entee, to  declare  such  junior  patent  void, 
on  the  ground  of  its  intcrfercnct*  with 
the  plaintilfs'  patent;  and  afterward  the 
same  plaintifl's  brought  an  .action  at  law 
in  another  circuit  for  an  infringement  of 
their  patent,  against  a  party  who  was 
not  a  party  to  the  stiit  in  Louisiana, 
but  who  had  obtained  an  interest  in  the 
junior  patent,  sought  to  bo  set  aside 
l»y  that  suit,  after  the  conunencement 
^»f  that  suit  and  bel'orc  judi'ment  rcn- 
dered  therein ;  Held,  that  the  parties 
to  such  suit  at  law  were  within  the  j)ro- 
viso  of  said  §  10,  and  that  tlieir  rights 
would  be  bound  by  a  decision  in  the  suit 
in  Louisiana,  declaring  that  such  patents 
interfered,  or  that  either  of  them  was  val- 
id or  invalid.  T^fler  v.  Ilijdf,  2  Blatchf., 
309,  312.— Uicns,  J,;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

10.  A  certified  copy  from  the  Patent 
Office  of  an  assigmnent  recorded  there- 
in, will  be  received  as  jyrima  facie  eW- 
dence  of  the  genuineness  of  the  original 
assignment,  and  the  production  of  the 
original  may  be  dispensed  with.  Par- 
ker V.  Bigler,  MS. — Gkier,  J. ;  Pa., 
1857. 

1 7.  A  certified  copy  of  an  assignment 
of  a  patent  from  the  Patent  Office  of 
the  United  States,  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  genuineness  of  the  original. 
Lee  V.  Bland)/,  MS. — McLkan,  Leav- 
ITT,  JJ. ;  Ohio,  1800. 

G*    Witness. 

1.   Competency  and  Credit  of. 

See  also  Experts  ;  Evidence,  G,  3. 

o.    Of  "Witnesses  generally. 

1.  When  a  witness  offered  in  a  pot- 
ent suit  is  sworn  on  his  voir  dire,  no  evi- 
dence can  be  given  to  prove  him  to  be 


206 


KVIDEXCK,  r..  1.  a. 


WITNEHH.     COMI'KTKNCY  A.M>  CUKDIT    (»';    UKNKUAI.I.Y. 


^»5ji? 


iiU'oiii|)«'t(!iit,  I'xci'pt  Hiu'h  as  iiriscs  from 
luH  own  ackuowh'dL^iiiont.  Hut  if  it 
hIiouIiI,  in  any  ttnlKsctjimil  Htiigo  of  the 
oxaininatiun,  appear  by  other  cvideiiee 
that  he  is  not  a  eonipetent  witness,  the 
court  will  set  him  asiile.  Emma  v.  Ent- 
on,  IVt.  C.  C,  'M8. — Washington,  J. ; 
Pa.,  1810. 

2.  A  person  was  oflered  as  n  witness 
in  Ix'hiilf  of  a  defi-ndant,  in  an  aetion 
for  tlie  iiifiiMLji'ment  of  a  patent,  sut^h 
person  heint;  also  a  defendant  in  anotlier 
suit  broujijht  for  an  infrintifement  of  the 
mime  patent,  and  siieh  witness  had  also 
contril)Ute(l,  with  other  defendants,  to 
defray  his  expenses  in  attending  the 
trial,  where  lie  was  ealled  as  a  witness, 
but  there  »vas  no  agreement  between 
the  eontril»iito:-s  as  to  damages  or  eosts. 
JIiLf,  that  the  witness  had  no  interest 
that  was  dependent  on  the  event  of  the 
suit,  and  that  he  was  therefore  compe- 
tent. Eiuihh  v.  Jlittk'k,  ;3  Wasli.,  412, 
413.— WAsiiiNCiTox,  J.;  Pa.,  1818.  [Af- 
firmed l822,^>o.s<  7.] 

3.  It  is  for  the  jury  to  say,  what  credit 
is  to  be  given  to  the  testimony  of  op- 
posing witnesses,  in  determining  which, 
they  must  take  into  calculation  every 
circumstance  affecting  their  veracity, 
whether  it  concern  their  moral  charac- 
ter, or  arise  from  interest  or  from  feel- 
ing favorable  to  either  party.  Ibid., 
423,  424. 

4.  Wliere  a  fact  in  controversy  may 
exist,  without  a  violation  of  i)robability, 
and  the  proof  is  by  witnesses  exclusively 
on  one  side,  there  is  nothing  against 
which  to  wcigli  their  credit ;  if  an  ob- 
jection to  their  credit  be  worth  any 
thing,  it  must  be  to  the  full  extent  of 
rejecting  their  testimony.  The  jury 
cannot  compromise  the  matter.  They 
must  decide  that  the  fact  is  so  or  is  not 
so.     Ibid.,  424. 


r>,  A  person  liaving  an  interest  luilv 
in  tlie  (piestion,  and  not  in  the  event  of 
a  patent-suit,  is  a  eompelenl  witni'ss. 
/'Jeans  V.  Eaton,  7  Wheat.,  426.— Sto- 
KY,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1822. 

0.  In  general,  the  liability  of  a  wit- 
ness to  a  like  action,  or  his  sL-uidiiiir  in 
tlie  same  predicament  Avith  the  party 
sued,  if  the  verdict  cannot  be  given  in 
evi(h'nce  for  or  against  him,  is  an  inter- 
est in  the  (juestion,  and  will  not  exclude 
the  witness.     Ibid.,  425. 

7.  It  is  no  objection  to  the  compe- 
tency of  u  witness,  that  he  is  sued  in 
another  action  for  an  infringement  of 
the  same  patent.  Evann  v.  JAltick,  7 
Wheat.,  408. — Stouy,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1H22. 

8.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement, 
the  defendant,  to  j)rove  that  the  plain- 
tiif  was  not  the  original  inventor  of  tlio 
thing  patented,  gave  in  evidence  a  prior 
patent  for  an  alleged  similar  machine  as 
that  of  })laintiff,  and  then  oiVered  tlie 
patentee  of  such  i)rior  patent  as  a  wit- 
ness to  prove  the  priority  of  his  inven- 
tion. Held,  that  the  witness  was  com- 
petent, as  he  had  no  interest  in  the 
event  of  the  suit.  IVeadicdl  v.  Jiliuhi, 
4  Wash.,  704. — Washington,  J. ;  Pa., 
1827. 

9.  A  workman  employed  by  a  person 
to  make  articles  which  are  alleged  to 
infringe  a  patent,  is  a  competent  wit- 
ness to  prove  such  inaking,  as  he  is  not 
liable,  as  such  wbrkman,  to  an  iietion 
for  infringement.  Delano  v.  Scott,  Gil- 
pin, 498. — IIoPKiNSON,  J.;  Pa.,  1834. 

10.  If  a  witness  is  interested,  he  is 
excluded,  however  small  the  amount  of 
his  interest  may  be.  Arnold  v.  Bishop, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— Cranch,  Ch.  J. ;  D. 
C,  1841. 

11.  But  where  the  interest  of  the 
witness  in  the  patent  applied  for  Avas 


KVIDEXCE,  (i.  I.  a. 


297 


WITNKHS.     COUI'KTBNOY   AKO  CKhDIT  OF;   UBNRRAIXT. 


tlie  s:iiiK',  wliftlicr  flio  patent  hIioiiM  1)c> 
ifr:ititi'tl  to  oiu!  n|i|»lioiiiit  or  to  tho  other, 
l/il(f,  tli.it  lio  WHS  a  coiiijtctciit  witness. 
J/,i</. 

II.  \iy  ail  atjreenient  of  parties,  the 

U'stiiiioiiy  of  witnesses  otherwise  inco!n- 

jii'toiit  may  l)e  received  and  eoiisidcred. 

]y<ir/trr  V.  (r(>(t(/i/>'in%  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) 

— CuANin,  Ch.  J.;  I).  C,  lH4t;. 

13.  Tiie  fact  that  a  person  calhMl  as  a 
witness  in  belialf  of  the  phiintitf  is  iii- 
tcivstcd  in  tho  s.'une  patent  on  which 
suit  is  hrouglit,  but  in  other  .sections  of 
the  country,  hut  none  in  tlie  county 
where  the  phiintill  .  right  is,  does  not 
reiiilcr  him  an  incompetent  witiii'ss  for 
the  pl.'iiiitiir.  Jiurk  V.  Ift;rrn<utce,  1 
niiUchf.,  324.— NEL.SON,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1848. 

14.  The  usual  test  of  the  interest  of 
ii  witness  is,  whetlier  lie  is  interested  in 
tiie  event  of  the  suit  or  issue — whether 
he  is  to  lose  or  gain  by  tho  event — that 
is,  whether  ho  has  interest,  legal  or 
('([uitable  (if  real),  which  will  be  se- 
cured or  continued  to  him  in  the  event 
of  tho  success,  or  lost,  in  the  event  of 
the  non-success  of  the  party  in  whose 
fiivor  he  is  called.  ■  Creslcr  v.  Custer., 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— MousKLL,  J. ;  1).  C, 

1 5.  Therefore  an  assignee  of  an  in- 
terest in  an  invention  is  not  a  compe- 
tent witness  for  the  inventor,  in  an  inter- 
ference on  an  application  for  a  patent 
for  such  invention,  such  assignee  using 
such  improvement  with  the  consent  of 
the  inventor  and  the  assignee,  reijcardini; 
that  he  had  bought  it.     Ibid. 

16.  The  i)resumption  of  law  is  that  a 
witness  on  oath  testifies  honestly,  until 
the  contrary  is  shown.  Credit  ought 
to  be  given  to  his  testimony,  unless  it 
is  so  grossly  improbable  as  to  show  that 
he  is  not  to  be  trusted.    iV^.  E.  Screw ! 


Co.,  V.  Sloan,  MS.   (App.  Cas.)— Mou- 
HKt.I,,  J. ;   I).  C,  185JJ. 

17.  (/oiitradictions  and  inconsisten- 
cies in  the  tcstiinoiiy  of  a  witness,  it  not 
appearing  that  they  proceeded  from 
corrupt  nu»(ives,  and  the  witness  stand- 
ing imimp(!!iche(l  by  extrinsic^  circum- 
stances, may  lessen,  but  will  not  entirely 
destroy  his  testimony.     Ibid, 

18.  The  mistake  of  a  witness  as  to 
an  immaterial  fact,  as  for  example  who 
were  present  at  a  j):irticul!ir  conversa- 
tion, will  not  discredit  him.  The  inax- 
\\\\,fals}iin  in  nno^falKiini  in  oninihus, 
does  not  Hpi>ly.  That  can  only  apply 
where  there  is  wilful,  corrupt  falsehood 
in  one  particular,  amounting  to  jx-ijin-y, 
in  which  case  all  the  other  testimony  of 
the  witness  is  to  be  rejected.  Marxhrdl 
V.  Mce,  MS.  (Ai»p.  Cas.) — Duni.oi*,  J.; 
D.  v.,  185;}. 

10.  The  testimony  of  a  witness,  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  interested  in  the  pat- 
ent, or  its  benefits,  is  not  admissible,  in 
an  interferi'iice,  as  to  the  question  of 
priority  of  invention.     Ihid. 

20.  In  considering  testimony,  weight 
should  be  given  to  it  in  proportion  to  tho 
competency  of  tho  witness  to  judge  of 
the  matters  sworn  to.  Allen  v.  Hunter^ 
0  McLean,  310,  312.— McLkan,  J.; 
Ohio,  1855. 

21.  Tho  refusal  of  a  witness  to  an- 
swer on  his  cross-examination,  questions 
which  are  material  and  proi)er,  will  af- 
fect the  credit  of  his  testimony.  Cor- 
nell  V.  Hyatt,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mor- 
SELL,  J.;  D.  C,  1856. 

22.  Where  a  witness  in  other  respects 
stands  fair  and  free  of  suspicion,  his 
statement  under  oath  as  to  the  fact  of 
invention,  will  not  be  rejected  because 
he  may  have  made  contradictory  state- 
ments elsewhere;  but  where  the  rela- 
tion in  which  he  stands  to  the  cause  is 


acs- 


s 


•■  ■'^f.i^''^-^m 


i     1.1.1, 


W^ljfiii 


208 


KVIDKXCK,  G.  1.  b.  2. 


WITNKMH.      ASMIONOK,   OOMrKTKNCr   0»'.      KXAMINATION    AM)   IMI'KACIIMKNT  OJ", 


■■V. 


■k 


% 


Huc'li  iiH  to  mako  it  ivasoiiaMi;  to  HUp- 
jiosc  he  is  uixIiT  a  Htroiig  idan  in  lavor 
of  ouu  of  thu  paitic'H,  the  rule  is  dillt'i- 
ent,  espociall^  when  he  tcstiflfs  m  to 
things  talking  piat'O  when  no  one  else 
wus  prosiMit.  Handtra  v.  Parsons,  MS. 
(App.  C'as.)— Mou.,Ki.L,  J. ;  1).  C,  I  a51). 
1!;J.  If  uhj(H  tion  is  not  made  to  the 
competency  ol  a  Avitness  on  liis  exami- 
nation, and  bctli  [»arti('S  examine  him, 
it  will  be  too  late  to  take  the  objection 
afterward.  Allen  \.  Alter,  MS.  (Apj). 
Cas.)— MojwELL,  J.;  D.  C,  18(50. 

6.    Of  Aasignor  of  Invention  in  Intorferoncos. 

1.  A  person  who  is  nominally  a  party 
to  the  i)rocee(ling  in  an  application  for 
a  patent,  cannot  be  a  witness  in  such 
case,  even  though  he  has  parted  with  all 
liis  interest  in  the  matter.      Ycarsley  v. 

White,  iMS.  (i^)l).  Cas.) — Muusell,  J. ; 
D.  C,  1853. 

2.  Where,  t  iierefore,  ono  of  two  joint 
inventors  was  called  as  a  witness  in  a 
case  of  interfe'ence,  between  such  joint 
inventors,  and  that  of  another  party, 
Held,  notwithstanding  that  lie  had  as- 
signed all  his  interest  in  the  invention, 
that  he  Mas  not  a  competent  witness. 
Ibid. 

3.  An  inventor  who  had  assigned  all 
his  interest  in  the  invention  to  another, 
was  offered  as  a  witness  in  favor  of  his 
assignee,  upon  an  interference,  to  prove 
priority  of  invention,  and  was  objected 
to  as  being  intcsrested,  Held,  although 
he  was  not  affected  by  pecuniary  inter- 
est or  advantage  to  render  him  incom- 
l^etent,  yet  he  niust  in  the  nature  of 
things  be  suppoised  to  view  most  favor- 
ably the  success  of  his  assignee,  and  to 
feel  a  prejudice  against  tlie  other  side. 
O'Eielly  v.  Smith,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
MOKSELL,  J.J  D.  C,  1853. 


4.  In  an  interference,  a  party  to  the 
proceeding,  as  an  inventor,  ciumot  l)t' 
made  a  witness,  even  though  he  Ims  ns- 
signed  all  his  interest  in  his  invention 
to  another.  Jllll  v.  Dunklee,  MS.  (Apii. 
Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,,  .1.;  D.  C,  1857. 

C.  In  an  interference  ease,  the  tostl- 
inony  of  the  inventor  lumself,  tlioiii'h 
he  luis  assigned  his  invention,  cannot  ho 
received — he  is  in  form  and  substance  ;i 
party  to  the  issue.  I'Janiex  v.  Iliflmrds 
3IS.  (Aj)p.  Cas.) — iMeukick,  J.;  JJ.  c., 

185!). 

0.  The  testimony  of  a  party  to  tho 
record,  as  of  an  inventor,  though  he 
had  actually  transferred  all  his  interest 
in  the  invention,  is  not  adtnissihle  upon 
an  interference.  Gibhs  v.  Jo/inson,  MS. 
(A])p.  Cas.) — MousKi.r.,  J. ;  I),  C,  I860. 

7.  The  assignor  Avho  has  sold  his  in- 
vention,  is  not  competent  as  a  witness 
for  liis  assignee,  to  i)rovc  priority  ofiii. 
vention,  upon  an  interference  declared. 
Jiarstow  v.  Swan,  MS.  (A])p.  Cas.)— 
MiiKUicK,  J.;  D.  C,  18G0. 

2.  Mcamination  and  ImpeacJiment  of, 

1.  A  witness  cannot  be  asked  as  to  a 
mere  ct»llateral  fact,  having  no  relevancy 
to  the  issue,  in  order  to  draw  from  him 
an  answer  Avhicli  might,  by  other  evi- 
dence, be  shown  incorrect,  and  therchy 
to  discredit  him.  Odiorne  v.  Winklcy, 
2  Gall.,  53.— Stoby,  J. ;  Mass.,  1814. 

2.  Evidence  to  'discredit  a  witness  of 
the  opposite  party,  cannot  be  introduced 
if  the  court  consider  that  it  cannot  have 
such  an  effect.  Evana  v.  Eaton,  I'et., 
C.  C,  338.— Washington,  J.;  Pa., 
1816. 

3.  Plaintiff's  counsel  cannot  inquire 
of  a  witness,  whether  third  persons  had 
offered  to  take  a  licence  from  the  plain- 
tiff, for  the  use  of  his  invention,  and  pay 


SI 


EVIDENCE,  Ci.  2. 


S0» 


WITN'KHH.      EXAMINATION   AND   IMI'KACIIIIICNT  Of. 


for  tilt'  siimc,  it  not  li!ivin({  het'U  proveil 
tliat  Hiu'li  purNoiiN  Iwul  tiHud  iiii  invent  ion 
similar  to  plaiutiirM.      Juuma  v.  J/it- 

tirk,-i  Wiinli.,   413. — WANlUN»iTuN,  J.; 

4.  A  witness  cnnnot  bo  cftlloil  to  tus- 
tily  as  to  what  tltinl  jmrtiits  may  have 
stiiteil,  an  to  an  invuntion,  such  l)L'iiijj; 
niore  lu-arHuy  oviik'ncu.  Tho  purtirH 
rniiii  whom  tlio  witnesH  recoivcd  thu  in- 
formation should  Imvo  been  called. 
Ihii/.,  nt. 

5,  I'laiiit ill's'  coiuiHel  cannot  iiujiiirc 
of  witnesses  as  to  acts  between  plain- 
tiils  and  thinl  persons  or  straiif^ers  as 
to  his  patent ;  these  ou^lit  not  to  preju- 
dice the  defendant.  J'Jvana  v,  ILttirk^ 
1  Wheat.,  4C9,  470. — Stouy,  J.;  Sup. 
a,  1822. 

(J.  It  is  incumbent  upon  those  insist- 
iiii;  upon  (he  ri<j;ht  to  put  ])artieular 
qiK'ntic'iis  to  a  witness,  to  establish  that 
right  beyond  any  reasonable  doubt,  for 
the  very  jiurposo  stated  by  them ;  and 
they  are  not  afterward  at  liberty  to  de- 
sert that  purpose,  and  to  show  the  per- 
tinency or  relevancy  of  the  evidence  for 
any  other  purpose,  not  then  sujjfgested 
to  the  court.  Phil,  tk  TVcn.  It.  11.  v. 
Stiiopsoti,  14  Pet.,  4G0. — Stouy,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

7.  A  party  cannot  cross-examine  a 
witness  except  as  to  facts  and  circum- 
stances connected  with  the  matters  sta- 
ted in  his  direct  examination.  If  he 
wishes  to  examine  himras  to  other  mat- 
ters, he  must  do  so  by  making  the  wit- 
ness his  own.     liifl,  461. 

8.  If  a  party  is  called  to  prove  a  fact, 
as  to  which  he  is  a  competent  witness — 
as  the  loss  of  a  paper  or  drawing — and 
is  then  cross-examined  by  the  opposing 
counsel,  at  large,  as  if  he  were  a  com- 
petent witness  in  chief,  his  answers  are 
thereby   made    evidence    for  himself. 


Ptrry  v.   ConuU,   MS    (App.  Ca.<.)— 
CuA.v.n,  Ch.  J.;  I).  C,  1H47. 

0.  The  law  gives  no  color  to  the  prac- 
ti(H!  which  not  unfre(pieiitly  appears  in 
judicial  proceedings,  of  besetting  a  wit- 
ness with  impertinent  iiupiirius,  which 
are  not  shown  to  have  any  legitimate 
bearing  upon  the  case.  Doy  v.  Jiost. 
lielthiy  C'u.,  MS. — Uki'is,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1H54. 

10.  Whether  a  witness  may  claim  ex- 
emption from  answering  a  (piestioii,  be- 
cause his  knowledge  of  the  matter  in- 
(piired  of  was  obtained  by  him  as  an 
attorney  in  such  character ;  query. 
Ibid. 

11.  Whether  imder  any  circumstan- 
ces a  witness  has  a  right  to  refuse  to 
answer  a  question,  on  the  ground  that 
it  would  exjjose  his  private  aftairs; 
query.  Such  a  right  cannot,  however, 
be  claimed,  if  the  witness  on  his  direct 
examination  has  referred  to  the  matter 
inquired  of  on  his  cross-examination. 
Nichols  v.  Harris.,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)- 
MoBSKi.L,  J.;  D.  C,  1854. 

12.  Upon  the  cross-examination  of  a 
witness,  it  is  not  necessary  for  the  party 
examining  him  to  state  the  purpose  of 
any  particular  question,  as  such  rule 
might  defeat  the  very  object  had  in 
view  by  such  party.     Ihid. 

13.  Upon  the  re-examination  of  a  wit- 
ness, it  is  only  proper  to  question  him 
as  to  the  things  inquired  of  him  on  his 
cross-examination ;  the  party  re-exam- 
ining him  has  no  right  to  go  further, 
and  introduce  new  matter.  The  witness 
cannot  be  examined  as  to  new  matter, 
or  substantially  on  the  points  ho  has 
before  been  examined  upon.  Hill  v. 
Dunhlee,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Morsell, 
J. ;  D.  C,  1857. 


^•■^iW< 


Nm^ 


::tw 


%f\ 


I  ■iiSifi 


'"^  w< 


'l   ...   .  ■»' 


'tt 


^^Wi 


-m  <f.  ^ 


4 

^1 


fe?>«l(^-i,Uu;Jj 


Wu-'Wwk-. 


,,  e^vjii^:.*^ 


900 


ITIDKNCE.  G.  8.  II.  1. 


rAUTIMt,   KXAMINATION  OF. 


AUANDONMKNT. 


4 


■A 


.'».   /'iirfit'M,  J'JxitminatioH  of, 
Siio  uImu  Kvidknck,  O.  1.  II. 

1.  A  party  to  un  Intorffronco  in  cotn- 
potciif  (<»  prov*'  tilt'  loMH  of  ii  pjipcr  or 
drawing  of  his  invention.  Pf.rrjw  Cor- 
nell^ M.S.  (App.  Chs.) — Chanuii,  Ch.  J.; 
D.C.,  1847. 

2.  As  a  general  rule,  a  party  cannot 
be  a  witness  in  his  own  eause.  Hi/ckv. 
JJur/nance,  I  Hlatchf.,;)24. — Nklhon,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1848. 

.1.  Nor  will  ho  bo  permitted  to  avail 
himself,  by  indirect  means,  of  evideiiee 
which  would  be  rejeeted  as  incoinpe- 
tent  if  offered  directly.     T/ud.,  M'it. 

4.  A  l>arty  to  an  interference  is  a 
competent  witness  to  prove  the  loss  of  a 
paper,  if  lost  out  of  his  own  possession, 
and  not  destroyed  l)y  fraud,  the  exist- 
ence and  contents  of  such  paper  beinj^ 
jiroveil  by  other  testimony.  Yearsleyw 
lirookJiiUl.,  .MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mokskll, 
J.;  I).  C,  iH.^n. 

.').  If  two  persons,  from  their  rela- 
tionship to  each  other,  have  had  jiccess 
to  such  paper,  they  should  both  join  in 
the  depositicm  as  to  its  loss.     [hid. 

0.  Upon  a  refercn(;e  to  a  master,  in 
an  equity  suit  for  the  infrinjjement  of  a 
j)atent,  to  take  an  account,  a  defendant 
cannot  be  examined  as  a  witness  in  his 
own  favor,  if  objected  to  by  the  plain- 
tiff. Foote  V.  Sihhy,  •?,  Blatchf.,  508.— 
Hall,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

7.  Nor  can  a  defendant  be  so  exam- 
ined on  his  own  behalf  by  his  own  coun- 
s  ■!,  even  though  he  has  been  called  and 
examined  as  a  witness  by  the  plaintiff, 
or  was  sworn  by  the  master  upon  the 
plaintitTs  application.     Ibid,  610. 

8.  In  an  action  for  an  invasion  of 
pl&intifTs  trade-mark,  the  plaintiff  is  not 
pnvilegsd  from  answering  a  question 


which  may  reveal  the  %e.i'n't  of  his  tiaiic 
as  such  a  ipiestion  m.iy  be  pi-rtiucut  t» 
the  issue  in  determining  the  arnoiint  ,,f 
profits.  IturncH  v.  Phaloit,  \\\  |[,,^^ 
IV.,  fi.ll,  6;j'2,  fi:)5,  OyO.—lIoKKMAN,  J^ 
N.  Y.,  1H(J0.  '    ■' 

It.  A  defendant  cannot  be  requin-il  to 
testify  whether  Im  has  us<'d  laltels  or 
trade-marks  like  the  plaintifFs,  if  Ijj^ 
aflirmative  answers  thereto  may  tend  to 
convict  the  witness  of  an  ofl'cnco  imn. 
ishable  by  statute.  JiyasH  v.  Sidliiuni 
'if   How.  Pr.,   52.— IJONNKV,  J.;  K.  Y. 

fsdo. 

10.  Where  a  state  law  made  it  amis- 
demeanor  to  vend  goods  with  a  fonrid 
label,  lldd,  that  the  tlefendant  coulil 
not  bo  recpiired  to  testify  wIicIIilt  Im 
had  sold  goods  with  a  label  like  that  of 
the  pl.iintitrs.      fhid.^  52. 

11.  The  judiciary  act  of  SepteinlHr 
1781),  g  .^4  (1  St.at.  at  Large,  p.  fiu), 
ado[>tiiig  the  laws  of  the  several  stiitcs 
as  rules  of  decisions  in  the  courts  of  tlio 
United  States,  embraces  laws  rciatini' 
to  evidence.  ITausskrirrht  \ .  ('/<,i/p,,ul, 
lBlack,4.'?  1  .—Nelson,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1 8G1. 

12.  Where,  therefore,  under  the  laws 
of  any  st.ate,  parties  m.ay  be  examined 
as  witnesses  in  their  own  beh.'ilf,  a  plain- 
tiff, in  an  action  in  the  United  Stiitcs 
courts,  for  infringement  of  his  patent, 
is  a  competent  Avitness  .as  to  the  issues 
raised  therein.     Ibid..,  431. 

13.  A  like  decision  w.as  also  made  in 
Vance  v.  Campbell,  1  Black,  427.— 
Nelson,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1801. 

II.    As  TO  Particular  Issues. 

1.  Abandonment. 

See  also  Abandonment,  B. 

1.  If,  before  a  patent  is  taken  out,  the 
inventor  looks  on  and  sees  his  invention 


EVIDKNCK,  H.  1. 


aoi 


AMANrxiNMRNT. 


mi 

n 


iim  iiiloK*'"'*''"'  UM',wltli()iitoltj<rt'n)n 
,111  liiH  I'ort,  tliu  foiirt  will  trt>tit  IiIh  con- 
duct iw*  ()<|niviilt<iit,  to  nil  alinniloniiiciit 
(ir  triHist"''!'  of  his  t'xclii><iv»>  ri)^lil  to  tin- 
liiil)li<'»     '/'reiiifwill  \,  ///(n/(7(,  4  VViihIi., 

-QH— WAHlllHtUON,     .1.;      I'll.,   1H'J7. 

'i.  TIk^  <lil('Ntioii  of  ul):iiiiIoliliiciit  tloi'H 
not  tiii'ii  ii|ioii  llit>  intciiiioti  of  tlic  in- 
vi'iilor.  Wliutt'vcr  may  Ite  his  intention, 
it' ho  MiirtVrs  liin  invention  to  j^o  into 
public  line,  tlirou)t,'h  any  nieaiiH  what- 
ever, without  un  iniin(>(liate  aHsertioi  )f 
his  ri>,'hf,  h(!  is  not  (Hititlt><|  to  n  patent; 
iiDr  will  a  palt^nt,  ohtaineil  under  Nnch 
circiinistaiices,  protoet  hiH  riKlit.  if/i'nn 
V.  Coof>€r,  7  Pet.,  323.  McLkan,  .1. ; 
Sii]).  ('!.,  183.'l. 

;i.  There  must  bo  ovidenco  of  a  diH- 
tinct  charaotur  qh  to  iibandonmeiit, 
Hliowiii!,'  HUeh  'in  intention.  The  natu- 
ral presumption  in,  that  a  peiHon  who 
JiHS  invented  u  inaehinc  would  not  ^ive 
it  to  tho  world.  Ilovcy  v.  Henry ^  3 
Wist.  Law  Jour.,  156. — Wooduuky,  J.; 
MiHS.,  1845. 

4,  Where  it  WfiS  alle/fed  that  a  pat- 
ciitoc  had  abandoned  his  inventiun,  and 
tho  lapse  of  time  between  tho  grant  of 
the  patent  and  tho  commencement  of 
suit  was  urjjod  as  a  proof  of  that  fact, 
/M/,  that  tho  plaintifF  was  entitled  to 
rebut  any  presumption  of  abandonment 
by  showint;  acts  prosecuting  or  assert- 
ing his  discovery.  Emerson  v.  Iloyg, 
2  Blatchf.,  12,  13.— Beits,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1845. 

5.  Neither  a  stipulation  for  tho  sale 
of  an  invention  before  it  is  completed, 
nor  a  sale  of  such  invention  during  iiis 
application  for  a  patent,  is  an  abandon- 
ment, or  such  a  use  as  gives  it  to  the 
public.  Tho  inventor  may  do  this  with- 
out vitiating  his  claim.  Sparkman  v. 
Siggins,  1  Blatchf.,  209.— Beits,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1846. 


0.  Whether  the  Mnlt>  and  nianuraiture 
for  Hoinu  few  months  before  the  applica* 
tioii  for  a  patent,  of  an  Httiele,  as  fin 
ornanieiital  biittnii,  for  the  desi|;ii  of 
which  letters  pitlent  had  Iteen  granted, 
and  whieli  design  was  apparent  on  the 
article  itself,  would  amount  to  an  aban- 
doniiieiit,  is  a  (|iteHlion  of  fart  to  Ite  set- 
tleil  liy  the  jury.  JiimtU  v.  (Jurclti/,  I 
Ulatehf.,  21U,  250.— Nklso.v,  J. ;  N.Y., 
1H47. 

7.  Where  experiments  ii**  to  an  inven* 
tioii  were  imperfect  and  unsatisfaclory, 
and  Hubse<iuently  the  inventor  threw 
aside  liis  temporary  motlel,  and  wholly 
neglected  for  years  to  follow  up  his  ex- 
periments, so  as  to  produce  a  perfect 
maehiite,  J/etil,  that  such  acts  allorded 
strong  and  decisive  evidence  of  an  aban- 
donbient  of  the  thing  an  a  failure. 
I'urk/iiirstv.  Jiiiiummi,  1  lllatchf.,  404. 
—Nkisox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  iH4i). 

8.  Abandonment  or  dedicatitm  is  in 
tho  nature  of  a  forfeiture  of  a  right 
whi(!h  tho  law  docs  not  favor,  and  it 
should  be  made  out  beyond  all  reasona- 
ble doubt.  J*itta  v.  Jfalt,  2  Blatchf., 
238.— Nklsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

9.  Those  who  rely  upon  tho  ground 
that  a  party  has  forfeited  a  legal  right, 
secured  to  him  in  due  form  of  law,  for 
the  purpose  of  defeating  his  enjoyment 
of  that  right,  must  mako  out  tho  point 
clearly  and  satisfactorily,  beyond  any 
reasonable  doubt  or  hesitation  ;  because 
the  law  does  not  favor  an  abandonment, 
and  throws  upon  a  party  who  seeks  to 
obtain  tho  benefit  of  a  forfeiture  tho 
burden  of  proving  it  beyond  all  reason 
able  question.  McGormick  v.  Seymour^ 
2  Blatchf,  250.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
June,  1851 ;  S.  C,  MS.,  Oct.,  1851. 

10.  The  question  of  abandonment 
must  always  depend  in  a  great  measure 
on  the  peculiar  nature  of  the  subject 


I 


4. 


4. 


mm 

iz 


1 


^mfi 


'  '-<m'  ^^\J^'^'^ 


"f^t^ 


-*"».. 


■v"v 


1  L. 


^■^-^r:'^ 


no2 


KVIDF.yrK,  II.  2,  3. 


rRAl'itVLKNT  INTKNT. 


INrniNUKMKKT. 


M^.. 


nmttcr.  Tlio  riuTc  imli*  of  a  piu-iiliiir 
iiianiiDu-tiiri' — ««  viilcnniziMl  nililM-i  — 
wliii'h  iliM'H  not,  on  itM  liit-*',  (liHclimo  tlio 
imtiirtt  of  tlio  «'oin|ioinii|,  or  llin  niotU* 
of  proilncin^  it,  Im  not  niicIi  iui  tili,'in<lon- 
iiHiit.  (iit'ttlijenrx.  iJai/,  MH. -(iitiKit, 
J.;  N.  .1.,  iH.-i^. 

II.  A  |Mt«'nttM\  NiilmiHincnt  to  liin 
|)!itont,  may  nlitiinlon  his  invontioii  to 
tlic  piildic,  luiii  waivt)  tin;  <'x<'ItiMlvt' 
jirivili'f^cH  Hfciirt'd  to  him  ;  hihI  the  jnry 
may  intrr  niicIi  an  al)an<lontiH'Mt  I'ronk 
aM  ac>i|ui('N(>('nco  in  tlu!  iiHe  of  liis  invun- 
tioii  l)y  othi'iH — a  n»'j;Ioct  to  aMNt>rt  UU 
olairnM  hyHnit  or  ollicrwis*',  an  omisMioii 
to  Ht'II  lioiMiNt's,  atu'ffiot't  to  make  offorts 
to  realize  nny  a<Ivnnta;,'o  from  liin  pat- 
ent, and  Nimilar  i-ircuinstancos.  Jiiiii- 
8(>m  V.  Miiyor.,  itcy  of  New  York^  MS. 
— IIai.i,,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

2.  Frnmlulent  Intent. 

1.  Tlio  (loLfrco  of  ovidcncc  rc<iuired 
to  prove  a  fraiiduli'iit  intent  in  a  defec- 
tivo  Hpeeifieation  rests  witli  the  Jnry. 
I'ositivc  evidence  in  not  necessary.  Tlie 
inteiitioti  may  be  presumed  from  cir- 
ciimstanceH — as  if  tlie  parts  concealed 
nro  so  essential  and  so  ouviously  ne- 
cessjiry  to  bo  disclosed,  that  no  me- 
chanic skilled  in  the  art  could  reasona- 
bly be  expected  to  imderstand  the  sub- 
ject so  as  from  the  description  given  to 
make  the  machine.  Hut  such  a  pre- 
sumption would  1)0  wejikened  by  the 
testimony  of  skilful  persons  that  they 
could  not  hesit.ito  in  supplying  the 
omissions.  Gray  v.  Janica,  Pet.  0.  C, 
402.— Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1817. 

2.  Under  the  act  of  1793,  if  a  de- 
fendant seeks  to  annul  the  patent,  he 
must  proceed  in  precise  conformity  to 
§  0,  and  fraudulent  intent  "must  be 
found  by  the  jury  tojustify  a  judgment 


of  I'lHUttur  by  the  court."  The  t-viiKi,,.,, 
1)1'  fr.'iuduleiit  intent  \n  retpilreil  nnlv  in 
the  parti<Mil:ir  casj-  and  for  the  fi,irti,„. 
lar  puipui4e  Htated  in  ^  fl.  (Jruitt  \. 
Ii>it/m<»ni,  0  I'et.,  240. — MAlwn.iit, 
Ch.  J.;   Sup.  Cl.,  IH.'J2. 

.1.  I'nder  j$  U  of  the  act  of  18:1T, ,],,. 
(■hiring  a  patent  valid,  though  einltiic. 
ing  something  not  the  invention  of  tho 
patentee,  if  su«'h  excess  has  been  insvit. 
ed  in  the  Np<>citi(>ation  by  mistake,  ainl 
without  any  fraudulent  intent,  the  imt. 
entee  is  n«»t  bound  to  prove  aflirtnativc 
ly  th.Ht  such  excesH  was  insertcil  |,y 
mistake,  and  without  a  fraudulent  in. 
tent,  as  the  law  presumes  no  duo  it 
have  acted  illegally  or  fraudiilciitlv. 
If<it<'hkina  V.  Olimr,  6  Denio,  318.— 
.M.KissocK,  J.;  N.  Y.,  iHtH. 

4.  The  party  charging  the  wrong aiiil 
.ittaeking  the  patent,  is  boimd  to  prove 
the  fraud,  &c.     Jhul.^  318. 

3.  Infringement, 
See  also  Comhination,  \\.\  C'ojiposi- 

TIO.N    OK   MA-n-KU,  C.  ;    iNKmNliEMICVr. 

1.  In  an  action  for  the  infringcniont 
of  n  patent  testimony  is  not  adinissihli' 
on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  that  tlio 
persons  of  whose  prior  use  deferulant 
had  given  cvideiu'e,  had  taken  liccii'ics 
from  the  plaintiff.  Emtna  v.  Ij'ton, 
Pet.  C.  C,  323.— WAKiiiNtiTON,  J. ;  Pa., 
1810.     [Overruled, /)os<  2.] 

2.  It  is  competent  for  the  jdiiintifT  to 
introduce  testimony  to  show  that  the 
persons,  of  whose  prior  use  of  the  in.v 
chine  defendant  had  given  evidence,  hail 
paid  the  patentee  for  licenses  to  use  his 
machine,  though  such  testimony  is  en- 
titled to  but  little  weight.  Uvam  v. 
Baton,  3  Wheat.,  505. — Maksuaix,  C. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 


^mi 


ai 


m 


KVIDKNCK,  II.  n. 


son 


iMruiMiiiiMKirr. 


3.  Ill  lui  iii'lioii  lor  iiiiVin;{«>incnt  of  n 
tiutt'iitt  (>\i*l<:ti('ci  U  not  nihiiiHMihUt  on 
the  iMtrt  of  tlir  |)tttt>iit«><i  tlitit  iliii'l  |)<>r- 
Miii^  li:t*l  olVci'ol  to  taki>  lh-<'iis«'<«  of  him, 
it  not  )iu\iii({  Imm'm  hliown  tliat  Niich  |ii'i'- 
Ron  uHotl  a  innchhij  Nitnilnr  to  tliat  of 
till'  putcntt'o.  Hiuinn  v.  llitto'k,  :i 
Wa-li.,  H:l. — Wahiiinuton,  J.;  I'li., 
ISIB. 

4,  Umler  tho  pica  l»y  tlit-  cK-fi'tnlaiit 
of  not  K'"'*)'  •'"'  plaiMtilV  tiiiiHt  provit 
not  nici'i'ly  tli.it  tliu  (lofcinlaiit  liad  iii:iilc>, 
ii.sr<l,or  soltl  an  arlifli'  of  tlu-  h\\\w  ^t'li- 
cnil  iiatnru  witli  liis  patcnttMl  invention, 
liiit  that  it  Kn))Nlnntially  n>Hcnil)lfil  tlif 
one  for  wliicli  lu'  liatl  mo  obtainnl  a  pat- 
(iit.  Mnt  if  tlu)  ililViTrnct'  lictwrcn 
tliciM  l»o  only  in  form,  or  proportions, 
tlicy  arcllii)  Name  in  Ic^alconlfmpliition. 
Dixon  V.  Moijrr,  I  Wash.,  71.— Wakii- 
i.v.aoN,  J. ;  I'a.,  iw'-'l. 

T).  Thf  plaintilV  must  nhnw  that  the 
infriiij^i'tni'nt  took  place  aftor  the  time 
(if  hiH  application,  or  tho  ilato  of  his 
jiiitciit.  Hut  if  tho  (It'ft'tKlant  attempts 
ti»  avoid  the  patent  l»y  hhowin;^  that 
the  patentee  waH  not  the  original  dis- 
coveror  of  the  thing  jjatented,  tho  pat- 
ent will  l»o  considered  as  revertinj^hack 
to  tlio  time  of  the  original  discover). 
Ibid.,  12. 

0.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent,  evidence  that  the  invention 
of  tlic  defendant  i.s  better  than  that  of 
the  plaintiff  is  iiiadmissiltle,  except  so 
far  .19  it  goes  to  show  a  Hubstantial  dif- 
llronce  between  tho  two.  Alden  v. 
Ikwey,  1  Story,  337. — Stokv,  J.;  ^.lass., 
1840. 

7.  To  show  an  itifringemcnt  by  the 
defendant  the  proof  rests  nj)on  the 
plaintiff,  lirooka  v.  Jiichtell,  3  ]\Ic- 
Lean,  453. — McLeax,  J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

8.  To  show  an  infringement,  tlie 
burden  of  nroof  i8  upon  tho  plaintiff. 


To  maintain  his  case  hi*  muMt  pthow  thai 
thore  haM  been  u  ptubx^antiul  invaftion 
of  his  patent  by  the  defenilaiit.  Wnnh- 
hum  V.  iioiihl,  W  Story,  I  iU. — Siouv. 
J.;  Ma«s.,  IH4I. 

0.  Where  a  plaintitf  haM  made  out  a 
firinin  J\tii,>  case  of  infringenu'iit,  iiml 
•  he  defendant  imtb*rtakes  to  nnike  out 
a  special  defence,  as  that  tlie  invention 
h.id  been  nfetl  at  ditVerelit  places  before 
plaintiff's  invention,  it  is  proper  to  in* 
struct  the  jnry  that  the  defendant,  in 
respect  to  tlies<>  particulars,  must  render 
them  probalde,  and  must  turn  the  scales 
in  his  favor.  Allen  v.  JilmiU  'i  Wood, 
it   Min.,   145. — WooDiiniv,  .1.;  Mas"., 

|N4tl. 

10.  In  onb'r  to  mak('  out  the  fact  of 
infringement,  the  plaintitV  nnist  prove 
thiit  the  defemlant  has  used  his  inven- 
tion, either  in  the  precise  lorni  in  which 
it  is  «'onstructcd,  or  in  a  I'ornj  and  on 
princi|»les  substantially  the  sann«.  /'(//•• 
/vr  V.  Stilta,  ft  McLean,  tl2. — Lkavi-h', 
.r.  ;  Ohio,  1H40. 

11.  It  is  not,  however,  necessary  that 
the  structure  or  machine  used  by  tho 
defendant  shotdd  be  tho  samo  in  ap- 
pearance, form,  or  proportions,  .is  that 
invented  and  patentetl  by  the  pl.iiritiir. 
If  th«  operative  iirinciples  of  the  two 
machines  bo  the  same,  the  substantial 
identity  contemplated  'oy  the  patent  law 
is  established.     If>i<l.,  {i)iy  (13. 

rj.  Where  tlHulefence  that  a  machino 
claimed  to  be  essentially  similar  to  that 
of  the  plaintiff's  is  set  np,  and  the  ]>uhi( 
relied  on  is  a  description  of  such  ma- 
chine, contained  in  a  written  publication, 
such  description  must  be  sutlicieiitly  full 
and  j»recise  to  enable  a  mechanic!  to 
C(mstrnct  it,  and  must  be  in  all  material 
respects  like  that  covered  liy,  or  descri- 
bed in  the  plaintiff's  patent.  l*nK)f  of 
a  nrevious  structure,  bearing  some  re- 


'.-5 ^M'sP^'  *' 


'  w  <td\ 


W'-^Ser:.'^ 


804 


KVIhKNCK,  II.  4. 


m 


1t   't; 


7*^^- 


'•'Wl 


t*^***' 


"A 


■i 


'K 


i^-^*^!^ 


^%* 


INVRMTIOHi    ANi>  i>lli«INAUTY   AND  rMOWTT  Of. 


MmMuiKf  ill  aomo  rmpoctN  to  tlio|iliiin- 
tiil"«  iin|iri>v«'iiii>ntM,  himI  which  tiiiuhl 
hiivp  h«'«>ii  Mti^^cntlvt'  i>r  iili'iiN,  or  li'<l  to 
f\|ii'i iiiii'iilH  ri»«iilllii|i{  ill  lh<>  (liN"(iv(<ry 
iiihI  ('iini|)|i'ii<iii  <ii'  hiH  iiivi<iilioii,  will 
lint  iii\rilii|iitu  hi*  |)iit«>iit.  Pttrktt'  v. 
Stitii*,  rt  Mi'Lfiiti,  01,  (JJ.~F.icAvnT,  J.; 
(Miio,  IHii). 

|:i.  't'lic  ImidK'Ii  of  proof  Im  ii|ion  th«> 
|iltiiiititf  to  mIiow  tliiit  du-rt'  liiis  licfii  nil 
iiifriti^t'iiK'iit.  ,/o/uiKon  V.  Hoot,  MS. — 
Si'UAoi  K,  J.;   INIasN.,  |m5m. 

II.  It  is  iiiciiinl)(<iit  ii|M>ii  till'  |iliiiiilitr 
ill  till  act  ion  tor  an  iiifriii.i;t'nifiit  of  a 
patt'iit  to  niHkc  out  anirtiiattvrly  to  the 
Hatiffiu'tion  of  tlii>  jury  that  his  iiivon- 
tioii  has  Im'cii  infrin^'i'ij,  iMfurc  ht>  is 
«'iitill«'(|  to  a  vordifl.  Ju<lnon  v.  Cope, 
MS.— I.tt.vviTT,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

4.  Ini'entlon/  and  Oriffiniilittjand  l*rl- 
ority  of. 

1.  The  (loflamlionH  of  nn  invrntor,  at 
n  piirficular  titiu',  that  h«)  ha<l  discovcr- 
t'tl  and  constructed  the  mat  liinc  patent- 
ed, and  the  parts  of  which  ho  then  de- 
Hciihod  nro  adtnissihlo  to  prove,  not 
that  ho  was  tho  discoverer,  hut  that  he 
then  asserted  that  he  wn.^  and  dcsori- 
hed  his  invention.  Kmns  v.  Jldtiek, 
'.\  Wash.,  410. — Wabuinoton,  J.  J  Pa., 
Ibl8. 

2.  In  an  action  of  infrinpfomont  letters 
of  tho  plaintiff  to  the  Patent  (>ffico, 
r()ntainin)r  liis  application  for  a  patent, 
and  enclosing  a  specification  Hiibsiantlal- 
ly  agreeing  with  liis  patent  afterward 
issued,  and  asserting  his  claim  as  inven- 
tor to  the  invention  described,  are  i)ro- 
j)erly  adinissihle  in  evidence  to  show 
the  existence  of  such  facts.  Pcttibone 
V.  Derringer,  4  Wash.,  210,  219.— 
Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1818. 

8.  In   an  action  for   a   violation  of 


phiinlllV'M  patent,  proof  that  the  phtin. 
titt'  at  a  certain  time  had  made  the  tliinir 
puleiiltMl,  and  Hhich  liad  iii>ver  helnri! 
Iieen  xeeii  or  heard  of  hy  the  wiliit»  .(■,_  i, 
priniii J'lifii  eviileiice  that  it  wa-iiiMut 
««1  )>y  the  patentee,  until  other  evii|i>ij<'|. 
in  gi\eil  to  nIioW  it  had  lieeii  previoiulv 
known,  /'itntni-k  V.  lHnlm/nr^  \  Wanli. 
ftH. — WA*iiiNoro>,  J.  ;  Pa.,  Ih^.^. 

4.  The  Hileiic*',  liowever,  of  kih'Ii  party 
iiM  to  IiIn  claim  of  original  iiiveiitloii  »t 
such  time  may  he  opposed  to  NUch  evi. 
deuce,  hut  whether  it  will  he  nutTicictti 
to  oulwi'igh  it,  the  jury  are  t«»  deeitU'. 
/AiV/.,  542. 

ft.  The  testimony  of  n  wilncM  timt 
h((  had  seen  hclore  plainfitV's  inviiitinn 
.•irticlcs  rescmhling  those  prnductd  liv 
plaintilt'*rt  invention,  hut  had  no  knouj. 
edge  how  they  were  made,  is  not  Hiifli- 
cieiit  evidence  to  invalidate  plaiiititl'\ 
patent,  on  tlu!  ground  that  he  was  imt 
the  original  discoverer  of  the  inveiitinn, 
or  that  tlie  saine  liad  hceii  in  iimo  ho. 
fore  his  invention,  unlcHS  tho  jury  can 
safely  conclude  from  the  appearance  nf 
such  articles  that  they  were  made  hy 
an  instruinent  Iiaving  the  improvement, 
or  emhodyingthe  principle  of  piaiiititV's 
patent.  Ihiulwdl  v.  JUm/en,  4  Wanli., 
70(1 — WAsiiiN<iT(»N,  J. ;  I'a.,  1H27. 

0.  The  priority  of  knowledge  and 
use  of  an  inventi<m  is  a  question  of  fact, 
which  a  jury  may  decide  from  one  wit- 
ness ;  tho  (piestion  is  on  the  erediliility 
and  not  on  the  number  of  witiicsM's. 
Wh'Uneif  wJ'Jr/itnetf,  Ihild., .'UO.— Bald- 
win, J. ;  Pa.,  I8:tl. 

7.  In  considering  the  question  of  ori- 
ginality the  oath  of  the  inventor,  iiiiidc 
prior  to  the  issue  of  tho  letters  patent, 
that  he  was  the  first  inventor  of  tlio 
tiling  patented,  may  be  opposed  to  tlin 
o.'ilh  of  a  witness,  offered  to  show  thai 
the  invention  waa  not  original.    Aldtn 


rtm^ . 


•  • 


KVIhKNt  H,  II.  4. 


noi 


WVMTIi»»(  AHM  DHlitlXUirT  JkM»  mOWTT  OR 


V.  Aiwyi  1  Htory,  3:io,  .ill.— fironv, 

J.;  Mil-.,  I«»<>. 

K.  Tlit<  tli'cUrutionMnixl  i-oiiviTmilloiiM 
ol'  a  |iiit<'iitt*«*,  i«tiitlii}{  tliiit  liu  liiiil  inn<l>> 
itii  iiivi'litinn,  :»><l  (l<  -iilliint;  't  >**i<t  'I** 
tilxTiitioin*,  iir«  »^'i'l>  Mi'ti  uf  nil  iiKKi  rtliiii 
III'  lii"  r'mUt  at  lint  iiiim  to  tlir  fMiiit 
,,('  tint  ilctiiiU  iiiiiiU*  known  liy  liim, 
ili,,ii,'li  imt  i»f  tiu'ir  I'xinlciH'f  111  nny 
f.iiii.r  pci'lo.!.  I'/,;i.  «0  7'/Y/<.  /».  A'. 
\.  .sV/h»/'.«"",  I*  I'l'l.,  •<'•. — Sionv,  .?.; 

Sup.  t'l.,  •^•O. 
0.  TIm>  ticfliinilion  of  a  piirly  tli;it  nt 

ikfortaiti  tinio  liu  liml  invi>iili'<l  :i  t'orliiiii 

lliln>;    i'*    not    cviili'iic*',       C'i»'fir<mi:  v. 

Willi nii'iH,  M.S.  (Apji.  C'lm.)-— C'it\N< ii. 

Cli.J.;  1).  C,  1814. 

10.  rpoii  IIh'  <iii«'Htlitii  nf  jjtriiirily  of 
invfiili'iii,  il  IK  lor  tlu' iltltinliuit  toiliow 
ImvoimI  a  r«>ii.si)ii:il()i'  tloiilit  tliat  tlu'ic 
w.i<«  II  piior  iiiVftitioti,  lu'ciktiMi>  tlic  plain- 
till'  liiiH  a  ri>;lif.  to  rout  upon  hin  pati-iit 
lor  lii"*  inviiitioii  till  its  \.iliilily  is  ovfi- 
tliiown.  It'llitTi'  \s  a  rtasoiialilf  iloiilil 
as  to  IIh'  priority  ol"  iiivciitioii,  llu'  pat- 
ciitco  is  I'lititK'il  to  till'  bciu'llt  of  it. 
WiiKfif>nrn  V.  Ooiiltf,  3  Story,  14'J. — 
Siuuv,  J.;  Mass.,  1814. 

11.  'rii<>  liiiu'  of  tlif  iiivoiitioM  of  an 
iiiiprovi'inciit  to  n  niacliiiiu  iiuist  ne(ri's- 
garily  procivU'  tlm  timo  wlii'ii  the  iiivi'ii- 
tion  is  applicil  to  a  inacliinc  in  operation. 
Ciniifill  V.  J'lir/i/iKi-sf,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
-CitANcai,  Ch.  .!.;  D.  ('.,  iKi?. 

12.  Priority  of  ap|)Iication  for  a  pat- 
ent (Iocs  not  (k'fitlo  priority  of  invoii- 
tion.  JWri/  V.  Connll,  MS.  (App. Cas.) 
-CitANcii,  Cli.  .T.;  1).  ('.,  1H47. 

in.  Ill  a<|ucstion  as  to  tlio  orij^inalily 
"f  an  invention,  wlioro  ono  party  has  a 
patent,  the  jn'oof  of  want  of  orij^inality 
must  1)0  speeitlc  and  «h'eisive  to  over- 
throw such  patent.  TYoy  Iron  t£'  Kail 
Fac.  V.  Corning,  1  IJIatclif.,  472. — 
Inelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 
20 


H.  When  n<)Upiiti*  nri^t'Nu*  to  prior* 
ily  of  inveiilioii,  It  piileiilee  i<i  itlliiueil 
In  dhow  till'  real  ihkle  of  it,  iiitil  to  havii 
hlH  riuhlH  II*  fully  neenritil  iih  if  lii>  litid 
tiikeii  out  hiH  patent  at  that  time,  /'or* 
k'r\.  //iiliitf,  7  Wexl.  I.aw  Joiir.,  4'.'4. 

K  \NK.  .1. ;  1*11.,  Im40. 

l.">.  NVheri'  the  patenteu  iliM'overcil, 
in  IH'.>7,  that  to  direet  water  into  n  ro< 
aetioii  wheel  mo  us  to  ^'ive  it  eiiiMiIar 
liloliotl  uilhiil  the  wheel  ill  the  i|iree< 
linii  of  its  rotation,  woiiM  iiureaoe  tho 
useful  vtfvi't,  itnd  the  npplieallon  then 
was  to  n  liori/.onlnl  wheel,  and  aller,  in 
IH'.M,  an  nppliealioii  of  ||li.^  prinripio 
was  tnade  to  a  verti<'itl  wheel,  and  the 
Ititter  nrran^eiiieiit  was  tlie  one  patent* 
ed,  //.A/,  that  if  the  dllVereliee  „f 
tiiiH'  had  \u'r\i   material,   the  di-  overv 

* 

of  the  more  important  part  of  the  pat- 
ented iinprovenieiils  would  have  Im  en 
referred  to  tho  dato  of  lH'.i7.  /A/»A, 
4.' I. 

Id.  Pates  in  an  nreount  hook,  in 
which  was  niado  adruwiiij^  of  an  iii- 
vi'iilion,  aro  not  coneliisivo  ovideneo 
that  the  invention  was  made  at  the 
time  of  Miieh  tlates.  Jillnon  v.  Win- 
«(*■,  MS.  (.Vpp.  Ca«.) — C'u.vNoii,  Ch.  J.; 
I).  ('.,  1850. 

17.  l'r(»of  that  n  drawing  of  an  in- 
vention was  hIiowii  hy  A  at  a  eertaiti 
time  fii'J'arc,  as  to  whieh,  however,  the 
witnesses  were  not  po>iii\e,  hut  with- 
out any  model,  and  without  pro. if  that 
any  articles  were  manufaelure.l  until 
'""o  <{ffi'''  the  well  estaldished  inven- 
tion of  the  same  thiiij^  by  l»,  is  not 
suflifieiit  to  estahlish  priority  of  inven- 
tion in  A.    Ihid.  ^ 

18.  A  defeiitlant  in  a  patent  suit, 
using  a  maehine  jtatente<l  to  him  will 
have  the  benefit  of  a  like  presumption 
in  his  favor,  an  to  tho  originality  of  his 
invention,  as  the  plaintiir  ha.s  by  reason 


"^^^w; 


*f«4l 


d! 


'"<, 


,.5'b 


.    ■■■  V. 


-«•'■%»#' '^.fl 


MWw-.<^ 


m 


800 


EVIDKXCi:,  TT.  4. 


■^ 


%^^: 


ti 


astf 


c:s: 


^ 


fe  ■/ 


IXVKMKIN;    AND  OUIHISAUTV   AM)  rUIOKirT  Of. 


of  111..  iKitoiit.  Coriiimj  V.  liimfiii,  l.'i 
IIow.,  'J71.— fJuiKiJ,  J.;  Slip,  ("t.,  is:,:!. 

If).  A  Avitiu'.ss  to  jirovo  priority  of 
iiivontioii  need  not  In;  .'lu  i'.\pert — it 
will  bi!  siiffu'li'iit  it'  III)  has  kiiowK-tlgo 
niKi  iiu'inory  to  I'tialik'  him  to  Ktatc  tru- 
ly what  he  liail  sci'ii  and  iifurch  iV.  U. 
Hi-i'ciri  Co.  V.  Slodii^  ^IS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
]M()i;8Ki,i,,  J.;  ]).  C,  1853. 

'jr  As  respects  tlio  suhji'cts  of  nov- 
elty and  invention,  the  diHeri;nee  be- 
tween tlio  Knijlish  and  Anieriean  cases 
relates  ratlier  to  the  kind  and  deforce  of 
evidence  by  wlii<'h  these  may  be  shown 
or  est ahlished.  Yearslci/,  v.  Jirovlfidil, 
:M8.  (App.  Cas.)— MousEi.L,  J.;  ]).  C, 
185:1. 

21.  The  English  cases  liohl  that  tl»e 
result  alone,  when  tlie  etlccts  produced 
are  more  economical,  useful,  .and  benefi- 
cial, or  a  hotter  article,  is  .•;  conclusive 
test  of  novelty  and  invention;  -while 
the  American  cases  go  to  show  tliat 
the  result  alone  will  not  l)o  sufilcieiit, 
but  it  must  appear  that  the  effect  was 
produced  by  some  new  ])!'0(ess,  de- 
vice, m.achiiiery,  tfcc,  thou<fh  where  on 
impi()Ved  lesult  or  eilect  is  jiroduced, 
slight  evidence  only  of  novelty  and  in- 
vention will  be  re(iuired.     Ihid.  \ 

22.  ]}ut  slight  evidence  of  invention 
is  recpiired  when  it  is  shown  iu  what 
the  invention  consists,  and  proof  is  giv- 
en of  its  practical  utility,  this  being  the 
main  and  ])rincipal  test.  Faltz,  Iiix 
parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mousell,  J. ; 
D.  C,  1853. 

23.  The  measure  of  proof  requisite 
to  show  the  date  of  an  invention,  de- 
pends upon  the  nature  of  the  invention, 
whether  complicated  or  not,  the  ca- 
pacity of  the  witnesses,  the  distance  of 
time  when  the  facts  occurred.  Stejy/iens 
V.  Salisburi/,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mou- 
SKLL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1855. 


21.  Verbal  descriptions,  without  mod- 
els  or  drawings,  may  be  siiflicieiit  for 
such  purpose.     Il/id. 

25.  The  jiatent  is  prima  fnoi,'  ovi. 
donee  that  the  i)l.iintifr  was  the  tirst 
and  original  inventor  of  the  iiii|ii()vo- 
ment  claimed,  and  of  its  utility.  H7. 
nann  \.  N".  Y.  <$:  Harlan  Ji.  Ji.,  31 
Jour.  Fr.  Inst.  (3d  Ser.),  320.— Nklsun, 
J.;  ,^.  Y.,  IS--,. 

20.  A  ca\  c.it  is  evidence  as  to  an  in. 
veution,  so  far  as  it  extends  to  the  ik- 
scriptlon  of  the  invention,  and  the  iiiii- 
chinery  which  was  then  conslnictud. 
Joiien  v.  Wef/iirrll,  IMS.  (Ajip.  Cas.)- 
Moi'.sKLL,  J.;  I).  C,  1855. 

27.  A  patent  is  ^>r/n?ay(/r/e  evidence 
of  the  facts  of  first  and  original  invcii- 
tion  and  utility,  and  nmst  prevail,  niilcss 
there  is  other  evidence  to  overcome  such 
2>rima  facie  presumption  ;  and  wliero 
there  has  been  a  renewal,  such  renewal 
is  als;)  prima,  facie  evidence  as  to  such 
matters,  and  of  course  adds  weight  to 
ihe  2^>'i>'i(f  facie  e'.idence  furuis!i('(l  by 
the  original  patent.  Ransom  v.  Mni/or 
cCc,  of  Neio  York,  MS.— ILvix,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1850. 

28.  The  patent  furnishes  a  presump- 
tion ill  favor  of  the  originality  uf  the 
invention  described  in  it.  Belly.  Dan- 
iels, 3IS. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1 858. 

29.  The  question  of  priority  of  inven- 
tion is  for  the  jury  to  determine.  Bur- 
tholomew  v.  Saioyer,  MS. — Ixgersoli., 
J. ;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

30.  The  patent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  patentee  is  the  first  n\v\ 
original  inventor  of  the  improveniciils 
described  in  the'  specification.  Cahoon 
V.  liinf/, MS.— Clifford,  J.;  Me.,  1859. 

31.  Where  ovigin.al  drawings  of  an 
invention  were  made,  the^  are  the 
best  evidence  of  such  invention,  ami  on 
the  non-production  of  them,  uulets  ic 


i^Stt' 


KVIDKXCE,  11.  5. 


no7 


INVKSTIOX,     NllVKI.rV    AM)    ITIUTY   OK. 


<'iillv  aoi'ouiitcil  f(ir  as  by  bciiij^  lost,  tliu 
|,.h;i1  |ii('siiiii|ilioii  is,  that  if  |ir(t(liuT(l 
ilicv  woiiltl  show  thu  facts  to  be  luifiivor- 
iiblo.  Heech  v.  I'uckir,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
_-.Moi!SKM.,  J.  ;  1>.  C,  isuu. 

;i'J.  Tlio  priiiui  fui'ic  force  of  a  pat- 
ent, as  to  priority  of  invention  on  the 
iiiirt  of  tlio  patentee,  when  once  de.stroy- 
(m1  by  evitlence  of  jtrior  invention  on 
lliL>  part  of  another,  cainiot  be  restored 
1)V  tlio  patent  itself,  but  only  by  specillc 
testimony  from  witnesses.  Harxfaio  v. 
Sinoi,  MS.  (Apj).  Cas.)— ]Mi;uui(iv,  J. ; 
I).  C,  1800. 

33.  Time,  as  to  an  invention,  cannot, 
aiiv  more  than  a  straij^ht  line  bo  uieas- 
iireil  by  the  senses,  by  rejjjarding  its 
cMiiitiimity,  but  is  fixed  in  the  memory 
liv  the  relation  or  succession  of  events. 
When,  therefore,  a  jterson  can  affirm 
that  he  can  and  does  recall  the  succes- 
sion of  an  event  to  another,  which  other 
U  siisc('ptil)le  of  independent  ascertain- 
ment, the  certaitity  of  the  latter  is  fully 
ieilo(!ted  upon  the  former.  i!>lierw(jod 
V.  ISherman,  MS,  (App.  Cas.) — Mku- 
iMcic,  J.;  D.  C,  1800. 

34.  It  is  not  proof  of  the  want  of 
originality  or  novelty  in  an  invention 
fur  which  an  American  citizen  has  ob- 
tained a  patent,  that  it  may  have  been 
kiiown  or  used  in  a  foreign  country, 
unless  it  appears  that  the  invention  or 
improvement  was  patented  in  such  Ibr- 
oign  country,  or  there  described  in  some 
imltlic  work.  Judson  v.  Cc^w,  MS. — 
Li:.vvrrr,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

35.  IJut  to  make  such  a  defence  avail- 
able, it  must  aj)pear  that  the  imi>rove- 
iiient  which  has  been  known  in  a  foreign 
country  l.vs  been  so  clearly  and  intelli- 
gibly described,  that  the  invention  could 
be  made  or  constructed  by  a  competent 
raeclmiiic.  A  mere  suggestion  or  in»- 
Pftifect  description  of  an  invention  would 


not  be  sufficient  to  defeat  the  American 
patent.     Jliiil. 

;)0.  Kvidence  cannot  bo  received  of 
actual  iise  and  kiH)\vledge  of  an  inven- 
tion in  a  foreign  country  prior  to  the 
tinu"  of  the  invention  here,  ii.  order  to 
defeat  the  .Vmerican  pattnt,  but  the  de- 
fendants must  be  confmed  to  the  (!<'scrip- 
tion  of  the  invention  as  found  in  printed 
|iublications  or  patents;  they  cannot  go 
bi'yond  such  publication  or  patents,  be- 
cause no  prior  use  abroad,  unless  the 
invention  has  been  described  in  a  print- 
cil  publication  or  has  been  patented, 
will  affect  the  validity  of  the  i)atent  in 
this  country.    Il»id. 

37.  The  mere  fact  tliat  a  jiarty  is  a 
witness  to  the  application  of  anotlier 
f  r  a  patent  for  a  particular  invention, 
does  not  estop  such  party  from  after- 
ward claiming  to  be  himself  the  original 
inventor  of  such  invention.  ITeri'iii</  v. 
LiffinijwtU,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Dinloi', 
J.;  I).  C,  1801. 

38.  It  is  competent  for  such  party  to 
show  that  he  was  deceived  as  to  the 
character  of  the  paper  he  Mas  witness- 
ing, and  if  hi,,  signature  was  obtained 
by  misrepresentation  it  Avill  be  treated 
as  if  it  had  never  been  made.     Ibid. 

5.  Invention,  Novelty  and  Utility  of. 

1.  Whether  an  invention  is  new  or 
not  is  a  question  for  the  jury.  ParJc 
v.  Little,  3  "Wash.,  197. — Washington, 
J.;  Pa.,  1813. 

2.  Of  the  novelty  and  utility  of  an 
invention  the  patent  is  to  be  considered 
only  as^;?7'»i«  facie  evidence  of  a  very 
slight  nature.  Lowell  v.  Lewis,  1  Mas., 
185. — Stokv,  J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

3.  Where  it  becomes  a  matter  of  in- 
(piiiy  whether  the  benefits  of  an  inven- 
tion are  of  suflioicut  consequence  to  be 


m^'  '•'*'^:WLi^i 


l:./.k 


^;i^U^Ww^y 


;iiiffiw%^-j 


U;: 


li; 


*-■».  ■•■■^»;.. 


Id 


'H.. 

•»•■ 


8M 


KVIDHNCE,  II.  5. 


INVKVTIOy,     NOVKLTY   AND  UTII.1IV  UV. 


j)r()tc't'ttMl,  it  isjtropur  to  leave  the  qiies- 
tioM  of  iifility  to  tlie  jury.  Litninlou 
\.JJi  (iroot,  I  PiiiiR',  '204. — LifiNtiSToN, 
J.;  X.  v.,  1S-J2. 

•t.  I>iit  wlieii  tlie  iiiveiitioii  on  the 
jihiintiir's  own  showlnj;  is  not  only  of 
lio  use,  but  :ui  imposition  on  tlie  pulilic, 
it  ni:iy  he  tU)ubtc'(l  wiietliiTjieourl  wouM 
tianscond  its  powers  to  consiiK'r  and  (h'- 
clde  upon  the  question  of  utility  as  nuvt- 
ter  of  law.   Ibid.,  204. 

f).  "Where  the  ilefiMidant  liad  adver- 
tised the  plaintiff's  invention  as  one  of 
the  most  useful,  and  liad  jiuhlished  cer- 
tifit-ates  of  its  jjjre.at  utility,  Ildil,  in  an 
netion  of  infringement  against  him, 
that  he  eonld  not  deny  the  utility  of 
the  invention,  and  that  it  M'as  umieees- 
sary  for  the  plaintiff  to  introduee  evi- 
denec  other  than  sueh  admissions,  Stan- 
Icy  V.  W/u'p/)le,  2  ]MeLean,  30.— 3Ic- 
Leax,  J.;  Ohio,  1839. 

0.  To  determine  whether  an  inven- 
tion is  new,  the  jury  may  iuipiire 
■whether  the  maehines  had  been  exten- 
sively built  and  used,  or  whether  they 
had  been  tried  and  thrown  away ;  and 
if  they  had  been  extensively  used, 
whether  this  could  happen  if  their  mode 
of  operation  Avas  not  new.  Ddvoll  v. 
Jjrow/i,  3  West.  Law  .lour.,  151. — 
WoonnuuY,  J.  ;  Mass.,  1845. 

V.  The  i)resuniption  of  novelty  and 
usefulness,  arising  from  the  ivima  facte 
charaeter  of  the  patent,  may  be  rebut- 
ted by  affidavits,  on  the  application  for 
an  injunction  where  the  patent  is  not 
ancient.  Query.,  "Whether  it  may  be 
Avl.en  the  patent  has  beer  (reissued)  re- 
newed under  the  act  of  183G.  Wicker- 
shffff  V.  Jones,  2  Wharton's  Dig.,  413. 
—Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1848. 

8.  The  oath  of  the  patentee,  required 
upon  his  application  for  a  patent,  con- 
stitutes a  part  of  the  letters  patent,  and 


is  in  evidence  to  a  jury,  and  furiiis  ;i 
legal  ground  for  the  presumption  ut'il:,. 
novelty  anil  utility  of  the  patcntci's 
claim  until  the  c(tntrary  is  proveil;  tin. 
burden  of  proof  being  on  the  def'cn,!. 
ant.  Parkir  v.  Stik's,  5  ^McLean,  00.— 
r.KAvrrr,  J. ;  Ohi".  ^H\^. 

0.  It  is  the  province  of  the  court  t.i 
ileeide  what  constitutes  novelty,  mikI  ot 
the  jtiry  to  determine  from  the  evidi'iKi; 
adduced,  whether  the  patentee's  invcn. 
tion  is  new.     Ibid.,  (JO. 

10.  An  invention  must  be  to  simiic 
extent  useful.  But  courts  are  not  ri^iil 
or  strict  on  this  point.  In  the  abseiie 
of  j»roof  by  the  defendant,  tliiit  tin; 
thing  patented  is  absolutely  frivdloiis 
and  worthless,  the  presumption  of  util- 
ity raised  by  tlie  patent  itself  is  sutli- 
cient  to  sustain  the  patent.    Ibid.,  C:'. 

11.  Where  in  an  action  for  an  in- 
fringement of  plaintiff's  patent,  it  w.i.s 
proved  that  a  machine  was  constructed 
before  the  plaintilf's  invention,  ;iiiil 
identical  with  it,  for  a  person  who  livui] 
some  distance  from  the  place  of  (oii- 
struction,  and  was  taken  away  by  liim 
to  be  put  up,  and  was  never  afterwanl 
seen  by  the  witness,  wlio  assisted  in  it> 
construction,  ILld,  that  the  evidence, 
if  believed,  was  sufficient  to  establi.«li 
the  fact  of  a  v.  ant  of  novelty  in  tk' 
plaintifl''s  invention,  though  there  was 
no  proof  to  show  that  the  jn-ior  niadiiiie 
was  ever  used.  Parker  v.  Ferguson,  1 
Blatchf.,  408.— Nelsox,  J.;  K  Y, 
1849. 

12.  A  patentee  took  a  patent  for  a 
new  process,  mode,  or  inethod  of  con- 
verting puddler's  balls  into  blooms  in 
rolling  mills,  which  consisted  in  rolliiii,' 
the  ball  between  reciprocating  plates  or 
tables,  or  between  a  revolving  cylin- 
der, and  a  stationary  curve dsegmental 
trough.    Evidence  was  given  of  previ- 


KVIDKXCK,  II.  5. 


30!» 


INVKMTIUX,    SOVKLTY   AXI)  UriMTY  OF. 


inns  ;i 

nfthu 

oiitoi-'s 

•il;  llu' 

11,  CO.— 

ioiirt  to 
,  iiiiil  lit 

L'v'uU'lU'f 

«  iiivcu- 

to  sonu' 
not  y'v/\'\ 
iilisn  IT 
lh:it   ill.; 
frivolous 
11  of  util- 
f  is  sutli- 
7>/<?.,  G'J. 
or  an  in- 
Mit,  it  WHS 
)nstruL'ti.'iI 
tioii,    ami 
who  livi'il 
•e    of  eon- 
ly  l)y  liim 
aftt'vwavil 
Istc'd  in  it> 
evidt'iico, 
estaUisli 
ty  in  tl'L' 
there  was 
r  niacliiut' 
Irgiison,  1 
N.  Y., 

Jitent  for  a 
|o(l  of  cou- 
bloonis  in 
ill  rolling 
Ig  plates  or 
]\-ing  cylin- 
Isegmental 
of  previ- 


(Ills  us(!  of  m.'U'liiiu'H  for  iniHiiii;  iuxl 
{■oii<U'nsiiig  tlu'  odiTC's  of  coin  and  but- 
tons jiri'dsoly  like  plaintiff's  rt'ciproca- 
tin'4  tiihlt'^*,  iiiul  ;ils()  of  other  iniu-hincs 
f(ir  similar  UHos;  ami  of  a  inaehiiio  for 
iiiiiking  hnllots  by  pressure,  wliieli  were 
like  the  revolving;  eyliiub'r  and  eiirved 
s('!,'iiu'iital  troii<;li  of  plaintiff,  except 
that  the  jieripheries  of  both  were  jjjrouv- 
cil;  //(/(/,  that  siielnnacliines  for  making; 
liiillets  and  milling  buttons  and  coin  did 
iKit  show  a  want  of  novelty  in  the 
iiatenlee,  because  the  process  used  in 
tlii'iii,  the  i)urpose  for  which  it  was  used, 
and  the  objects  accomplished,  were  sub- 
stantially different.  Jlunlen  v.  Corniinj^ 
M.S.— Conk M\(i,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

13.  The  opinion  of  exjierts  or  scien- 
tific and  })ractical  men,  as  to  the  com- 
parative merits  of  two.  inventions,  can- 
luit  affect  the  (piestion  of  their  novelty. 
Window,  Ex2nirtc,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— Craxcii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1850. 

If.  It  api)earing  that  a  mill  for  grind- 
iii<;j  bark  constructed  a(;c()rdiiig  lo  the 
sjiecification  would  grind,  when  in  not 
very  rapid  ojieration,  a  cord  of  bark  an 
hour,  and  double  the  (piantity  that  could 
lie  ground  by  the  old  mills,  lldd,  that 
it  was  evidence  enougli  of  utility.  Wil- 
hvr  V.  Beeche)%  2  Blatchf.,  137. — Nkl- 
sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

15.  The  novelty  of  an  invention  can 
lie  defeated  by  a  prior  use  only  by 
showing  that  such  prior  use  accomplish- 
ed the  same  result  in  the  same  manner. 
Hence,  where  a  patent  was  for  the  ap- 
])lication  of  the  principle  of  the  cxjian- 
sion  and  contraction  of  a  metallic  rod 
to  regulate  the  heat  of  a  stove,  by 
means  of  the  heat  produced  by  the 
stove  itself,  it  will  not  be  defeated  by 
showing  a  prior  application  of  the  ex- 
pansion and  contraction  of  such  a  rod, 
heated  indirectly  by  the  heat  of  the 


furnace,  by  being  immersed  in  h<it 
water.  Fontc  \:  Silfiby,  2  Illatchf., 
2(50,  271.— Ni;i.s(.v,  .T. ;  X.  Y.,  iK.-ii. 

1(3.  Uiit  it  is  not  necessary  that  such 
prior  application  should  have  been  made 
by  the  very  best  apparatus  that  could 
bi;  devised.  The  (iiiesfion  does  not  de- 
pend on  the  <bi/n'c  of  nscfuhicss.  If  the 
application  operated  successfully,  and  so 
as  to  be  praeticallv  useful,  thouiih  it  inav 
not  have  been  the  very  best,  it  will  be 
siiflicient.     Ibid.,  274. 

17.  Under  the  act  of  170:1,  a  patent 
was  not  even  jr)m/jay(«'/e  evidence  that 
the  invention  pa'i.'Uted  was  new  or  use- 
ful;  but  under  the  act  of  ]8;iO,  a  pat- 
ent issued  after  the  incpiisition  or  exam- 
ination, re(piired  by  that  act,  is  received 
'M  j^ritna  faeic  evidence  of  the  facts  as- 
serted in  it.  CornliKj  v.  Jixrdiii,  15 
How.,  27o,  271.— CJiiua:,  J.;  Snp.  Ct., 
185;3. 

18.  Upon  an  application  for  a  patent, 
the  applicant  cannot  be  required  to  fur- 
nish evidence  of  the  practical  result  of 
his  invention.  To  entitle  an  inventor  to 
a  patent,  the  invention  need  not  be  in 
use  or  reduced  to  actual  practice  other- 
wise than  by  a  model,  drawings,  and 
specification  containing  a  written  de- 
scription of  the  invention,  and  of  its 
manner  of  operation.  JSeelcy,  JEx  2><'rte, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— MoRSELL,  J. ;  1).  C, 
1853. 

19.  And  it  is  enough  if  it  is  capable 
of  use,  for  some  beneficial  piu'pose ;  the 
degree  of  ntility,  whether  larger  or 
smaller,  is  not  a  subject  of  consideration. 
Ibid. 

20.  According  to  the  American  cases, 
the  result  alone,  when  the  effects  pro- 
duced are  moi*e  economical,  useful,  and 
beneficial,  or  a  better  article,  is  not  con- 
clusive evidence  of  the  novelty  of  an  in- 
vention, but  it  must  appear  that  the  re- 


^M^-mt 


>',  kim^ 


a»,''Uwii^^ 


:m 


h'^'^mBy 


310 


EVIDKN'CK,  H.  T). 


SiS^" 


^^'W 


*  7r' 


?i.: 


•S^l:i= 


'%^' 


Rs^i 


"■"**i.„ 


■*1 


INVKNIIU.V,    NdVKI.TY    AM'    UTILITY   OK. 


Milt  is  jtro(liic((l  l>ysiiiiii'  iic'.v  iirnccsH,  de- 
vice, or  in.'icliiiicrv,  tlioiiLrli  in  such  cisc 
l)ilt  slii^lit  (•\i(lriic('  of  novelty  will  l»e 
ro(iniie(l.  Yenrdoj  v.  linmkjfilil,  MS. 
(Ajip.  CiiH.)— .^I(»l{s|.;f.i ,  J.  ;  1).  C,  1853. 
lil.  Uniler  tlu*  Kii;,'lisli  cases,  tlie  re- 
sult alone,  inider  like  circuinstaiices,  is 
conclusive  cvidi'iico  of  invention.  Ihid. 

22.  Tli(!  jury  are  to  determine  iVoni 
the  facts  in  the  case  as  to  the  novelty 
of  the  invention,  liatt'in  v.  'I'dytjiirt, 
17  How.,  85. — McLka.v,  J. ;  Snp.  Ct., 
1854. 

23.  The  fact  of  the  use  of  a  patented 
invention  I»y  a  defendant,  is  evi<lence  of 
its  ntility,  and  will  subject  such  jxTsou 
to  damatjis,  Shnpnon.  v. 3rit(f.  llto. li. 
Ji.  Co.,  (i  ^rcLoaii,  004. — McLkax,  .1.; 
Ohio,  lN.->o. 

24.  The  ]»atent  is  prinxf  fitrie  evi- 
dence of  the  novelty  of  the  thinsj;  jiat- 
cnted.  2h!se  v.  J'/ulpti,  J  :\reAHis.,  49. 
— ^IcAi.i.TSTKi!,  .T.  ;  Cal.,  1855. 

•2').  AVhether  there  is  any  novelty  in 
an  iiiveiition  or  arrangement  of  j)i;vts, 
is  a  (itiestioii  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  de- 
termine, u[»oii  !i  view  of  all  the  evidence 
in  the  case.  SicHcxx.  Borden,  i]  Blatchf., 
540.— Nei.so.v,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  IB.-jO. 

20.  A  i)ateiit,  when  introduced  in  ev- 
idence, whether  it  be  an  orij;inal  or  re- 
issued one,  is  prlnid  facie  (.'y'uh'uvo.  that 
the  thint;  ■  mted  was  new  aiid  useful, 
and  that  the  i)atenteo  Mas  the  inventor 
or  discoverer  thereof.  Serrell  v.  (Ud- 
lina,  MS. — IxGKRsoLL,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

27.  A  foreign  patent  is  onW 2>rif)i<i 
facie  evidence,  as  a  patent  granted  by 
our  own  government,  that  the  invention 
was  of  some  probable  value.  Galling 
V.  Neioall,  9  Ind.,  582. — Pkukins,  J. ; 
Ind.,  1857. 

28.  The  report  of  a  committee  of  a 
state  fair,  as  to  an  invention,  is  not  ad- 
missible as  to  the  utility  of  the  inven- 


tion,  as   lu'ing   but   hearsay  evidence. 
IhiiL,  582. 

21).  A  medal  awariled  by  an  iiic.)r|Mi. 
rated  body,  as  the  American  InKtihiti 
of  N'cw  i'l*/*/',  is  evidence  of  the  .sainc 
character  as  to  utility.     I/tit/.,  5s2. 

;i().  A  patent  is  y>/'/y//r<yWc/(;  evidence 
that  the  thing  d(!scribed  in  it  is  new 
and  must  control  the  (juestion,  unless 
countervailed  by  the  defi-ndant's  cvi- 
deuce.  Wafcrhnr;/  Jiraan  Co.  v.  A'.  J'. 
<t'  Ji.  Jha.'is  Co.,  JMS. — lN(ii;ijs(>i,i,,  J.- 
N.  Y.,  1858. 

31.  A  i)!itent  h  priiiif/  facie  evidence 
that  the  grant  of  right  in  it  isvali.r 
that  the  things  described  in  it  are  new 
and  useful;  that  they  re(]uired  iiiventidii, 
and  that  they  were  the  invention  of  tliu 
patentee;  and  such  jirinia  fade  cvi 
dence  must  have  full  eilect,  unless  re- 
butted bv  suflicient  counterv;iilin<'  cvi- 
dence.  J'atdr  v.  Holla  ml,  3IS.— 1.\. 
(iicnsoij,,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

32.  A  patiMit  \h  2>riina  facie  evidenci' 
that  .An  invention  is  new  and  usel'iil. 
Poppenheusen  v.  JV.  Y.  G.  P.  C'.mh. 
Co.,  4  ]]latchf. — Ingersoli,,  J. ;  \.  Y,, 
1858. 

33.  The  fact  th.at  a  defendant  has  uso.l 
the  thing  [patented,  the  invention  of  tlie 
plaintiff,  is  very  strong  evidence  as  to 
the  utility  of  the  thing  i)atented  ;  'if  it 
is  not  useful,  why  does  he  use  it  ?    Ihid. 

34.  The  degree  of  the  utility  of  nii 
invention,  is  not  a  matter  of  considora- 
tion.  If  it  was  useful  at  the  time  the 
patent  M'as  granted,  tlie  p.atent  isviili''; 
and  if  it  has  become  useless  since,  bv 
the  discovery  of  some  other  luetliod 
which  disi)enses  with  it,  this  gives  no 
other  ])erson  the  right  to  use  it.    /i/'. 

35.  But  if  the  invention  is  useless  ii~ 
to  the  i^articular  thing  used  by  the  de- 
fendants, then  they  are  not  liable.   IbiJ. 

86.  The  patent  raises  the  presumjition 


EVIDKNCK,  II.  6.— KXAMIXKllS  OF  PATKNT  OFFICE.        311 


INTKSriON,   NMVKI.IIV   ANll   fTIMrY  OK, 


OKKICAI.   I'OSITIIIV  AXI)  DUTIES    ')¥. 


of  in»vt'Ity  iiiiil  iililily,  \>n\  courts  will 
not  l»t'  vi'i'y  riitifl  in  iii(|nirini^  as  to  tin- 
(li'i/m^  of  Hucli  utility.  //« //  v.  JJ<tni<ln^ 
?^[S._Tii;Avn-r,  .1. ;  Ohio,  is-ls. 

;(7.  Till!  jcitciit  itself  affords  pt'lnin 
jUrie  cvitlcnco  of  utility  ;  but  tlic  dc- 
ft'iuliiiit  may  robiit  this  jin'siiiiiptioii 
])V  cvidi'iM'i!,  and  if  ho  makes  it  apiicar 
tliif  tilt'  invention  is  utterly  worthless, 
it  !•<  a  <,'ood  defenec.  Vdmui  v.  Cmnp- 
Inll,  MS.— Leavi'it,  J.;  Ohio,  1859. 

'AS.  There  is  a  i»resum)>tion  arisiuLT 
fioni  tlio  patent  itself  in  favor  of  the 
novelty  of  the  invention  wliieh  it  cov- 
ers. Hut  this  presumi»tion  may  be  over- 
come by  showing?  tlisit  the  thiiii^  had 
lit'i'ii  i)riviously  known.  ColiiKtn  v. 
Liixor,  ."\1S. — liKAvrrr,  .T.  ;  Ohio,  ls,")9. 

oO.  The  <,feneral  <b)etriiie  is  that  there 
is  a  j)resum])tion  arisini;  from  the  pat- 
out  itself,  that  the  invention  is  of  some 
(k'lrree  of  utility  ;  tliis  however  is  jiot 
coni'Iiisive,  an<l  the  defendant  niav  show 
lliat  it  is  useless  and  worthless.  Zre  v. 
Bla)t'h/,'M^. — Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

40.  A  greater  degree  of  utility  being 
acliieved  by  one  maehine  is  evidence, 
and  sometimes  conclusive  evidence,  of 
novelty  in  the  me.niis  or  instnnnental. 
ities  which  are  used.  liamcs  v.  Cool; 
MS.— Si'itAGUE,  J. ;  JNIass.,  1800. 

41.  In  an  action  for  infringement 
where  there  is  doubt  upon  the  (piestion 
of  novelty,  or  where  the  evidence  of  the 
witnesses  leave  it  uncertain,  the  plain- 
tiff may  offer  evidence  going  to  show 
that  his  invention  in  its  practical  oper- 
ation produces  results  never  before  pro- 
duced, and  that  it  is  superior  to  other 
inventions  of  the  same  character.  Such 
evidence,  though  perliaps  inadmissible 
if  offered  by  the  plaintiff  as  to  the 
question  of  utility,  may  still  be  receiv- 
ed, as  helping  to  lead  the  jury  to  just 
concUisions  upon  the  question  of  novel- 


(>/.  Jmlson  V.  C()2K\  3IS. — Leavitt, 
.r.;  Ohio,  IMOO. 

42.  In  other  words,  if  the  jury  are 
sutisfu'd  that  the  invention  jiateiited 
produces  a  result  <lecide(lly  and  clearly 
diil'erent  frouj  any  which  had  been  pro- 
duced by  the  action  of  I'ormer  inven- 
tions dt'signeil  for  like  uses,  and  that  it 
was  decidedly  superior  in  its  operation, 
it  would  alford  ground  for  the  presiuiip- 
tion  that  the  thing  itself  had  not  been 
known  bi  fore.     Ihid. 

4n.  As  to  the  point  whether  an  in- 
vention furnishes  either  a  new  article 
or  a  better  or  cheaper  one,  it  seems 
that  the  testimony  of  comj)etent,  disiu- 
tcested  witnesses,  who  are  ]>ractical 
persons,  and  capable  of  judging  as  to 
the  matter  in  issue,  will  be  ret^eived, 
and  are  entitled  to  credit  as  to  whether 
the  invention  is  better  or  cheaper.  Ar- 
t/iii>',  J'Jx parte,  IMS,  (App.  Cas.)— Moii- 
si:i,r.,  J.;  I).  C,  isoi. 

44.  As  to  the  novelty  and  utility  of 
an  invention,  the  testimony  of  disin- 
terested, competent  witnesses  experi- 
enced in  the  invention  will  be  received, 
and,  it  seems,  will  overcome  apparent 
resemblances  to  other  inventions.  Iloyt, 
Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moksell, 
J.;  1).  C,  1800. 

45.  Upon  the  application  for  a  p:it- 
ent,  the  testimony  of  practical  men  as 
to  tlie  utility  of  the  invention  is  en- 
titled to  consideration.  Jlayden,  Kx 
parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — ^Ieiujuk,  ,T.  ; 
D.  C,  18G0. 


EXAMINERS    OF    PATENT    OF 
FICE. 

1.  The  officer  of  the  Patent  Office, 
who  may  attend  before  tlie  judge  on  au 


'''■^^'^^SsS^S^^^^.    M. 

H-^ 

?li? 

"^/  /  /wi  smii^ 

.■M 

;,,,.,aMi;^^ 

#• 

s;^*^w« 

IS 


^WJ 


■fV^f-' 


* 


312 


k\.\minl:i{s  ok  patknt  orKici-:.— kxiicition". 


orndAL  I'DMiioN  and  DtMiKH  or. 


^'•^W' 


'*^ 


Wk^' 


^--,m 


%~'*-^ 


HAI.H  OK    I'ATKMM    ANI»   ('OPVllimi  IM   IMiltn. 


ap|>('a1.  iiiidcr  flio  pi'iviHions  of  ^  1 1  of 
till*  act  (>\'  Is:;(>,  is  not  coiisidcn'il  as 
counsel  for  tin.'  I'atc^nt  OHicc,  or  as  an 
ttdvoi-ato  of  cither  of  the  [)arlieH  liti- 
gant, lie  only  attends  for  the  jmrposc 
of  exji'.ainiiiLj  tiie  decision  of  llic  (\»ni- 
missio'icr.  I'trrijx.  <'iii'/nU,yiS.  (App. 
C'as.)— C'uAN.ii,  "ch.  J. ;  I).  C,  1HI7. 

2.  Tht)  examiners  in  tlic  Talent  Of- 
fice arc  only  the  assistantM  of  the  Coni- 
niiss'.oner  in  tjie  discharj^'e  of  his  ilnties, 
and  cannot  Iil-  constitntt'd  a  "l)oai'(l  of 
examiners,"  with  power  to  aHirn;  or 
reverse  the  «lecision  of  tlie  Commis- 
sioner. Tiio  Coinmisioncr  cannot  trans- 
fer to  them  his  power.  .I/Zivv^,  A'x 
jKirte  { I ')•<</),  II,  r),  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
('i;an<  II,  ("i.  .1.  ;  I).  C'.,  Ih.'jO. 

3.  On  an  appeal  to  the  Justices  of  the 
Cire\iit  Court  of  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, an  exa  iiiner  of  the  I'alent  Othce 
may  be  incjuired  of  as  (o  tlie  nature  and 
features  of  the  invention  under  consid- 
eration, and  essential  to  the  riufht  claiTu- 
ed,  and  which  may  not  be  sutliciently 
set  forth  in  the  report  of  the  Connnis- 
sioner.  Skcley,  Kx.  ivtrte^  ]MS.  (Aj)]). 
Cas.)— :\roi!si.;r.L,  J.;  1).  C,  185.3. 

4.  The  i)rovisions  of  ij  11  of  the  act 
of  1H39  as  to  the  examination,  on  ap- 
peal, of  the  Commissioner  or  examin- 
ers of  the  Patent  Ofllce  on  appeals, 
jniist  be  considered  in  connection  with 
the  provision  in  §  7  of  the  act  of  18;Ui, 
as  to  the  powers  of  the  old  boarii  of 
examiners.  Mlchardson  v.  IlirJcs,  ^IS. 
(App.  Cas.)— :Mouskij,,  J.,  1).  C,  1854. 

5.  The  laue^nage  of  the  statute  means 
that  the  explaui.iion  authorized  to  be 
required  of  the  Commissioner  and  ex- 
aminers may  be  so  full  and  clear  an  ex- 
phmation  of  the  jmnciples  of  the  thing 
as  to  enable  the  judge  duly  to  apply  and 
weigh  the  evidence  offered  to  support 
the  issue  in  the  case,  and  is  not  to  be 


limitcil  to  a  mere  exposition  of  il„i 
terms  usi  d,  and  such  exphuialiuns,  >(, 
given,  till'  Juilgc  is  boimd  to  respcc;  as 
a  [lart  of  the  case.     //'/(/. 

(I.  Previous  to  tlio  act  of  ^fanli  2tl 
lMt)l,  nil  judicial  acts  done  in  the  I'at- 
cut  Ollicc  by  the  primary  exaiiiincrs 
or  the  board  of  appeals  were,  in  in. 
tendment  of  law,  the  jmlicial  acts  of 
the  Commissioner,  junl  had  no  l('i,';il 
validity  until  sanctifxicd  by  him.  'flicv 
were  the  organs  of  the  Connnissimur 
to  inquire  and  cnlhi/den  his  judgment 
and  till  the  Connnissioner  gave  validity 
to  their  judicial  acts  by  his  /A//,  tluv 
had  no  h'gal  evidence  us  judtruicat. 
Snowdcn  v.  Pierce,  JMS.  (.Ajip.  Cas.)— 
DrNi.op,  J.;  I).  C,  1861. 

7.  I'lider  the  act  of  1801,  the  prini.i- 
ry  examiners  and  examim-rs  in  (.|ii,,f 
are  recognized  n^  jiidifial  cjfici  rs,  m-i- 
ing  indejiendently  of  the  Connnissioner, 
who  can  onli/  control  t/ntn  when  tlicir 
judgment  in  due  course,  comes  Itcfurc 
the  Commissioner  on  a])peal.     J//id. 

8.  Their  acts  are  not  tlie  acts  of  tho 
Commissioner,  but  their  own  acts.  Tluv 
are  no  longer  tncre  organs  of  the  Com- 
missioner, but  inde])endent  olliccrs.  He 
can  only  reach  aiul  overrule  tlu'Mi  wlun 
their  judgments  come  reguhu-ly  before 
liim  on  oj>2)eal.     Ibid. 

n.  The  (.Commissioner  can  give  no 
judgment  till  the  ajipeal  reaches  liini, 
ami  this  caimot  be  done  till  the  Judi,'- 
nicnt  of  the  primary  examiners  lias 
been  submitted  to  the  examiners  in 
chief.    Ibid. 


EXECUTION,  SALE  OF  PATENTS 
AND  COPYRIGHTS  UNDER. 

1.  The  levy  and  sale,  under  a:i  exe- 
cution, of  the  matericds  of  a  pateuteJ 


EXKCUTIOX.— KX  IM:I{  I M  KNTS. 


ni3 


HAI.K  or   PATKNTH  AM>  Col'YIllflllTB   INIiKH. 


UKI.ATIliX   OK,   TO   INVKNTItiN. 


injicliiiic,  (loi's  iiKi  coiivi'y  to   till'  jiiir- 
cliii^'cr  >iiiy  I'itflit  to  iiHU  tliu  ninuliiiK!  in 
till-  tnaiiiK'i'  |MiiiitoiI  out  in  the  ]MUi>nt 
Sncin  v.  (fuild,  1    (Jail.,  4H7.     SroitV, 
J.;  Mm^s1H1:I. 

•J.  An  .'iiitlior,  wln»  lias  obtaiiii'd  a 
(•<i]ivri'jjlit  imdcr  tliu  act  of  Con<;ivss 
ciiiiiiot  1)0  Ut'privod,  HLriiinst  his  will, 
;iii(l  ill  I'avDi'  of  liis  crcilitors,  of  any  of 
tiio  riijlits  sL'c'urcd  to  him  l»y  such  acts; 
iiid  ii(issi!)ly  they  cannot,  aj^ainst  his 
will,  st'''-^-'  and  sell  the  hooks  thcinsclvi's, 
thf  .'xcliisivc  rij^dit  of  V('n<lini^  which  is 
(Stcil  in  him.  (Jdojter  v.  Gu/m,  4  15. 
Moll.,  rjflO. — M.vusii.vt.L,  J. ;  Ky.,  1H44. 
n.  Ihit  this  protoction  docs  not  ex- 
tend  to  the  jiroitoi'ds  of  tlic  sale  of  his 
(•ii|iyri,i,dit,  whether  cxistiiii;  in  his  own 
liiiiid-i  or  hclil  l»y  another  for  his  use. 
Ibn/.,  r)it(i. 

4.  A  iiatented  niacliino,  mid  the  rii^jlit 
of  use  attached  to  it,  may  pass,  liy  s.-ile, 
devise,  or  levy  of  execution,  or  assi^ii- 
lUMit  of  an  insolvent's  effects.  WokI- 
mi-th  V.  Ci/rtia,  2  Wood.  &  Miii.,  530. 
-WoODiuntv,  J.  •  >I:iss.,  1847. 

').  The  incorporeal  right,  copyright, 
si'ciireil  hy  the  st.ntule  to  tlie  author, 
boiiig  iiitangildo  and  secured  by  grant, 
is  not  the  subject  of  seizure  or  sale  by 
t'xccution,  at  least  at  coniinon  luw  ;  but 
it  may  be  reached  by  a  creditor's  bill, 
md  be  ap|)lied  to  the  p.iynient  of  the 
Ji'hts  of  the  author.  Sk'phens  v  duly, 
U  How.,  uHI. — Xjjr.soN,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1852. 

0.  It  limy  however  be  doubted  Avlieth- 
iv  a  transfer  by  a  sale  under  a  decree 
ol'  court  would  i)ass  the  title  so  us  to 
pioU'ct  the  purchaser,  unless  by  a  con- 
VL'vaiice,  in  conformity  with  the  require- 
ments of  the  statute.     Ibid.,  502. 

7.  The  sale  of  a  copi)er-plate  of  a 
map,  ou  ail  execution  against  tiie  owner 
of  tlio  coi)yright,  does  not  carry  with 


it,  <u'  pass  to  the  purchaser,  tin*  right 
to  print  and  pnl)lish  the  map  engraved 
upon  it.     //>/»/.,  r);i'j.  ' 

8.  It  may  well  be  doubted  whether 
patents  and  copyrights,  held  under  the 
laws  of  the  I'nited  Stales,  an-  snbjeia 
to  seizure  and  sale  on  execution;  such 
incorporeal  rights  do  not  exist  in  any 
particiil:ir  state  or  district,  but  are  co- 
extensive with  the  I'liited  States.  Stc- 
vviin\.  (ihiddintj,  17  How.,  4")  I. — CfU 
US,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 


EXrEUIiMKNTS. 

1.  It  is  clearly  immaterial  whether 
experinu'iits  as  to  an  invention  are  made 
by  the  inventor  himself  or  by  others; 
the  question  being,  who  is  the  original 
inventor.  Pcitnork  v.  Dhdnipic,  4 
Wash.,  542. — WASiiiNurox,  J.;  Ta., 
1 825. 

2.  -;\.  patentee  may  tako  a  reasonable 
time  to  try  experiments  with  his  inven- 
tion, even  of  a  public  nature,  when  its 
character  recpiires  it,  without  invalidat- 
ing his  ]»atent  under  §  0  of  the  act  of 
17!t:5.  W/iltnci/  V.  Emmdt,  IJaUl.,  310. 
—  !>AM)Wix,  J.;  Ta.,  1831. 

3.  Whoever  lirst  perfects  a  machine 
and  makes  it  capable  of  useful  opera- 
tion, is  entitled  to  a  j)atent,  and  is  the 
real  inventor,  though  others  may  have 
previously  had  the  idea,  and  made  some 
experiments  toward  putting  it  in  prac- 
tice. Washhur)i\.  Gould,  3  Story,  133. 
— Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

4.  Semhle,  that  he  would  be  entitled 
to  a  patent,  although  the  antecedent 
experiments  of  others  were  known  to 
and  used  by  him  in  perfecting  his  ma- 
chine.    Ibid.,  133. 

5.  Though  others  may  have  had  the 


31" 


'^la^W' 


TT  cr 


'     '•/■-T' 


■  '  ■;'■ r 


,»<w.^,/ 


i-   ■■■■{.. 


vc^ 


311 


KXI'KIM.MKNTS. 


UKI.ATtON   lir,   TO    INVKMTION. 


^^        Tl^- 


''^W 


^^%^^ 


^i 


u 


iilcu  of  .'i  iniit'liiiii',  mill  tn\iU'  i-xpcri- 
nu'iits  tuwai'il  iMittin;;  it  iritn  practice, 
tlif  person  wild  liniilly  pcrt'cctN  it,  ainl 
ri'inltrs  it  capaMc  ol'  um-I'iiI  opcialioii, 
in  L'lititlcil  to  a  patent,  /lull  v.  Mm-ry, 
10  IViiii,  IIU.— l{<Hii;|{H,  J.;  Ta.,  IHIH. 
(1.  Ciinlf  ami  impcrrcct  cxpcriiiiciitx, 
o(jiii vocal  ill  llicir  results,  aiul  tlieii  j/iv- 
cii  lip  (or  years,  cannot  be  permitted  to 
prevail  aj^aiiist  an  «>ri<final  inventor,  who 
lias  peilected  liis  iinproveiiieiit  ami  oh- 
tained  liis  patent.  I'dihlini'tit  v.  Khia- 
mtni,  1  IMalclit",  41)4. — N lastt.N,  J.  j  N. 
v.,  1S49. 

7.  In  ofder  to  entitle  a  jierson  to  the 
characl(>r  of  an  inventor,  ami  his  inven- 
tion to  heconie  the  Kuhjecl  of  a  patent, 
ho  must  not  stop  at  tnisuccosHfiil  experi- 
ments, hut  continue  until  he  liaslm Jiu'hl 
out  a  niachliie  producing,' a  useful  result, 
!Uid  without  this  his  iiiveiilion  will  lie 
■worthless  to  the  coimiiiniity,  and  umle- 
Hcrvinj^  the  protection  of  tho  law.  Jfr- 
Coi'inlck  v.  Sii/tno'it',  ^IS. — Nki..so.v, 
J.  ;  N.  v.,  18.-) I. 

8.  A  patentee  or  an  inventor  has  a 
right  to  try  his  machine,  and  continue 
his  exjK'riinents  until  he  has  perfected 
liis  improvement.     Jltid. 

9.  It  is  when  speculation  has  been  re- 
duced to  jiractice,  when  oxperiineiit  has 
resulted  in  discovery,  and  when  that 
discovery  has  been  perfected  by  patient 
and  continued  experiment,  when  some 
new  compound,  art,  manufacture,  or 
machine,  has  been  thus  produced  which 
is  useful  to  the  public,  that  the  party 
making  it  becomes  a  public  benefactor, 
and  entitled  to  a  patent.  Goodyear  v. 
Day,  2  Wall,  Jr.,  29U.— Guikk,  J.;  N. 
J.,  1852. 

10.  An  imperfect  and  incomplete  in- 
vention, resting  in  mere  theory,  or  an 
intellectual  notion,  or  in  uncertain  ex- 
periment, aud  uot  actually  reduced  to 


pnictice,  and  embodied  in  Home  diKtiiut 
machinery,  apparatus  or  the  like,  i,  |,,,t 
patent abltt  under  our  laws.  M<ti'Hli,,li 
V.  ,1/..,  .MS.  (.\pp.  Cas)— l)LM,,j|.,  J.. 
1 ).('.,  iHflM. 

1 1.  A  long  course  o{  mere  fniltl,»n 
experiments  to  re<luce  a  priiicipio  to 
pr.ictice,  will  not  be  siitlicient  to  pr, . 
vent  a  Hubse<pient,  original  invcnidr 
who  has  perfected  his  invention,  with, 
out  knowledge  of  the  prior  inveiition, 
from  receiving  a  patent.  M<-<'i,r)iilrk 
V.  A'ltr/iinn,  .MS.  (.Vpp.  C'as.)— Mi)ii. 
sEt.i,,  J.;  1).  C,  iHfliJ. 

12.  IJut  where  a  prior  invi'utor  Imn 
been  Using  due  <liligenc(i  to  perfect  his 
invention,  and  ad:ipt  it  to  prutical  ibc>. 
his  right  will  bo  preserved  and  protect. 
ed,  although  his  buccess  may  not  be 
perfect.     Ihid. 

i;i.  A  machine,  in  order  to  anliciiuic 
any  subseipient  discovery,  must  he  per- 
fected, that  is,  nnide  so  as  to  be  of 
practical  utility,  and  not  to  be  nu'ivly 
experimental,  and  end  in  expeiiiiieiit. 
L'litil  of  practical  utility,  the  piililic  at- 
teiition  is  not  called  to  the  invention; 
it  does  not  give  to  the  public  that  which 
the  public  lays  hold  of  as  beiielicial. 
tlince  V.  Undtrwood,  IMS. — Si'ijAiiii:, 
.J.;  3Iass.,  1854. 

14.  If  an  invention  is  an  exporiinont 
only,  and  ends  in  experiment,  and  is 
laid  aside  as  unsuccessful,  however  Un- 
it may  have  been  adv.'inced,  however 
many  ideas  nuiy  have  been  coinbineil 
in  it,  Avhicli,  subsecpiently  taken  \\\\ 
might,  when  perfected,  make  a  gooj 
machine,  still  not  being  perfected,  it  has 
not  come  before  the  public  as  a  useful 
thing,  and  is  therefore  entirely  inopera- 
tive as  afFecting  the  rights  of  those 
coming  afterward.    Ibid. 

15.  Where  a  person  is  engaged  in 
produchig  some  new  and  useful  instru 


KXI'KUIMKNTS. 


815 


RKI.ATIoN    ii»,     til    INM  MION. 


mont  or  coiitrtvnm'o,  aint  Iium  ciiilioilit'tl ' 
It  iiitoa  iiiat'liinr,  tuul  I'luleavorcil  to  ru- 1 
ilmt'  it  to  priu'tlci'  by  oxix'i-iiiu'iit — if 
l!iii-i'  irijils  fail — if  he  fail  in  nucrcsH  mid  | 

•ili:iiiil"i>  ill  ii'xl  K'^*'  it  "I'l  t'l"^  cDiiMid- 
i>r:iiinii  alfui'iis  mi  iin|iciliiiu'iit  to  aiio- 
tlu'i'  pc'i'Mon  who  lia.H  titk(>ii  up  tliu  Haiiic 
idoa,  or  clasH  of  iilciis,  nini  wlio  liuHj^niu- 
nil  |icrst'VoriiiL;Iy  in  liin  sfinliis,  trials, 
mill  (Xiiurimonts,  until  In*  lias  pfilVTU'il 
tlic  iirw  itii'ii,  and  hi-<)ii;r|it  it  into  prac- 
tical and  UHcfnl  operation,  lie  is  tlu> 
iii'i'Min,  tlic  nit'i'itorions  inventor,  wlio 
is  ctililU'd  to  liio  |i|-(it«'ction  of  tlio  law. 
Vi„"iiti  V.  K  y.  tts  Jliir.  liJl,  :il  Jour. 
Y\:  Inst.,  :td  Sor.,  .'I'J'J. — Nki.hon,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1H.'»3. 

10.  If  a  person  liavinuj  homio  vaLjnc 
idea  i)f  a  principU',  nia'i«'  niinicious 
triMls  and  experiments,  if  tlutse  trials 
mill  I'vperinients  do  not  reHiilt  in  fiieli  a 
kiiowle  l;,'o  upon  Ills  part  as  enahles  liini 
1(1  jiiil  in  siu'cessi'ul  practice  the  idea  of 
wliicli  lie  has  such  va<;ne  notion,  he 
does  not  beconu'  an  inventor  iu  the 
80I1M'  of  tlio  jiiiteiit  law.  lli(iiHt»)i  V. 
M'ii/'>i;  <Cv.,  of  X>:tti  York^  .MS. — Hall, 
J.;*N.  v.,  1H50. 

17.  Such  a  person  has  never  onibod- 
icd  tlic  principle  ho  as  to  make  it  aviiila- 
Mc  for  practical  use  ;  and  the  party  who 
(.'iiiliodies  the  priiicijdo  and  makes  it 
!iv!iilal)l(!  for  practical  use,  is  the  party 
who  is  entitled  to  a  patent,  and  to  \)Vo- 
taction.     Ihid. 

18.  An  unsuccessful  experiment  almn- 
doiied,  althoiij^h  iiivolviiii;  the  same  idea 
or  principle,  will  not  invalidate  a  patent 
granted  to  a  subse(pient  inventor  who 
has  reibiced  the  invention  to  successful 
practice,  and  published  it  by  obtaining 
letters  patent.    Ibid. 

19.  The  use  of  a  patented  invention 
as  a  matter  of  business,  and  the  product 
of  which  is  thrown  into  market  for  the 


purpose  of  being  Hold,  raiUlot  b«>  called 
I'xperiment.al,  but  is  huoIi  a  use  an  will 
make  tint  party  liable.  Vi>/>^n:nhtii»en 
V.  .V.  >'.  li.  A  ('«mh  ('„.,  I  llliitchf.— 
iNoKiiaoi.L,  J. ;  \.  v.,  Ih.'i'-t. 

'20.  Kxperiinents  made,  (Mpiivocal  in 
their  results,  antl  jxiven  up  for  year»», 
will  not  be  permitted  to  prevail  a;^fainst 
an  orit^'inal  inventor  who  has  r(>duced 
his  invention  to  practice,  and  has  with- 
out fraiul  obtained  a  patent.  I'Ullthtn'pt', 
\.  Jii>/)t:rtiion,y\H. — I.nukusoi.i,,  J.;  N. 

v.,   1851). 

'J I.  An  experiment  as  to  the  pioilue- 
tion  of  a  maihine,  whi(h  was  unsatis* 
factory  and  had  l>een  aliandoned,  is  not 
HU(di  an  invention  as  entitles  a  person 
to  the  bciietit  of  tlic  patent  laws.  Whi- 
tni.'f  V.  I>iniJ\irtli,  iMS. — Ni;i,s»»n,  J,; 
\.  v.,  IHOO. 

'-'2.  Where  a  person  has  attempted  to 
invent  a  certain  drvice,  and  aflcr  tri;d 
and  experiment  has  in  his  own  jud<{ 
ment  failed  and  abandoned  the  experi- 
ment, this  fact  removes  all  impediments 
in  the  way  of  any  future  inventor  who 
tnay  follow  in  the  same  line.      [h'nl. 

iJ.'i.  Kxperime>'ts  of  another,  even  if 
kiu)wn  to  a  jtatontee,  Avill  not  defeat  the 
claims  of  such  patentee  to  originality 
of  invention,  if  it  appear  that  su(di  pat- 
entee has  prosecuted  such  experinientH 
to  success.  Jiidson  v.  JIuoi'e,  MS. — 
LKAVriT,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

24.  Neither  the  patent  law  nor  the 
decisions  of  our  courts  liavo  tixi'd  any 
precise  jieriod  applicable  to  the  experi- 
mental use  of  new  inventions.  The 
period  for  experiments  nuist  depend 
upon  the  nature  of  the  invention,  and 
the  opportunities  of  the  inventors.  See- 
ley  V.  Bean.,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mou- 
sKix,  J. ;  D.  C,  1801. 

25.  What  would  not  constitute  prop- 
er diligence  under  some  circumstances, 


, ,    ■ ». 


:'>^'\ 


■        ( 


'■■,»vf'J 


310 


KXPKin'S. 


TMriMUilV  or,  WilKM  AMIIMIItt.M,  Akl»  ritHi'N  or. 


4 


l^iwl 


wIh'H  tlif  cxpfriiiifiit*  wi'iit  ovtT  n  f»'W 
iiiontliM,  wiMilil  hot  iiiMoiiiit  to  ikliuixloii- 
liii'iit  iiinli'i'  (itlu'rcin-iiiii^tiiMfcs  tliiiii^K 
the  i>x|K>i'itii('iil'4  iiii>;lit  li;ivc  ^uiiu  Dwr 
ii  imiiilx'r  of  j't'afM.     /A/*/. 

'.Ml.  'I'lif  iiatiiru  mill  oxtrtit  of  tliin 
ri^lit  )li'|>i'ii<tH  (Ml  ('in'iiiiiHliiiirfM,  miil 
iiiiiHt  lit'  iHt'il  roiiMiMtciitly  willi  tilt' 
|M)licy,  hpirit,  aixl  ntituro  of  tlio  piitviil 
liiwH  n<|iiiriiijx  vij^ilain'c,  iiinl  ih-wih'kh 
lit  flu*  time  (jf  aiiplh'iitiiiii  fur  a  iiatciil. 


KXPKirrS,  TKSTIMONY  Ul\ 

1.  Tilt'  <»|iiiiii»iis  of  skilful  iH'i'MoiiM, 
wlit'llicr  tlif  iiriiiciplt'H  of  two  iiiiicliiiu's 
art'  till!  saiiif,  arc  (•oinpt'tciit  cvitlt'iicf  to 
be  iiilrndiiccil  in  u  pati-tit  caiiMc.  Jfur- 
ri'tt  V.  /A'//,  I  ^hw.,  470. — Sionv,  J. ; 

Mass.,    IMIM. 

'2,  IJiil  jilllioiiijii  tlio  (csf'imoiiy  of  wit- 
lii'MHcs  Ik'  atiinissiltli'  to  prove  the  idi-ii- 
tlty  or  <liversity  of  iiiaeliiiies  in  priiiei- 
Jilt',  yet,  after  all,  it  is  Itiit  matter  of 
opinion,  ami  its  weiiilil  must  l»e  jiulj^ed 
of  liy  all  the  other  eireunrslanees  of  the 
case.  It  is  inlinitely  more  salisfaetory 
to  RHCert.iiii,  if  it  bo  jiossiblc,  the  pre- 
cise tlin'ereiices  ami  ngreeiiieiitH ;  and 
when  these  can  be  subjected  to  the  eyes, 
they  almost  supersede  all  tlio  cvidenee 
of  mere  opinion.      IhiiL^  471. 

3.  In  actions  for  viol.-itioii  of  patents, 
persons  aetpiainted  with  the  particular 
art  to  which  the  controversy  relates,  are 
usually  examined  for  the  purpose  of 
pointiiifj;  out  and  cxplaininj;  to  the  Jury 
tlie  points  of  resemblance,  or  of  diller- 
cnce,  between  the  thintj  patented  and 
th.it  M'hich  is  the  allcufetl  cause  of  the 
controversy  ;  and  the  oi»inions  of  such 
witnesses,  in  relation  to  the  materiality 


of  apparent  ditrereiices,  are  aUvaym>||. 
tilled  lo  great  rc»pect.  Ibil  nib  r  nil 
the  jury  mii«»  j'l'lf^e  for  thein«el\i'.,  ,|, 
well  Upon  the  information  no  ^ivfii  tn 
then),  at  upon  their  ow.i  view,  uhttu 
the  articles,  or  models  of  ihcni,  ui-() 
brou;(ht  into  court.     lHjfon  \,  M,„f,f 

4    Wash.,    71. —  W.VhlUNtilo.N,    ,1.;    pj,_ 
IH'21. 

4.  Ft  Is  compi'tent  to  show  by  expi  rts 
that  llieie  .are  material  ditU  rciiccs  |„.. 
twceii  an  ori);inal  and  a  reisHUid  patent 
Mild  to  explain  what  thoNu  ditrerciiiiH 
are.  Phili.  cC  Tim.  Ii.  Ii.  v.  SH,„jm„„ 
It  Pet.,  40;.'.— S'r«»uv,  J.;  Sup.  ft., 
IH4(). 

.').  Whelhor  a  patent  is  \oid  f.-r  im. 
certainty  or  ambij,'uity  in  the  dcscri|p. 
tion,  is  u  matter  of  fact  to  be  decidcl 
upon  the  evidence  of  experts.  II'im/c 
fiiint  v.  (Joiild,  1)  »Sl»u'y,  liia. — .Smuv, 
J.;   .M.iss.,  1H44. 

(i.  The  opinions  of  professioii.al  men, 
art'  CYifleiice  as  to  matters  which  icliilo 
to  their  profession,  and  on  such  siilijccts 
only.  And  this  riil>'  applies  to  iiiccliaiiics 
as  well  as  to  any  other  profession  or 
business.  Jtroohx  \.  /lii-/:/i,ll,  ;i  Me- 
Lean,  447. — >r<  I.ica.v,  J.  ;  Ohio,  iHti. 
7.  The  patent  acts  look  to  two  clasM's 
of  persons,  not  only  .is  competent,  hut 
as  peculiarly  appropriate  witnesses,  but 
for  tlilfereiit  purposes.  1.  Artis;iiis,  of 
persons  jiraetically  eii<^a<^ed  in  the  tiuili', 
eniploymenl,  or  business  of  the  paiticii- 
I.ir  branch  of  mechanics  to  wliicli  tlic 
pateiit-riifht  applies,  as  to  whether  tlio 
specilication  siifllcieiitly  described  tlic 
invention  so  that  it  could  be  coiistnict- 
ed  anil  used.  And  '2.  Persons  who,  al- 
thout^h  not  practical  artisans,  are  tlior- 
oufijhly  conversant  with  the  subject  of 

'  inochanics  as  .1  science,  as  to  the  (pu's- 
tioiis  of  novelty  of  invention,  or  idciiti- 

1  ty  or  diversity  of  mechanical  apparatus, 


r.XPKKTS. 


817 


TRirriNnNT  or.  wiirn  admimiiilk,  amd  rtmcR  or. 


jitvl  f.tntrlvnnri'*,  ntnl  cciiilvnlcnttt— onil 
;i.»  til  till""'  i|iu"«tii»it«,  M'U'iiiitlf  iiit'chnn- 
i,s  iin-  fli*'  v»'ry  li'iKlu'tt  wilni'WM'*,  .1/- 
/,„  \.  lihuil,  :i  Slniy,  7I7-741).— Ht»». 
K^.J.;   MiiM^.,   I  Hi:,. 

N,  TIk'  |iiit('iil  lU't  ('i>iiti'ni|>lMl('s  two 
c\\\^*\"^  of  |ii>i'r*iiiiH  IIS  pt'ciilhirly  a|)|irti|iri- 
all'  wiliu'HM'!*  ill  |ialfiit  fa'«t'H.  Int.  I'rai'- 
tii'ul  tiii'i'liaiiit'M,  to  ili'tiriiiiiii  the  hiiIH- 
(•'uiii'V  of  lilt'  H|»»'<'ilitatioti  \\s  to  ilif 
inoilc    of    collet riH'liii^r,    «'oin|i'iiinilni;.', 

ami  ii'*'">K  •'"'  I'"'*'"'  ■>  »'"'  '-''•  f^<'*><'i>- 
title  u'lil  tliroivlic  liu'rliaiii«s  to  «U'lrr- 
miiif  "  iii'llit  r  tlic  pati'iitttl  tliiiitr  i^  '*"'»- 
^I;llltially  lu'w  ill  its  xiriicliin'  ami  iiiodc 
of  (i|u'iiilioti,  or  a  iiicrc  rliaiiiff  of  »'(|iiiv- 
aliiils.  Till'  Hoi'oiul  Ik  l>y  far  tlio  liii^lu'r 
ami  iiM'ii  "nii|iortMiil  of  |ln«  two.  f)li;,ff 
V.  //>nr/cliiH,  J   AiiuT.   Law    Jour.,   N. 

S.,  :»JI.— >Iii.i'i;i{.  •'• ;  Wi><.,  IHHI. 

It,  (iii'al  r»H|)»'ct  is  due  to  iho  vli'Ws 
ami  (i|iinioMs  of  scioiitilit;  iiidividiiiils, 
and  |ii;n'lical  mccli.'inics,  nii  tlu'  ijinstioii 
of  till!  i<k'iitity  of  dltVcrciil  nu'ili.Muical 
Htrufliiri's,  as  from  tlicir  ac<|iiaiiitaiici' 
with  tlicu'K'ini'iits  of  iiu'cliaiiical  Hcii'iici', 
they  art'  I'lialdcd  satisfictorily  to  decide 
this  ([lU'stioii,  wliili",  to  otlii'is,  it  luii^lil 
siciii  to  Ik'  involved  ill  ol»scurity  and 
ilimht.  Porker  v.  Sti/is,  5  MclA'aii,  (It. 
— LK.wriT,  J.;  Ohio,  l«tO. 

10.  The  opinion  of  experts,  or  sci- 
tiitilic  and  praclieal  men,  as  totlieeom- 
lianilivc  nu-rits  of  two  inventions,  eaii- 
not  atfut't  the  question  of  tlieir  novelty. 
Wi/iifhw,  Ex parti'y  MS.  (.Kpp.  Cas.) — 
CuAN.ii,  Ch. .].;  I).  C,  1H50. 

11.  riie  oi»iiiions  of  seientifie  men 
updn  topies  within  their  own  depart- 
iiK'iits  of  knowledj^e,  aro  cspeeially  de- 
sirable ill  patent  cases,  and  when  duly 
supported  by  reu8onin.i;s  founded  on  as- 
certained fact,  arc  to  be  valued  highly. 
French  v.  liogcrs^  MS. — Guiku,  Kank, 
JJ.;  Pa.,  1851. 


13.  Dtit  it  U  n  ini<«taki>  to  mtppnnc 
that,  I'Vi'ii  on  a  ipieotion  of  Meieiici', 
ophiioii  ctui  be  di<..;iiilled  with  the  inatilli' 
of  authority.  Still  1«'»h,  when  it  a^tsumes 
I'onteHtrd  fart-*,  or  xohinleers  to  aiil  in 
deterininiiiiX  written  in-itrument"-.   llil,f, 

l:i.  Kxperls  may  bu  I'xainiiietl  aH  to 
the  ineaniii^of  tiTiiiH  of  art,  cte.,  on  tho 
priiH'iple  of  «•///«///#!  in  mm  iirfi  rrnfiti- 
i/iiiit,  liitt  not  a«  to  the  conv^tnietion  of 
writti'ii  iiistruineiit"*.  (^itrnlmj  v.  ////*•■ 
fA/»,  1.^  How.,  '.'70. — (Jitii:u,  .1.;  Sup. 
I't.,  IHVI. 

I  1.  Models  may  be  referred  to  nsoni- 
lar  denmnstratioii  of  featurt-s  <'niineeted 
therewith,  aiiil  Hiieh  demonstration,  or 
evidence,  will  be  more  satisfactory  than 
the  opinion  of  «'xperts  in  opposiiioM 
llurelo.  //.//  V.  //;//,  MS.  (App.  ("as.) 
— MousKi.i.,  J.;  I).  I'.,  lH.'i4. 

MS.  Ill  |)!ilent  caHes,  the  mere  opinions 
of  experts,  when  not  sustained  by  point- 
ini;  out  eleaily  the  p.'irticiilars  of  ditfei- 
eiice  or  eoineideliee  between  pieces  of 
m:ichinery  constructed  to  produce  the 
same  results,  and  workinj^  out  those  re- 
sults by  means  so  nearly  ideiilic.il  as  to 
create  a  stronjj;  pre-.uiiiption  of  a  com- 
mon oriLfin,  will  not  atlbrd  very  .s.itisfic- 
tory  jtroof  that  such  opinitms  ought  to 
bo  adopted  by  the  Court.  U.  S.  An- 
ininchttiir  «0  Itdl  Td.  (Jo.  v.  Soiidirnoii, 
•.\  JJIati'hf.,  181J.— llirrrs,  J.;  N.  Y.,  In.". I. 

10.  In  matters  of  seienco,  a  jierson 
cannot  bo  considered  as  an  expert  un- 
less he  has  a  knowledge  of  the  scienco 
involved.  AUrn  v.  J/itnfir,  (i  Mi  I^'an, 
307,  aOH,  310.— :M(jLkan,J.  ;()hio,  1h:)5. 

17.  Ill  considering  testimony,  the  jury 
are  to  give  weight  to  it  in  proportion 
to  the  competency  of  the  witnesses  to 
judge  of  the  mattera  sworn  to.  Jbid.y 
310. 

18.  The  testimony  of  a  chemist,  who 
has  analyzed  the  higredients  of  a  com- 


U  iy  ,| 


.*^-!if'4; 


Ui/U»4^uM 


i    :   \:^[ 


11^*^ 


m. 


•IS 


KXPKUTH. 


nmiuvnx  ur,  *iit.h  AHuitMuix,  tuuut  ur. 


mi 


*?^ 


'i 


|H)Pitliul|  i>(  Itllltti'rs  Rll'l  ulio  li'Nfillixt  UN 

to  till'  rcHiilt  lit'  Minli  iiiiitly/ittioii,  in  imt 
liiiUU'i'  of  ii|iiiiiiiii,  liitt  ut'  tt  lUct  (lumiiii" 
utmti'.I.     //</«/.,  .11  J. 

Itt.  AtiulyitiM  in  llio  only  ino*lo  Ity 
mIi'hIi    till'   liiimiiM  ju<l};mi'iit   can   i'rn\ 

ll|i>rll  .'lliinltllc  ••(■Itaillly,      TIlfH'  uri'  Will 

(>vv  i|iu'HtiitiH  wliirli  may  Im>  tlfciiU>i| 
liy  iIm'  jiowtT  uf  uiialyHi-,  iln'iuii'ally  <>r 
liiatliciiialicully.  iliit  wlifii  lliin  i<«  i|imii> 
NUtHl'at'tiirily,  Initli  U  uttiiiii(><|,     /A/i/,, 

'JO.  MotlrlN  uro  Rviiioiicii  Hiipcrior  lo 
nii'l  iiimU'ci'IimI  by  tin;  iiitcrt'iHtH  or  |trf- 
Jinliit"*  1)1'  itiirtiwilMH,  or  l>y  the  <>|iiiiiiiiii 
(ilui  rt'Vi-rii'H,  tlioy  may  olUn  lu-  culU'il) 
of  a  «'la,'<s  (»f  im-ri  callt'd  ^'X|K•^•t^';  men 
as  (tt'ti'ii  skillcil  aiiil  rtlrctivt'  ill  |»ro- 
tliic*m;X  olisfurity  ami  «'rror,  as  in  tlu' 
'  cliiiiilaliori  1)1"  tnilli.  MiCormlfk  v. 
Tilioif,  JO  Iluw.,  lou.— Damkl,  J.; 
►Sii|..  ft.,  lH.->7. 

'J I.  'I'lii' Htatutr  <li'llm'»  flic  c'liaractiT 
oC  iiii  t'V|K'rt,  as  one  "  .s/,if/<,f  In  (!,,■  art 
or  urii  nii'^  to  \vlii»'li  his  o|(iiiii»ii  or  .|iiili;- 
jni'iil  a|i|M'rt!iiiis,  or  in  a  Im^im'ss  or  ml 
int)-t  m-iii'ly  ("omu'cliMl  with  tliat  to 
whi.h  his  jn<ij,'mi'nt  or  opinion  is  !i|)- 
jilicil.  A  prai'lical  opiM'ator,  ami  not  ii 
Hcicntillt'  tlu'o'rist  is,  proprriv-  spcakin;;, 
Hucii  an  I'xpcrt.  I'lij*'  v.  7'«'/ry,  M.S. 
—Wii.Kixs,  J.;  Mi  '•.,  lH.-i7. 

'J2.  In  nu'tliciil  w  i,  mco,  ii  physit'i.'iii  Is 
an  expert  ;  in  n.'uI;-;.tion,  ii  sailor,  lint 
the  jnili^ment,  of  either,  if  an  expert, 
may  he — oinj/it  to  he — rejeeteil  by  the 
jnry,  if  they  are  Katistied  it  is  unworthy 
of  credence.     Jbitl. 

2'-\.  Kx|)erts  may  be  examined  to  ex- 
plain terms  of  art,  and  the  state  of  the 
art,  at  any  given  time,  and  may  explain 
to  the  court  and  jury  the  machines, 
models,  or  drawings  exliibited,  and 
m;iy  point  out  the  dillerence  or  identity 
of   the  mechuuical  d'jvicea  involved  in 


ihclr rotiNtui'thttt.  The un\\\n\»i*^i-H!qui 
ill  »iui  mil'  firifi  in/utit,"  perinlu  lluii 
ti»  be  examined  to  .|tU'Ntioui«  of  art  o) 
nelence  ptu-uliiir  to  their  trudeor  pini'i,. 
ftioii.      H'tmim  V.  N.   y.  td  /•;,  /;.  j; 

Cn.,    J I     llou.,    liiO,    l(il._<i|„,,„^  J  . 

Hup.    I'l.,    IM.IM. 

'-'».  lint  they  cannot  be  receiMd  (,, 
proNc  t.i  the  court  or  jury  what  U  ih,, 
proper  t»r  le.,'al  couMtruction  of  auv  in. 
Mirunient  of  uritinj,'.  .\  jii.Jui'  imiv 
however  obtain  information  fmm  ihtm 
if  lied. -Hire  It,  on  niailerH  wliich  he  (l.n.,, 
not  clearly  comprehend.     ////</.,  |u|. 

«'.'».  A  witness  in  order  to  in' cuiiii,,.. 
ti'llt  lo  le>lity  as  to  wiielher  !i  »p(  liliin. 
tion  <-onlains  u  sntlicient  descripiinti  ut' 
the  invention,  niu«t  \>i'  '>\)i-  n/u'lluf  in  (fit 
iD't:  one  not  so  NkiJIed  is  iioi  a  lit  pir. 
son  to  (lelermine  as  to  |!ie  Milliiiiiuy 
of  the  description.  Pitjifhii/nnn,,,  \, 
X.  v.  O.  p.  Comb  Co.,  •»  J{latd.r.-1.H! 
UKHHOI.l.,  J.  ;    N.  ^'.,    |M.")H. 

.'tt,  Xeither  the  tesiinnMiy  of  witiuss. 
es  generally,  nor  of  professors,  evpcrh, 
or  meehanies,  e.an  he  received  In  pnivc 
what  is  the  proper  or  It  gal  con>trni'iiim 
of  a  patent.  Ij>/i/  v.  Stdltnun,  .M.S.— 
(Jii.Ks,  J.  ;  ,Md.,  |H.-)!I. 

J7.  To  delermim!  (piestiont!  of  tlu' 
mechanic.il  ditference  of  nuieliiiioi,  tin' 
law  permitH  the  opinions  «)f  men  callnl 
experts  to  be  given  in  evidence,  and 
when  such  men  are  ipialitied  and  I'ltc 
from  I»ias,  their  ti'siimony  is  eniitlcdto 
great  respect.  Moiris  v.  Jtmretf,  .MS. 
— I.i:Avirr,  J.;  Ohio,  iH'iH.     Lattn  v. 

Sliilirk,  MS. —  I.KAVIIT,  J. ;  Ohio,  is,')0. 

JH.  In  general,  witnesses  tcNtiiy  only 
as  to  tacts,  from  which  the  jury  f(irm 
their  opinion.  Jbit  there  :ue  v.iiiims 
classes  of  eas-es  which  depend  upon  the 
knowledge  of  a  peculiar  art  or  scitiiio 
for  their  solution,  reipiiring  a  peculiar 
knowled<je,  in  order  to  form  a  .sutisfao- 


*»»^ 


EXTKNSION  nr  ivvrr.NT.  A. 


ftlO 


WHO  MAV  AM'kV  r\»H  AHIt  iMrTAIN. 


tory  Jii<l;{iiit'iit  III'  iNo  <|iit>ttloit  lnvi>lvi>«l  t ! 

ill  mli'll  l'il"«'<t  tilt*  IllW  lllloWM  |«>nlil||it|l) 
to  ht'tfiM'll  i'l'tilii  tliimo  Nkill'iil  ill  I  III)  |>iir- 
liiiiliir  i»rl,  m-ii'iu-f,  itr  |iriil«'«iii<»ii,  iiinl 
ixiiiiitt  tliciii  to  ii'iw  lliiir  ii|titiii)iiM  an 
iisiiIh  wliii'li  (li>'>'  lU'i'ivr  III  lioiii  nil  i'« 
aiiiiiittlloii  of  tliM  l|lll>^•ti<)||M  of  flirt  that 
;iii' iM't'ori!  tlu' jury.  Jnlnmim  v.  /»«*<(/, 
\h.     Si  KAiiiK,  J.;  Mii«H.,  tH.-^H. 

:',t.  Till'  jury  nIihiiIiI  not,  liitwovt-r, 
iillow  tlii'Uif*t'lv«'H  to  l»o  IioiiikI  by  mu'li 
iiiiinioii!*.  Tlu'y  \\y>  only  iiilro.liii'i'd  ti» 
iiiii.  TIh'  (>|iinioii  <»f  mi  fxpi  rl  \n  to  In* 
('(iiiMiiiTi'tl  likt>  thiit  of  aii\  iiriifi'SHioiiiil 
iiiiiti ;  ivIt'i't'iK'**  i>('itiL(  li.'iil  to  IiIh  iiliility, 
tlic  t'liriiosH  of  the  o|iinitiii,  its  iiii|iiir- 
liiility,  iiiiit  tlio  rttasdiiH  iiH.sigiifil  for  it. 

;iit.  Tlu"  tt'stinmny  of  oxportM  \*  to  Ik' 
nri'lvi'il  iiu|ilirilly,  only  on  points  of  ii 
rt';illy  f<('i»'iitit'«' kiii'l;  mi"!  tlicpcrHons  nf- 
fiTi'tl  11^  I'XpiTts  niu>-t  lio  it'iiiiy  mm  u\' 
^(■il'Il(•t',  Kvi'ii  in  iiiattiTs  w  liirli  arr  of  a 
Kcii'iitillc  nature,  the  court  ati<l  jury  will 
fXiTcini)  tluMi*  own  lntrlli;;i'n(U'  to  a  crr- 
t;iiti  tK';,'rt'i',  tliL'  niattt'iM  of  wi-iciii'i'  in- 
vnlvdl  not  Itoinj^  of  ii  rccoinlitc  nature. 
I.li'liii/ston  V.  troneSf  '6  Wall.  Jr. — 
(iKiKn,  .1. ;  Pa.,  Ii^Ol. 


HXTKXSIOX  OF  LKTTKKS  PAT- 
ENT. 

A.   Who  may  .\i'im.y  for  axd  Oiitain; 

IN-  WHAT  OahK.S 31!) 

Ii.     rilWKIl    DP    COMMISSIOSKII  ON    APPLl- 

c'\Tios    roil;    Co.nx'i.l'sivk    Natukk    op 

Ai'TIiiN-  OF 320 

('.    Uiciim  OP  AasioNKKs  axo  otiikhh  iv 

KXTKXSIOV .'1'2 1 

D.    Atriioiin'v  and  Fouck  op  Kxtendi:!) 

I'AIKXT :i27 

l).    KxiKssiox  UY    Special   Laws,    and 

RWUTS   f.NUEU 328 


\,    Who    M.W    AI'I'I.Y    KoU    ASU    OU' 
IMS  }    I.H    \VII.\T   CVHKM. 

I.  I'lhliT  ;{  |H  of  tilt!  ait  of  l^.m,  ihu 
lloanl  of  (  oiiiini^oioiii'rN  ii|i|iotiiti'<l  to 
uraiit  an  oxttMixlon  of  n  piitciit,  lutiy 
allow  Niii'li  (•xlitiiitioii  to  till*  li>v(itl  ri'pro> 
xt'iitiitivi'ri  of  n  pati'iitco  upon  tlirir  a|>- 
plii'alioii,  in  tli«>  ^anii<  inauiicr  a-*  tlioiiuli 
tli(>  applii'atioii  liail  liottii  nititlo  in  tlit< 
iifutiiiu'  of  till'  pati'iitvv.  Nynmni 
Clint;  :\  Opin.,  -110. — (tiii'NOY,  Alty. 
(•I'll.,  |n;i!I. 

'.*.  An  a<lniiniHtrator  or  cxi'cutor  niiiy 
inalvc  tlio  application  for  tin*  extension 
of  a  patent  wlicri*  the  j^raiitee  U  ileail, 
aihl  the  patent  may  lawt'ully  Im'  exteinl- 
e<l  on  Nueli  an  application.  I'/n  J/imk 
V.  Si'UiUer,  .MS. — Tiiomi'hov,  J. ;  N.  V., 
|M»:i.  |('iteil  in  ;»  Story,  I.IJ,  ami  3 
M.I.eau,  »;tM.| 

'.\.  If  a  patentee  in  dead,  his  ailinitiis< 
trator  may  apply  for  ami  olttain  an  ex- 
tension of  the  patent,  uiiiler  the  provia- 
ionsof;?  IH  of  the  act  of  Ih;|(1.  lironkt 
V.  Ithkhdly  ;i  McLean,  •j.')H--j(i().— Mi> 
Ij;an,  J.;  Ohio,  iHtM. 

t.  The  administrator  of  a  deceusoil 
patentee  may  apply  for  and'ol)tain  a  ro- 
lu'wal  of  his  patent,  /h'lxtki  v.  Jiok- 
ni'lU  •'!  .McLi'.'iii,  4:10,  4:js. — McI^KA.N ; 
J.;  Ohio,  IHU. 

.'».  \\\  extension  of  a  patent-  may  he 
taken  out  l»y  an  administrator  of  a  de- 
i-eased  patentee.  Wnnhhiini  v.  (lonlif, 
:\  Story,  13;J,  l.'JT. — Stokv,  J.;  ^Mas.s., 
18  It. 

0.  An  administrator  is  competent  to 
aj'ply  for  and  receive  a  reiu'wai  or  ex- 
tension of  a  patent.  Wuinlworth  v. 
S/ierman,  3  Story,  172. — Srouv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1814. 

7.  The  provisions  of  §  18  of  the  net 
of  1830  as  to  extcn»ious  is  not  limited 


**'  '•■•'*^Ma5 


//-/ 


»•»- 

'# 


'—  ^.^ 
^i^ 


♦  • 


■i 


Tffllf'll 


'Mwv:i;:< 


i>04Km>. 


i'20 


kxti:nsi(>\  ok  tatknt,  n. 


OWKH  l)K   COMMISSIIiMMl  OS;    XATIHK   OK    ACTION   OF. 


»,.,, 


"*»^J-^il: 


^':^l«»r' 


f^; 


to  (•;if*('s  of  ii'Ui'wala  of  fiUutc  patents, 
Iml  a|»|»Iits  lo  ilic  jiast  also.  /A/(/.,  170, 
1  t^O. 

S.  Tlio  riulit  of  rt'iiinval  is  limiti'd  lo 
lilt'  pali'iiU  ',  wlii'llu'r  111'  ri'taiiis  tir  has 
soltl  liis  iiivciitioii.  Till'  provisidii  of 
roiii'wal  I'xtciids  as  well  to  a  raso  wluTi' 
llio  iiatoiil  lias  In'i'ii  assii^iu'tl,  as  wliiTi' 
it  lias  not  Ik-cii.  lirtxths  v.  Jiifkiidl,  4 
MrLcaii,  00,  0!'. — .McLkan,  ,I.  ;  Oliio, 
1^4"). 

0.  The  rii^ht  of  extoiisioii  imdor  §  18 
of  the  art  of  18;10,  ajiplk'd  to  |)att'ii(s 
jjraiiti'd  lii'fori'  the  jtassajje  of  that  act, 
as  well  as  to  those  thereaOer  issued. 
Wilson  V.  Tiir/ur,  7  Law  Kep.,  r>-2\K 
— Tanky,  J.  ;  ISUl,  181-). 

10.  The  rij^ht  of  extension  is  given 
by  the  law,  ehietly  wiili  a  view  to  the 
advaiitaije  of  the  iiiveiilor,  and  not  of 
his  as>iL:iiee  or  grantee  ;  ;iiid  the  j)atenl, 
if  extended  at  all,  must  he  extendetl  on 
the  ;i|iiilieatioii  of  the  inventor  and  not 
of  liis  .assiifiiee.     IO/(f.,  iy'M. 

11.  jj  is  of  the  aet  of  18150  authorizes 
the  extension  of  a  patent  on  the  api>li- 
cation  of  the  e.xeeutor  or  administrator 
of  :i  deceased  jiatentee.  Wi/noii  v.  lios- 
seau,  4  llov,.,  07r>,  070,  087.-  -Xki.son, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct,,  1845. 

12.  ^Vnd  such  extension  may  be  ap- 
])lied  ibr  and  obtained  by  the  iidminis- 
trat(»r,  although  the  original  jiatentee 
had  in  his  lifetime  disposed  of  all  his 
interest  in  the  then  existing  patent,  hav- 
ing at  the  time  of  his  death  no  right  or 
title  to,  or  interest  ir.  the  original  pat- 
ent.    Ibid.,  080,  088.  090. 

13.  An  administrator  may,  under  ^ 
18  of  the  act  of  1830,  apply  for,  and 
take  an  extension  of  a  patent.  Wood- 
worth  V.  117/50/*,  4  How.,  710. — Nkl- 
50X,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

14.  The  renewal  of  a  patent  in  the 
name  of  an  adminiotrator  is  good,  as  an 


invi'iition  is  personal  |irnpcrty.  Wood. 
wordi  V.  Jltill,  1  Wood,  tt  Mill.  L'.vt.— 
WoouiiLiJV,  .1. ;  iMass.,  1840. 

R.  ToWKU  OK  COMMISSIONKl!  n\  .\l'- 
I'l.n  ATION  KOU;  CoNlLlSlVi;  Xatiki; 
OF  AtTION  OK. 

1.  Under  JJ  18  of  the  act  of  l8:m,tlio 
notice  of  an  apjilicatioii  Ibr  an  exltnsinn 
of  a  i)alen(  is  intended  to  jnoifct  the 
public,  and  give  all  an  opportiinitv  t,, 
appear  and  oppose.  Where  a  iiiiimt 
was  to  expire  oi\  ♦lie  7th  day  of  Uo- 
ceiiiber,  18  10,  and  the  applicant  didiht 
apply  until  the  I'lst  of  Novenilicr,  //,///, 
that  there  was  not  time  suHiciciit  to  ^ivc 
the  notice  retpiired  by  law.  iinU's 
Cose,  y  Opin.,5l)4. — (Jili'IN,  Atty.  (Iin ; 
J  840. 

2.  The  dei^ision  of  tlic  iJo.ird,  U]i.i;i 
.an  aiiplication  for  an  extension  ol'  a 
patent,  is  conclusive  within  the  scopo 
of  its  Jurisdiction,  there  being  no  Mipo 
rior  supervising  tribunal;  but  it  is  nd 
conclusive  on  the  question  of  law,  ;is  lo 
the  right  of  renewal  by  the  party  .ip. 
plying.  Jiroola  v.  Iiic/,'iu//,  M  ^IcLoiui, 
258.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  184;?. 

;J.  The  proceeding  betbre  the  Uoanl, 
as  to  the  extension  of  a  patent,  is  not 
nect^ssarily  ex  jno'fc ,  those  who  con- 
test the  right  of  the  applicant  have  iIk' 
right  to  appear  and  oppose  the  rcnowal 
of  the  patent.  Ji rooks  v.  Birkjnll,  ■'< 
McLean,  435.— Mi'Lkax,  .1 . ;  ( )liio,  1 844. 

4.  The  function  of  such  Board  is,  in 
its  nature,  judicial :  the  parties,  as  well 
those  who  oppose  the  extension  of  the 
ji.itent  as  those  who  apply  for  it,  arc 
brought  before  ihem  ;  and  evidciicL' on 
both  sides  being  heard,  the  board  jno- 
nounce  judgment.     Hid.,  435. 

5.  The  proceeding,  therefore,  is  not 
like  a  tax  sale,  where  every  step  mus 


nl,  uiin;i 
on  til'  a 
lu'  si'djii^ 

11(1  >iiiio 

it  is  nut 
!i\v,  ;is  to 

);ll-ty  liji- 

u'  r.oanl, 
|iit,  is  not 
,vlu>  coil- 
h;ivo  Uie 
rom'\v:il 
K'knilh  •' 
liio,  1S14. 
urd  is.  ill 
as  well 
oil  of  llw 
or  it,  nil! 
idonco  mi 
oard  I'vo- 

ire,  is  iw^ 
Lep  mus 


KXTKXSION  fW  PATENT,  C. 


n2i 


KIOIITS   or    AHHKINKKH   AND   OIllKllfl   IN. 


bo  piovctl,  or  tlio  titlo  (ails.  Uiit  if  is 
in  tlif  iiatiirc  ot'a  Jiitlii-ial  iictiun  wIhtc, 
jiirisdit'tion  l)t'iiig  aciiiiircd,  lu)  Huhsi'- 
iiiu'iit  01  Tors  can  iitVcct  llu'  liilo  of  a 
imrcliaser.     //>»(/.,  411.'). 

0.  Till'  dorision  of  the  Hoard,  upon 
an  ajiplii'iition  for  an  exti'iision  of  a 
jiateiit,  is  not  cotu'lusivo  uimii  tlu'  (jiius- 
)i„ii  of  their  jurisdiftion.  Witsuii  v. 
liosscdu,  4  How.,  08H. — Nklson,  J.; 
Su]..  Ct.,  1845. 

7.  Tho  extension  of  !i  patent  to  a 
iierson  as  administrator  is  jiroof  that 
tlio  lioanl  M'.is  satisfied  of  the  faet  of 
his  hcing  sueli  administrator,  and  hiicIi 
di'cisioii  is  conclusive.  In  an  action 
upon  such  p.'itent,  tho  letters  of  ndinin- 
istvation  need  not  bo  produced.  Wood- 
worth  V.  HitU,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  254.— 
WooDiiVBY,  J.;  IMass.,  184G. 

8.  Tho  act  of  1848,  conferring  the 
power  of  ex'jndinjj;  patents  upon  tho 
Commissioner,  was  not  a  repeal  of  §  10 
of  tho  act  of  1 8.^0,  providing  for  the 
extension  of  patents,  but  simply  a  re- 
peal of  so  nuich  of  it  as  related  to  the 
action  of  the  Secretary  of  Stati',  and 
the  Solicitor  of  tho  Treasury  in  the 
matter.  It  simply  devolved  upon  the 
Commissioner  tho  whole  of  the  duty 
which  was  previously  divided  witli  the 
Secretary  and  the  Solicitor,  and  direct- 
ed that  he  should  be  governed  by  the 
same  principles  and  rules  that  had  gov- 
erned the  board  compoped  of  the  three. 
Colt  v.  Yount/,  2  Blatchf,  473.— Nel- 
son, J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

9.  Where  an  application  for  an  ex- 
tension of  a  patent,  under  §  18  of  the 
act  of  1836,  was  pending  at  the  time 
of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1848,  Mhich 
conferred  upon  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents  solely  the  power  previously 
vested  in  the  board  created  by  the  act 
of  1836,  Udd^  that  it  was  not  necoas.i- 

ryto  renew  the  application,  but  that  the 
21 


Coniinissioncr  had  tho  power  to  go  on 
with  the  proceedings,  as  having  bei'ii 
already  properly  insiituted,  and  com- 
plete them  by  granting  tho  extension. 
IhuL,  473. 

10.  The  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
as  to  tho  regularity  of  the  })roi'et:iiings 
l»efore  him,  on  an  application  for  an  ex- 
tension !ire  conclusive,  except  perhaps 
in  a  case  of  fraud.     Jhiil.^  473,  174. 

11.  In  respect  to  the  entire  iiieiits  of 
the  j)alentee,  luid  the  existence  of  tho 
legal  grounds  for  an  extension,  the  law 
makes  the  (.'ommissioiier  tlu'  judge,  and 
in  the  absence  of  fraud  his  iidjudieatiou 
is  conclusive.  CUim  v.  Jh'cirrr,  2  Curt., 
518.— Curtis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1855. 


C,  RiaiiTS  OP  AssioxKKs  and  otukus 
IX  Extension. 

1.  Under  the  act  of  1830,  by  which 
"the  benefit  of  a  renew.al  extends  to  tlm 
assignee  to  the  extent  of  his  interest," 
Avhero  an  assignment  of  the  whole  right 
has  been  made  by  a  patentee,  whether 
such  patentee  coidd  liave  any  interest 
in  the  renow.il ;  tjncri/.  Jiroolcs  v. 
Jiichiell,  3  McLean,  257. — McLean,  J.; 
Ohio,  1843. 

2.  Utuler  the  patent  laws,  prior  to 
183(5,  a  license  or  assignment  of  a  pat- 
ent expired  with  tlK  limitation  of  tho 
original  patent,  unless  it  was  expressly 
so  granted  aa  to  be  ap{)licabk;  to  any 
renewal  of  the  patent  afterward.  The 
licensee's  or  assignee's  right  was  bound- 
ed by  the  same  limits  as  that  of  tho 
licenser  or  assignor,  that  is,  the  original 
term  granted. —  Washburn  v.  (lould, 
3  Story,  135.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1844,. 

3.  A  renewed  patent  under  those 
laws  was  a  new  grant,  and  the  patentee 
was  entitled  to  the  solo  and  exclusive 
benefit  thereof,  unless  the  licensees  or 


'-'"-^w^ 

WM.W, 


I 


kxii' 


m'    Wir'W'^ 


VV.w^ 


'*'l'*I^^^'-^"%i 

tm. 

■-w42^ 

*;'!t:y*L<\ 

^53 

IP 


•■  ■ .'  w , 


'm*  I',  I* 


'^S^^. 


822 


KXTKXSIOX  OF  PATKNT,  C 


^^•i>W 


Rioiira  or  Aw^ia.vEEs  anu  otueiw  ik. 


,^--1 


'^"■W 


I 


assignees  had,  by  tlieir  original  coii- 
trnct,  secured  (o  themselves,  hy  express 
covenant  or  grant,  a  riglit  to  (lie  henelit 
of  tlie  renewed  patent.     Ihid.,  l;{"). 

4.  Previous  to  the  act  of  ISMO  every 
license  and  assignment  expired  \\  ith  the 
limitation  of  the  original  patent,  unK'ss 
it  was  expressly,  in  terms,  so  granted 
as  to  be  applicable  to  any  renewal  of  the 
patent  afterward.  The  doctrine  proceed- 
ed upon  the  grouml  (hat  a  man  can  pass 
by  grant  or  assignment  oidy  that  which 
lie  jtossesaes,  and  which  is  in  existence 
at  the  time.  His  grant,  therefore,  is 
limited  to  what  is  then  in  existence,  un- 
less he  uses  other  language,  inij)orting 
an  intention  to  grant  what  is  not  then 
possessed  or  in  existence.  Woodworth 
V.  Sherman,  3  Story,  174. — Sronv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1844. 

5.  And  this  doctrine  is  expressly  ap- 
])licable  to  licenses  and  assignments  un- 
der the  act  of  18;}6,  the  whole  design 
of  which  is  confined  to  the  inventor, 
and  for  his  benefit,  and  not  for  the  ben- 
efit of  his  licensee  or  assignee.  lOul., 
175. 

G.  The  word  "patentee"  in  §  18  of 
the  act  of  1830  is  used  as  efjuivalent  to 
"inventor,"  and  the  law  meant  to  re- 
ward him,  and  him  alone,  for  his  time, 
ingenuity,  and  expense  in  i)erfecting  his 
invention.     Ihid.^  170. 

7.  The  clause  as  to  assignees  "  to  the 
extent  of  their  res2)ective  interests  there- 
in," does  not  mean  to  enlarge  the  rights 
of  assignees  beyond  the  extent  of  the 
interest  originally  granted  to  them.  If 
such  interest  was  limited  to  the  original 
term,  they  would  have  no  benefit  in  the 
extended  patent;  but  if  the  orighial  as- 
signment conferred,  expressly,  or  by 
just  implication,  an  interest  in  the  re- 
newed patent,  that  interest  was  to  be 
protected.    Ibid..,  177. 


8.  Under  g  18  of  the  act  of  iPio 
(he  renewal  of  a  paten'i,  does  not  inure 
to  an  assignee,  iniless  by  the  assiginiicnt, 
of  the  original  patent  it  is  so  spccitit.,!, 
Brooks  V.  Jiic/cnell,  4  jNIcLean,  00,  07. 
— Ml  Lka.v,  J.  ;  Ohio,  1845. 

9.  The  proviHit)n  that  the  "  benefit  of 
the  renewal  shall  extend  to  the  assiifiK.,.).; 
of  the  j)atent  to  the  extent  of  their  in. 
terests  thercnn,"  gives  a  legal  etlect  to 
the  provisi('i;  of  any  assigimient,  stijni. 
lating  for  an  interest  in  the  evciit  of  a 
renewal.  Without  such  provision,  tint 
assigiunent  might  have  been  considcrc  1 
an  Jigreement  to  convey,  but  it  \V(.ii!,l 
not  have  been  a  legal  conveyance  c!' 
the  patentee's  right,  as  he  could  im,i 
convey  a  legal  title  'S>  that  which  ■was 
not  in  existencf      /  .\i..,  68, 

10.  This  is  a  fair  construcfion  of  the 
statute,  harmonizing  its  provision;,  and 
giving  effect  to  the  intention  of  the  par- 
ties.    Ifiid.,  08. 

11.  The  object  of  the  clause  in  g  18 
of  the  .act  of  1830,  as  to  assignees,  is  to 
j)reserve  any  previous  contract  of  as- 
sigimient, in  the  sense  in  M'hich  both 
parties  understood  and  intended  at  the 
time  it  Avas  made,  and  to  secure  to  tlie 
I>iirchaser  the  right  he  had  intended  to 
buy,  and  which  the  p.atenteo  intei  dcd  to 
sell.  MllfioH  V.  Ti(rnci;  7  -  iloji., 
530.— Taxky,  J.;  Md.,  184 

12.  The  legislature  obvioii  ;>  ,n'  d- 
ed  to  guard  a  party  who  had  puicia, imI 
from  the  patentee  the  right  to  use  (ho 
invention  until  the  expiration  of  tlio  ex- 
clusive privilege,  from  the  necessity  of 
buying  it  again.    Ibid.,  531. 

13.  The  object  of  the  law  is  to  do 
justice  between  the  inventor,  avIio  has 
failed  to  obtain  a  reasonable  reniuiicru- 
tion  within  the  fourteen  years,  for  the 
time,  ingenv.ity,  and  expense  bestowed 
upon  his  invention,   and   the   public, 


in  §  18 
iiet's,  is  to 
let  of  as- 
incii  botli 
IchI  at  the 
Ire  to  tlie 

ended  to 
Itoi'dedto 

:i  .<     I^<!p., 

I1_V  ,11*     (1- 
|MUr,,...vd 

nse  till' 
jf  tlie  I'X- 
cessily  of 

is  to  do 
Avlio  lias 
renmucra- 
fs,  for  the 
Ibestowed 
le   public, 


EXTENSION  OF  PATENT,  C. 


3 'J  3 


RiailTS  or  AH8I0NEES  AND  OTHERS  IN. 


while  it  |>rot('cts  assifjnecs  and  prantoos 
in  the  rij;lits  ])rovioii«ly  ac(juii'tid  by 
them.    lOid.,  632. 

14.  The  extension  of  a  patent  iindcr 
<  18  of  tlio  act  of  1836,  does  not  inure 
to  the  benefit  of  assignees  or  grantees 
imUf  the  original  patent,  so  as  to  vest 
ill  tlieui  any  exelusivo  right.  I5ut  the 
lii'netits  of  such  renewal  extended  to 
assiujnees  or  grantees  by  siieh  seetion  is 
limited  to  those  who  were  in  the  use  of 
the  patented  article  at  the  time  of  the 
renewal,  and  saves  to  sueh  persons  the 
lii'ht  to  use  the  niaehiiies  lield  by  them 
at  the  time  of  such  renewal  "to  the  ex- 
tent of  their  interests,"  be  that  interest 
ill  one  or  more  machines.  Wilson  v, 
Russeaii,  4  How.,  082,  083. — Xklsox, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct,  1845.  [But  see  ji>o«<  43 
to  47,  1850.] 

15.  McLkan  and  ^yoonl^uuY  dissent- 
ed, holding  that  sucli  an  extension  would 
hiuie  to  the  benefit  of  such  assignees, 
who  had  by  express  agreement  secured 
an  interest  in  the  extension.  Ibid.,  092, 
C94. 

16.  Wayne  dissented  from  such  part 
of  the  opinion  of  the  court  as  gave  to 
assignees  the  right  to  continue  the  use 
of  the  patented  machines  in  use  at  the 
thne  of  the  extension.     Ibid.,  693. 

17.  A  covenant  as  to  a  benefit  in  a 
"renewal"  of  a  patent  must  be  constru- 
ed by  a  reference  to  the  law  as  it  stood 
at  the  time  of  such  covenant,  .and  will 
not  embrace,  any  right  in  a  now  grant, 
secured  by  after  legislation.   Ibid.,  085. 

18.  Where,  in  an  assigmnent  of  a  pat- 
ent, made  in  1828,  before  there  was  any 
]irovision  in  the  patent  laws  authorizing 
a  renewal,  there  was  a  covenant  that  any 
'"renewal"  should  inure  to  the  benefit 
of  the  assignees.  Held,  that  such  term 
"  renewal,"  could  be  satisfied  by  a  ref- 
erence to  the  law  as  it  then  stood,  and 


that  in  a  subsecpient  renewal  of  the  jiat- 
ent,  by  virtue  of  subset|uent  acts  of  Con- 
gress, no  right  was  ae(|uired  by  virtue 
of  the  assignnuint  or  covenant.  Ibid,, 
085,  080. 

lit.  If  an  extetision  is  taken  Vty  an  ad- 
ministrator of  a  deceased  patentee,  it 
inures  to  the  benefit  of  such  administra- 
tor, and  to  him  in  that  capacity  exclu- 
sively.    Ibid.,  085,  087. 

20.  The  assigm^es  and  grantees  of  the 
right  to  use  a  patent,  who  are  by  ^19 
of  the  act  of  1830,  as  interpreted  by  the 
Supreme  Court,  to  have  the  bencllt  of 
the  renewal  of  a  patent,  are  those  lidd- 
ing the  right,  at  the  time  of  the  renewal. 
Woodinorth  V.  Curtis,  2  Wood,  &  Min., 
530. — WooDUURY,  J.;  Mass.,  1847. 

21.  A  reservation  in  an  act  of  Con- 
gress extending  a  patent  in  favor  of  as- 
signees, does  not  make  the  act  uncon- 
stitutional, but  such  power  of  reserva- 
tion is  incidental  to  the  general  power 
coiderred  to  promote  the  progress  of 
the  useful  arts,  lilanch.  Gun-Stock 
Co.  V.  Warner,  1  IJlatchf.,  200,  271, 
275.— Nki.sox,  J.;  Ct.,  1840. 

22.  The  direct  question  whether  Con- 
gress can  grant  in  an  extension,  rights 
to  assignees,  was  not  involved  in  tho 
cases  of  Wilson  v.  liosseau.,  Sinipsofi 
V.  Wilson,  Wilson  v.  Dtrner,  and 
Wuodworth  V.  Wilson,  4  IIow.,  040- 
712,  but  was  discussed  and  considered 
as  connected  with  the  n  otters  in  con- 
troversy in  those  cases,  and  tho  ilgiit 
of  Congress  to  reserve  rights  and  pri\  i- 
leges  to  assignees,  was  conceded  as  in- 
cidental to  the  general  power  conferred 
by  the  constitution  on  Congress,  to  pro- 
mote the  progress  of  the  useful  arts. 
Ibid.,  276. 

23.  A  general  assignment  of  an  inter- 
est in  a  patent,  or  a  part  of  a  patent, 
gives  the  assignee  no  interest  iu  the  re- 


'*^^^, 


^::. 


1» 


i 


'?1,„. 


kf 


'■'^'■■l^mL^i 


wi^bi 


324 


EXTENSION  OK  J'ATENT,  C. 


^w^ 


V«-«»'^_  t:. 


'It.- 


f'^ 


'^'  v;:^^ 


'f^'v'...;^^ 


*ii^ 


^Sii 


HtailTS  or  ABHUIN'EEa  AND  OTltCnS  IK. 


ncwal  of  tlio  p.'Uent,  liut  Hiich  iiii  iii- 
tcn'ht  may  be  nssij^ned,  if  tlio  Iltius 
of  the  !issi;jjiiiiu'iit  <'li';irly  ciiilirari'  tlic 
rcncwi'd  j>atciit.  J'/uIjih  v.  Cot/istocA; 
4  McLean,  365. — McLkan,  J. ;  Iiul., 
1818. 

L'4.  Hut  wliere  the  asyijinincnt  Is  of 
ail  interest  in  letters  patent,  which  "are 
or  may  be  granted,"  it  embraces  nny 
subsecjuent  renewal  of  the  i>atent  wheth- 
er it  should  be  under  the  statute,  or  by 
act  of  Congress.     IbiJ.,  ;J55. 

25.  If  the  M'hole  ui  the  patent  has 
been  assigned,  it  would  seem  that,  under 
tho  decision  of  the  majority  of  the  Su- 
])reme  Court  in  Wilsoik  v.  llossexu^  4 
How.,  040,  1845,  there  could  be  no  re- 
newal for  tho  benefit  of  the  patentee. 
Ibid.,  355. 

20.  The  extension  of  a  i)atent  is  for 
the  benefit  of  the  original  inventor  or 
his  rei»resentatives,  to  compensate  him 
lor  his  expenditure,  labor,  and  ingenu- 
ity in  the  invention,  and  in  perfecting  it. 
Case  V.  lieJjield,  4  McLean,  528. — IIux- 
TiNcirox,  J. ;  Ind.,  1849. 

27.  An  ordinary  assignment  of  a  right 
in  a  patent  will  not  convey  any  right  in 
the  extended  or  renewed  patent.  But 
such  an  interest  when  intended  to  be 
assigned,  must  be  expressed.  Ibid., 
628. 

28.  Under  §  18  of  the  act  of  1836,  as 
construed   by  the   Supreme   Court    in 

Wilson  V.  liosseau,  4  How.,  C82,  a 
licensee  may  continue  to  use  an  inven- 
tion actually  in  use  by  him  at  the  time 
of  an  extension,  during  the  term  of 
such  extension ;  but  no  such  right  ex- 
ists under  an  extension  by  act  of  Con- 
gress, unless  specially  provided  for. 
Jiloomer  v.  Stolley.,  5  McLean,  163. — 
McLea?^,  J. ;  Ohio,  1850.  [But  see 
post  33.] 

29.  If  Congress  upon  an  extension 


imposes  no  restriction  in  favor  of  a  |i. 
ccnsee,  and  there  is  no  provision  in  the 
contract  of  license,  beyond  the  tcim  of 
the  patent,  none  can  be  inipliid.  Jl,uj^ 
104. 

30.  Th(!  right  of  an  as^iignee  to  coii. 
tiinie  to  use,  during  an  extension  of  ,1 
patent,  niachines  existing  and  in  usi' at 
the  expiration  of  the  first  term,  us  du- 
dared  in  Wilson  v.  Jiosseau  (4  J  low. 
640),  is  derived  wholly  from  tlio  pro- 
viso in  §  18  of  the  act  of  IK.'JC,  in  favui- 
of  assignees.  If  there  had  been  no  such 
reservation,  the  rigiits  of  assignccH  ac- 
quired during  the  first  term  would  have 
exjjired  with  its  termin:ition,  ami  tliu 
exclusive  right  woiUd  have  vestal  in 
the  patentee.  Gibson  v.  Giffon/,  1 
Blatchf.,  531.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

31.  To  enable  an  assignee  to  derive 
any  benefit  from  an  extension  by  an  act 
of  Congress,  an  express  provision  should 
be  inserted  in  the  grant  or  assignment, 
looking  to  such  a  renewal.  Gibson  v. 
Coolc,  2  Blatchf.,  146.— Nelson,  J.; 
N".  Y.,  1850. 

32.  Unless  there  be  such  a  stipula- 
tion, showing  that  a  renewal  was  con- 
templated, the  court  is  bound  to  con- 
strue the  instrument  as  relatino:  to  the 
existing  right,  in  respect  to  which  the 
parties  are  considered  as  contracthig 
with  each  other.     loid.,  140. 

33.  Under  the  decision  of  Wil$on\. 
Jiosseau,  4  How.,  688,  one  in  the  law- 
ful use  and  OAvnership  of  a  patented 
machine,  under  a  purchase  made  during 
the  original  term  of  the  patent,  may 
continue  to  use  such  a  machine  diu'iiig 
an  extension  of  the  patent,  imder  the 
provisions  of  §  18  of  the  act  of  1836; 
and  is  also  entitled,  w^ithin  the  spirit 
and  intention  of  tho  patent  laws,  to 
continue  to  use  such  machine  during  an 


EXTENSION  OF  PATENT,  C. 


n2S 


HKIUTH  or   AHHIORCGH   AM)  UTIIKIM   IN. 


after  t'xtcnsioii  iiiudo  by  Hpecial  act  of 
Coiii'iess,  juili's.s  lliL'i'o  irt  womclhiiig  in 
till'  laiiguiigt'  of  the  act  requiring  a  dif- 
foreiit  construction.  Bloomer  v.  Me- 
QiKW'tn,  14  How.,  5;)0. — Tan'ky,  Cli. ; 
yui..  Ct.,  1852. 

34.  The  inciioato  riglitof  an  inventor 
to  an  extension  of  a  patent  for  lii.s  in- 
vention, is  the  subject  of  a  contract  of 
sulo.  Clum  V.  JJreioer,  2  Curt.,  520. — 
Ci-iiTis,  J.;  Mass.,  1855. 

35.  Tlie  sale  of  the  "  invention  "  does 
not  necessarily  carry  witli  it  this  in- 
clioiito  right,  but  the  sale  of  "  my  in- 
vention, and  of  all  rights  and  jiropcrty 
that  I  may  have  from  any  lettevs  patent 
for  the  same,"  ■would  include  tiie  ex- 
tended letters  patent.     //;/</.,  521. 

."30.  Where  a  patentee  m.ade  an  agree- 
ment with  a  person,  that  in  case  of  the 
renewal  of  the  patent,  or  of  the  obtain- 
ini;;  of  other  or  further  letters  patent, 
after  the  expiration  of  the  existing  pat- 
ent, such  person  should  have  a  certain 
interest  in  the  rights  secured  by  such 
renewed  patent,  Jfeld,  that  the  )):irties 
liad  in  view  an  extension  under  ><  IS  of 
tlic  act  of  IsyU.  J'ilts  V.  Ifall,  3  lilatchf., 
'J04.— Hall,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1854. 

37.  Where  an  agreement  Avas  enter- 
ed into  between  a  patentee  and  another 
person,  that  in  case  of  the  extension  of 
the  patent,  such  person  should  have 
and  be  entitled  to  the  equal  nndivided 
one-fourth  part  of  all  the  rights  and 
benefits  that  should  be  secured  by  such 
renewed  patent,  for  certain  states,  on 
paying  the  proportional  one-fourth  part 
of  the  expenses  of  obtaining  such  ex- 
tension, which  agreement  Avas  also  re- 
corded ;  and  the  patent  was  extended, 
and  such  person  endeavored  to  learn 
from  the  patentee  the  costs  of  such  ex- 
tension, and  expressed  himself  ready  to 
ay  his  proportional  share  thereof,  Held, 


that  the  agreement  was  a  valid  execu- 
tory agreement,  entitling  such  person 
to  the  undivided  interest  in  such  patent, 
on  the  pcrfiirrnaiice  of  tho  condition  pre- 
cedent of  the  payment  of  the  (*p(i:ilied 
portion  of  such  expenses.     Ifild.,  2Ul. 

ns.  Whether  the  terms  of  such  an 
an  agreement  are  not  words  of  grant 
and  conveyance,  and  whether  the  agree- 
ment itself  woidd  not  be  a  siinicicnt  as- 
signment of  the  interest  in  tho  exten- 
sion, if  the  condition  was  performed ; 
qiory.     J/)id,   204. 

at).  Jldd,  also,  that  the  oiler  to  pay 
the  proportional  psirt  of  such  expenses 
did  not  vest  in  such  person  the  interest 
in  such  extension,  although  it  may  have 
enabled  him  to  bring  his  action  and  re- 
covi;r  damages  for  the  noii-performanco 
of  tho  agreement.     Ibid,  205. 

40.  Under  the  provisions  of  §  18  of 
the  act  of  1830,  an  assignee  or  person 
in  use  of  the  invention  at  the  time  of 
the  expiration  of  the  original  i)atent, 
has  a  right  to  continue,  under  an  exten- 
sion of  such  patent,  the  use  of  "  the 
thing  patented,"  whether  the  patent  bo 
for  a  process,  and  a  machine  to  be  used 
in  such  process,  or  for  a  process  alone, 
or  for  a  machine  alone,  and  Avhether  the 
identical  machinery  in  use  by  such  per- 
son under  the  extended  patent  was  or 
was  not  in  existence  prior  to  the  re- 
newal of  the  patent.  Day  v.  Union 
Hub.  Co.,  3  Blatchf.,  491,  504.— J I  all, 
J.;  X.  Y.,  1856. 

41.  AVhere,  at  the  expiration  of  the 
original  term  of  the  patent,  A  had  a 
right  to  use  the  patented  invention  for 
the  manufacture  of  certain  articles,  and 
continued,  during  an  extension  of  tho 
patent  granted  under  §  1 8  of  the  act  of 
1836,  the  use  of  the  invention,  to  the 
extent  he  was  entitled  at  the  time  the 
original  patent  expired,   JIdd,  that  he 


K 

l.i 

¥¥^ 

t  ;:f:  ^«8 

at  fa  ^^a£. 

fi>.  ■ 


....l-ia.  i**  IMV  II 


•^^ffl.^' 


32U 


EXTKNSIOX  OK  TATKNT,  C. 


UKIUTH  or   AHHKINKKH  ANU  OI'IIKUH  IN. 


■17 


^•"iiSi 


>6 


liail  tlic  rii^lit  to  (•(iiitimit'  siicli  iiso  tliir- 
iii^'  llu!  oxlniilfil  jiatfiif,  as  a<j;uiiisl  15, 
an    assi;,'iit'u  of  llu!    orij^inal    patciitfo. 

42.  TliH  langiinf,'o  of  g  IH  of  (ho  net 
of  18!10,  UM  to  tlic!  rij^htH  of  assii^iiccH 
mill  ^raiitct'H  of  an  orijjiiial  )tatt'iil,  iiii- 
<Ut  an  rxtiMuU'd  \vv\\\  iht'ifof,  is  hroatl 
cnou^^h  to  cover  and  jtrotiTt,  and  whh 
intiMuk'd  to  cover  and  j)rot('ct,  the  ri;^ht 
to  use  tlii>  ]>:itcnt('d  invention  during; 
the  exleiisii)n,  whi'tlier  such  rit;ht  arose 
from  adireet  asMi<,'nineiit  or  grant  from 
the  patentee,  of  a  limited  or  unlimited 
right  to  use,  or  from  the  purchase  of  a 
machiiu'.     Ih'td.^  497. 

■\\\.  Tiie  words  of  this  section  as  to 
assignees  and  grantees  seem  (o  convey 
the  inii)ression  that  soniething  more 
than  the  mere  ownership  of  existing 
machines  was  intended,  iuid  that  they 
were  intended  to  embrace  all  classes  of 
(such  assignees  and  grantees  and  all  in- 
ventions, whether  of  machines,  processes, 
or  compositions  of  matter,  and  to  em- 
brace rights  and  interests  which  were 
ditferent  in  extent,  either  of  time  or 
territory,  or  both.     Ibid.,  IDV. 

44.  l)ut  such  right  is  limited  to  a 
right  to  ust\  although  the  person  hold- 
ing it  may  also  have  held,  during  the 
original  term,  an  exclusive  right  to  use, 
to  make  and  vend.  And  such  right  to 
use  is  secured  only  to  the  extent  of  the 
respective  interests  of  the  assignees  or 
grantees  therein.     Ibid.,  502. 

45.  If  the  right  to  use  before  the  ex- 
tension was  limited  to  a  single  state, 
county,  town,  or  smaller  district,  it  con- 
tinues during  the  extension,  subject  to 
the  same  limitations ;  and  if  tlie  right 
Avas  to  use  a  certain  specified  number 
of  machines  within  a  particular  district, 
the  limit  in  number  and  restriction  con- 
tuuies.    Ibid.,  503. 


III.  If  the  only  right  to  use  wus  nn^. 
which  rcsniled  iVnm  th«'  punliiiMc  of  a 
niacliinc,  the  light  to  us*-  is  cn.('xtcnsi\(. 
with  the  txi>li'nfc  of  tlu'  niachim.,  aii'l 
exi^res  with  il.      /A/r/.,  50;}. 

47.  I'nder  |5  IH  of  tlu^  act  of  18;)(j^ 
the  assignees  and  grantees  of  a  lii'lit 
to  use  a  patented  proi'ess  are  ciintiMUtil 
in  the  right  to  use  it  during  an  extfii- 
sion  of  the  patent,  e(pially  with  the  as- 
sigiK.'cs  and  grantees  of  a  right  to  uisua 
patei'led  machini".     Ibid.y  503. 

4H.  Though  \\w  cases  of  Wiiton  v. 
Jiuaseau,  4  How.,  (i  tO;  UV/flo/t  \.  Hiinfy. 
nun,  0  How.,  100 ;  aii<l  /lluo/mrv.JIr- 
Qucwdtiy  14  How.,  5H!i,  apjiear  to  ilc- 
cide  that  by  virtue  of  |<  IH  of  the  act  nf 
18;<0,  the  right  of  assignees  and  gran- 
tees of  an  original  patent  is  limited,  un- 
der the  extendetl  l>atent,  to  the  iiso  oi' 
the  i)articular  nuichines  which  tliey  had 
in  use  at  the  time  of  the  expiration  of 
the  original  term,  sueli  precise  question 
did  not  arise  in  their  consideration,  anj 
was  not  necessarily  decided  in  eitlifr 
one  of  them.     Ibid,,  491,  493. 

49.  An  agreement  made  Ix'twecii  a 
patentee,  who  is  about  to  apply  for  a 
renewal  of  his  patent,  with  another, 
that  in  case  of  renewal  he  will  convey 
to  him  such  renewed  patent,  in  consid- 
eration of  a  certain  sum,  is  valid,  nml 
if  the  patent  is  renewed,  such  agreement 
conveys  to  the  assignee  an  e(piitahle  in- 
terest or  title,  which  can  be  converted 
into  a  legal  title,  by  paying  or  offerinj; 
to  pay  the  agreed  consideration.  ILirU- 
horn  V.  I^ay,  19  How.,  220.— Nj;i-so.n, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

50.  Where  a  patent  had  been  extend- 
eil,  and  the  patentee  then  conveyed  all 
his  interest  therein  to  another  jieisoii, 
who  brought  suit  against  certain  i»artii  > 
for  an  infrhigement  of  the  patent,  and 
such  i^arties   claimed,  under  a  liceuije 


EXTENSION  Ol'  l'Ari:NT,  D. 


827 


AUTllOUITY   ANU  roHOH  Of  liXTKNUKU   1>ATKNT. 


tViiMi  the  |>.ili'»tt'0,  uihliT  tlif  original 
iiHtfiit,  //«'/«/,  tliiK  it  wiiM  iK'ci'SSiiry  for 
till!  tlt't'i'iidaiits  to  nIhinv  ii  roiiiKM-tcd 
(•iKiiii  of  tith'  to  tht'insclvcH,  in  onlcr  to 
iiislify,  inuler  the  chiusi'  of  J^  IK  of  tlic 
art  of  ISJMJ,  nH  to  aswij^mt'os,  thoir  use 
of  (ho  Inipioveint'nts  sccnrfd  liy  the 
ijiitcnl.  (Hiiiffic  V.  lion.  Jii.UliKi  Co.,  ^2 
llow.,  iJ2;<,  224. — CLua'oui),  J.;  Sn)!. 
Ct.,  1859. 


II.      AUTIIOIUTY    AND   FoU(M':   OK    Y.\- 
TKNIJISU   1'aTKNT. 

Soo  also  Extension  ok  Patknt,  IJ. 

1.  A  renewed  patent  has  tlio  same 
olilii^ation,  and  confers  the  same  rij^lits 
\vitl»  an  orif^inal  patent.  Th(^  iiiclioate 
jiruperty,  whieli,  vested  by  tlie  dis.-ov- 
eiy,  is  proIonLfed  Ijy  the  reneweil  yAi- 
eiit,  as  well  as  by  the  original  ))atenl. 
I'Jmns  V.  JorihiHy  1  IJrock.,  254. — 3Iau- 
miAM,,  Cli.  .J.;  Va.,  IHia. 

2.  It  is  not  essential  to  the  validity 
of  a  renewed  patent,  that  all  thu  i)ro- 
cuediiij^s  connected  with  the  renewal 
hlioiild  be  set  oi.t  at  lenj^th.  Jiroo/cs  v. 
Jh'i'kticU,  -i  McLean,  4;i5. — !Mc'Lkan,  J.; 
Uhiu,  1M4. 

3.  It  is  sufficient  if  it  appear  that  tlie 
subject  was  before  the  proper  officer, 
and  that  the  decision  was  in  favor  of  a 
renewal.     Ibid.,  435. 

4.  No  ])rior  use  of  a  defective  patent 
can  authorize  the  use  of  the  invention, 
after  the  emanation  of  the  amended 
patent  under  this  section.  Stlmpson  v. 
West  Ches.  Ii.  Ii.  Co.,  4  How.,  402.— 
McLeax,  J.;  Sup.  Ct,  1845. 

5.  In  au  action  by  an  administrator 
on  a  renewed  patent,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  produce  the  letters  of  administration. 
The  patent  is  proof  that  the  board  (or 


(.-oinmissioner)  was  satif-lh'd  that  the  ap- 
plicant was  an  ailniinistrator,  and  it  is  not 
competent  to  j^o  lichind  their  or  his  de- 
rision. Woiulwiirth  V.  //<i/t,  1  Wood. 
&  Min.,  254. — Wooimuitv,  J. ;  Ma>H., 
lH4tJ. 

0.  AHor  the  extension  of  a  jt.ntent, 
under  ^  IH  of  the  patent  act  of  ls:i<l, 
the  original  patent  becomes  virtually  a 
patent  for  the  terinof  twenty-f)ni^yi'ars. 
GiftMOH  v.  //arris,  1  lllatchf,  100.— 
Nki.s;>n,  .!.;  N.  Y.,  lM4tl. 

7.  I'pon  liie  extension  of  a  p.itent 
and  the  proper  certiticat^,  under  |5  1^* 
of  tlio  act  of  18:10,  thu  original  patent 
is  treated  as  for  one  seven  years  l(,nger. 
And  so  if  further  exteiideil  l»y  special 
act  of  Congress.  If  exleiidcd  in  both 
ways  the  original  jtatent  becomes  one 
for  twenty-eight  yea.s.  Woodirurt/i  v. 
J'Jilwiinh,  a  Wood.  &,  Min.,  125.— 
\Vo(ji)nLuv,  .J. ;  .Mass.,  1847. 

8.  And  it  becomes  such  a  patent,  for 
such  term,  under  one  and  the  same  orig- 
inal specification.     Ihith,  125. 

0.  There  is  a  marked  and  well  recog- 
nized ditrerent^e  between  a  remmed  and 
a  reissued  patent.  The  former  grants 
a  wholly  new  term,  the  latter  legalizes 
and  confers  the  right  during  the  contin- 
uance of  the  original  term.  3Ic/iurncy 
V.  Goodyear,  11  Cush.,  571. — Mkuuick, 
.1.;  Mass.,  185a. 

10.  The  jury  are  to  (letcrmine  from 
the  facts  in  a  case,  whether  a  ri'iiewed 
patent  is  for  the  same  invention  as  the 
original  patent.  Battinx.  Tu'/yert,  17 
How.,  85. — McLka.v,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

11.  If  a  patentee  has  established  his 
title  under  his  original  i)atent,  he  is  en- 
titled to  a  temporary  injunction  under 
an  extension  of  such  letters  patent, 
without  a  further  trial  at  law.  Clum 
\.  Brewer,  2  Curt.,  517,  518. — Cuktis, 
J.  J  Mass.,  1855. 


.ir- 


-"^HM^'U^ 


*»*'W'\ 


tL>W%>  i 


32S 


KXTK\SH)X  OF  PATKXT,  E. 


nv  Hi'K('i.\i,  i.AvvH;  iiiiiirrH  undib. 


^w 


^i^. 


*|.'-:'j^«JlMf|- 


3^ 

m 

kMl 

13.     ExTKN'Hiov    iiv    Si'KciAi,    Laws, 

AM)   UuillTS    LNIlKU. 

1.  A  p.'ilcntco  tiiulcr  the  nets  of  Cor>- 
prcsH  iii;iy  Ii.ivk  tlif  (iiiio  of  liis  iiionop- 
oly  t'Xtriidfil  liy  tilt!  lc'j;islatuie  of  any 
Btiitc  bcyoiul  tluj  term  allowtnl  by  tlio 
nets  of  (\)ii;(i'0S8.  Coiij^ress  inny  HC'ctin; 
for  a  limit cmI  tiiuo  an  cxcliisivo  li^^lit 
tlir<ni;r|u>iit  the  I'nioii ;  but  there  is 
nothing  in  the  constitution  to  take  away 
from  the  states  the  power  toenlari^e  the 
])rivil(j,'e  within  their  respective  juris- 
ilictioiis.  J^lriiKjHtnn  \.  I'm  Li</eii,  i) 
John.,r).sl.— Ki:.\T,  Ch.J.;  N.  V.,  IHl'j. 

2.  Conj?resH  may  renew  a  i»atent-right, 
or  refuse  t  »  do  so.  The  j^raut  of  an  ex- 
elusive  privile<je  to  an  invention  for  a 
limited  time  does  not  imply  a  bin<linj^ 
and  irrcvoeahlo  contract,  that  nt  the 
expiration  of  the  j)eriod  the  invention 
shall  become  public  property.^  I'^nins 
V.  Edton,  Pel.  ('.  C,  JJIJT.— Wasiiino- 
TON,  J.;  Pa.,  1810. 

3.  A  in'ivato  act  of  Congress,  author- 
izing the  issue  of  a  patent,  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  engrafted  on  the  general  laws 
for  the  promotion  of  the  useful  arts,  and 
such  a  patent  is  issued  in  j)ursuancc'  of 
both.  Eoans  v.  I'Jaton,  3  Wheat.,  .'SIS. 
— Mausiiai.l,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1S18. 

4.  Congress  has  the  right  and  power, 
in  extending  a  patent  by  act  of  Con- 
gress, to  modify  or  control  the  interests 
of  assignees  under  the  original  patent, 
and  to  dispose  of  the  whole  subject  as 
they  think  proper.  JUancJianVs  Case, 
Opin.,  Gilpin's  Ed.,  1841,  p.  1125.— 
BuTLKH,  Atty.  Gen.,  1837. 

5.  There  is  no  restriction  Avhicih  limits 
the  power  of  Congress  in  extending  a 
patent  to  cases  where  the  invention  had 
not  been  known  or  used  by  the  public. 
All  that  is  required  is,  that  the  patentee 


sjioidd  be  the  Invt-ntor.  Itliimlhi,;!  v. 
Sfiriiijitt:,  :i  Sunm.,  041. — Stoi:v,  .1.. 
.Mass,,  lh39. 

0.  An  act  of  Congress  granting  a  pa(. 
ent  is  not  unconstitutional,  becauHu  it 
acts  retrospectively  to  give  a  patent  for 
an  invention  whi  -li  was  in  public  u»l'. 
//>/</.,  541. 

7.  The  extension  of  a  patent,  after  .an 
exteriNion  under  j^  18  of  the  act  of  1m;i(1 
by  an  act  of  Congress,  is  as  etrcctiuil 
and  t)perativo  as  the  extension  under 
that  section,  and  the  patent  when  so 
extended,  beconu's  a  patent  for  twenty- 
eight  years  instead  of  twenty-one  veiirs. 
fiiliHon  V.  I/iiiriH,  1  JJlatchf,  ItiO.— 
NiasuN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

H.  Congress  may  by  special  ad  ox- 
fi'nd  a  i>atent  even  after  the  cxpiiMtion 
of  the  oiiginal  patent.  JJla/ir/i.  (^m,. 
Stoi-lc  Turning  Fac.  v.  Wiirntr,  i 
Mlatchf.,  274,  270.— Nelson,  .1.;  Ct., 
1840. 

!).  Congress  has  the  const  if  utioiml 
right  to  confer  a  now  and  further  term 
on  the  patentee,  and  that  even  after  lliu 
expiration  of  the  first.  Jilttnchxrd  v. 
Ifayiien,  0  West.  Law  Jour.,  83.— 
WooDuuuv,  J.;  N.  IL,  1848. 

10.  Congress  has  the  const itutioniil 
power  to  grant  an  extension  of  a  jiatcnt 
after  it  has  been  once  extended  under  ^ 
18  of  the  act  of  1830.  The  power  of 
Congress  was  not  exhausted  in  tliks  re- 
spect by  the  .act  of  1830.  Jilootiur  v. 
Stalk  I/,  5  McLean,  IGO,  101.— ]McLkas, 
J.;  Ohio,  1850. 

1 1 .  There  is  no  provision  against  a 
second  extension.  The  policy  of  the 
law  is  to  compensate  the  inventor,  and 
if  this  object  be  not  attained  by  a  liitit. 
extension,  there  would  seem  to  he  jus- 
tice in  a  sccotid.  But  this  can  only  be 
done  by  act  of  Congress.    Ibid.,  162. 

12.  Under  an  extension  granted  by 


k 


rKKJNKI)  ISSKK,  A. 


8t0 


WIIKM  ORDKRBtl.      PIUimOH  OX. 


net  of  CoiigrcHH,  tln?ro  Ih  no  v\>^\\i  on 
tlio  part  of  nil  awlj^noo  or  lictniMi'u  to 
(iiiiiiiii"'  <'"'  '"♦*'  "*'  '"'  nivi'iition  lict'on' 
ux.l  liy  llit-'iii,  iiiilcsH  f<iiili  ri;,'lit  is  spi'- 
(lillv  |irovi<U'tl  for  inul  Htu'iireil  by  tliu 

i;l.  h'  C't'iiLrrcsH  im|piisi's  no  rcHliic- 
tiiiii  in  I'avor  of  :i  lici-nst'c,  and  lIuTi'  is 
110  iifitvision  in  this  contrai-t  of  liccnst! 
lit'vond  till!  tlii'n  I'xistin^  term  of  tlio 
|;ittMif,  nono  can  ha  inijiiiiMl.  IlniL, 
104. 

It.  If  lliero  iH  no  rpservation  in  an 
:ict  of  CongrcHS  cvtonding  a  patent  in 
i'lvor  of  assignt'(>M,  thi'y  have  no  right 
iiinlcr  tlio  t«'nn  tliorcliy  rrf.'itcd,  and 
tlu'V  laniiot  I'Vi'n  coiitinnc  in  tlio  uho 
((f  iii.'icliint's  lawfully  const na-ti'il  hcforo 
Hiii'li  term,  and  actually  cxistini;  and  in 
use  wlicn  tilt'  former  tcnii  expired,  (tih- 
Knii  V.  illffoni,  1  IMatchf.,  5;tl.— Nki.- 
suN',  i,'t  N.  Y.,  18.")0. 

15.  To  enable  an  assignee  to  derive 
aiiv  boiietit  from  an  extension  by  iict  of 
('(impress,  an  express  jirovision  should 
liL'  inserted  in  the  grant  or  assignment, 
looking  to  sneh  u  renewal.  Gibson  v. 
Co<>h\  2  Blatchf.,  140.— Nklsox,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  lHr)0. 

10.  Olio  in  the  lawful  use  of  a  nia- 
c'liiiie  under  a  purcliaso  during  the  ori- 
ginal term  of  the  patent,  is  entitled, 
within  the  spirit  .-md  intention  of  the 
]i;iti'iit  laws,  to  continue  such  use  during 
ail  extension  made  by  an  act  of  Con- 
;,'rcss,  unless  there  is  something  in  the 
laii^'ii.'ige  of  the  act  requiring  a  dift'er- 
ciit  construction.  lilooiner  v.  McQue- 
mil,  14  How.,  550. — Tanky,  Ch.  J.  ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

17.  A  special  act  in  relation  to  any 
[tarlicular  natent  is  to  be  considered  as 
Liignifted  upon  the  general  acts  relating 
to  patents ;  they  are  statutes  in  pari 
makria,  and  all  relate  to  the  same  sub- 


ject and  inuKt  l)o  construed  together. 
//>/</.,  560. 


FKir.XET)   ISSTTK   TX   r.VTKXT 

AirnoNs. 

A.      WlIKV   OllIiKRKD,  AND  I'lUCTICl  OX.  .  .    320 
II.      KiTECT  (IK  VkUIiICT  IN ICU 

\,      WlIK.N     OUOKKKO,    -\\l>   1'ka«TICK 
ON. 

1.  Where  witnesses  diftcr  as  to  the 
fact  of  iiifringcnient,  the  ipiestion  should 
be  Hiibmitted  to  ii  jury,  either  by  an  ac- 
tion at  law,  or  an  issue  directed  by  the 
court.  JiraofcH  V.  IliiA/icll,  ;t  McLean, 
•J(52.— MiLkan,  .T. ;  Ohio,  184:). 

2.  Where,  on  a  bill  fili'd  to  restrain  i\ 
defendant  from  infrii  ing  u  patent-right, 
the  infringement  is  a.  iiied  and  the  evi- 
dence is  coiiilicting,  the  court  will  send 
an  issue  to  a  jury,  or  refer  the  c.iiise  to 
a  master  to  hear  further  testimony,  and 
make  a  report  as  to  the  points  in  issue. 
Parker  v.  HiU field,  4  McLean,  02.— 
McLkan,  J.;  oiiio,  1845. 

3.  A  uigned  issue,  directed  by  the 
chancery  side  of  a  court,  is  not  a  mere 
form,  but  such  issue  is  sent  out  to  re- 
lieve the  court,  in  matter  of  doubt,  or 
because  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
and  the  conflict  of  testimony,  it  is  til  for 
a  jury  to  decide.  Brooks  v.  Jiiiknclly 
4  McLean,  12. — McLkax,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1845. 

4.  In  patent  cases,  involving  the  struc- 
ture of  comjdicated  machinery,  the  suf- 
ficiency of  their  description,  and  their 
identity  in  principle  Avith  other  ma 
chines,  an  issue  is  appropriately  sent  to 
a  jury.     Jbid.,  72. 


iw- 


^1 

Br. 4 

1 


k 


"■"rw .     > 


930 


rKHJ.VKI)  ISSI'K,  A. 


win  OHDKIUCI).      VH\<  IM  I     oH. 


^ 


'i.^ 

■•'<:• 


H  An  iui»wiT,  If  intiMnlt'il  lo  ntrin  iiii 
ixMiU'  tit  II}'  tin-  valitlily  of  11  |iiit»'iit,  111'- 
rtiiMi*  not  ofi^'iniil,  hIioiiIiI  hi'I  out  llic 
tianii'N  of  placi'M  iiuil  ptTNotiN,  wIutc  ami 
by  wlioiM  a  liki'  invnitiiui  or  tiling;  hinl 
ln't'ii  iiM'il.  Orr  V.  Mirrill,  1  Wood,  tt 
Min,,  ;i7H. — \V«»oiniiuv  .1.;  IM»'.,  iHiil. 

0.  A  trial  tu  t«>Nt  tlic  valiility  of  a 
{mtiMit,  \*  not  ii^<Mally  trinl  hy  tlu>  court 
ill  clianci'ry,  iiur  ol^n  in  i»u«'H  xi-iit 
from  lliin-  to  tin-  law  >u\v  of  tlio  court 
to  ]»o  wttli'<l  l»y  a  jury,  uiiIckh  rci|(icHt- 
t'll  l»y  tlic  n's|K)n(lciit.     Ilti<l,,  37H, 

7.  Hut  wlii'rc  i>su('H  arc  scut  to  l»c 
tried  at  law,  it  is  proper,  iiinlcr  tliosu  in- 
nucs,  to  have  all  the  npecilic  notices  giv- 
cMi  hy  the  (Icfciwlant  in  detail  of  pci-Noim 
and  places  connected  with  the  fo"nier 
UHe  of  the  pl;iiniin"s  invention.  //'A/., 
878. 

8.  On  the  cpiestion  t)f  the  iiifrinj^e- 
nient  of  a  patent,  in  a  Hiiit  at  ('(juity,  a 
feiyneil  issue  will  not  hi'  awanhid,  un- 
less the  court  have  doubts  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  two  machines.  V<t)i 
Jlookv.  J\'/i<fl>(ot,,  1  IMatchf.,  104.— 
Xi:i.so\,  .T. ;  X.  y..  Is  to. 

0.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  course,  to  or- 
der a  fcignt'd  issue;  but  the  party  iip- 
jtlyin^  must  lay  a  foundation  for  it.  A 
feijjjned  issue  is  not  tobej^ranted  unless 
the  opiiiidii  of  the  jury  on  a  <iuestiou  is 
found  to  bi'  needed,     J/nd.,  1!)5. 

10.  Chancery  may  order  an  issuo  to 
bo  tried  at  law  to  help  itself  as  to  facts, 
an'l  to  bo  retried,  if  dissatisfied  with 
the  verdict,  or  may  decide  facts  for  it- 
self. Woodirorth  v.  Iio;/t  /'.«<,  ;J  Wood.  & 
Min.,  149.— WooDniRY,  J.;  TiLiss.,  1847. 

11.  If  the  parties  do  not  agree  us  to 
the  issue  to  bo  tried  by  a  jury  in  respect 
to  the  validity  of  a  patent,  the  court 
will  direct  a  suit  at  law  to  be  tried 
speedily,  to  settle  the  conflicting  title. 
Ibid.,  151. 


TJ.  T.i  tho  third  circuit,  wlnn>  ;, 
feijiiu'ii  i»»«iu<  for  the  trial  of  a  fut  \,y  ;, 
jury  in  ordered  Ity  the  court,  the  rim,. 
can  be  put  oit  tho  trial  HmI  nt  oiirt>,  aiil 
llm  jury  bo  Hworn  to  try  in  the  luiin 
and  in  tho  word*  of  the  order  itMtll'.  \,, 
declaration  or  pleading  of  any  nort  U 
re<piiKite.  ir/V^o/i  \.  Jltirmun,  I  Wall 
Jr.,  ;«4.l.  — (Juii:n,  .?.;  I'a.,  lM4lt. 

i:i.  AOcr  a  verdict  for  the  plaimiii; 
in  an  action  at  law  for  an  infrin^^cintiit 
and  the  denial  of  u  motion  fur  a  iu>\v 
trial  on  the  ground  of  surprise  in  ro- 
jccting  testimony,  the  plaint  ill' (ijcj  j 
bill  for  u  perpetual  injunction,  ami  an 
account.  The  (h'feiidants  pui  in  iluii 
miHwer,  setting  ii]>  Hulmtantially  tlieiiiat- 
ters  used  on  the  motion  Ibr  a  new  tiial. 
.\l\crw  U'd  they  nutved  for  Ieavet(i|iiil 
ill  an  amended  answer,  on  the  ;,'iiniii(l 
of  tho  di—overy  of  now  and  important 
evidi'iice,  aflectinij^  the  novelty  (if  the 
plaintiirs  invention  -th«'  only  tpu^tiiiii 
litigated  on  the  form,  r  trial  beiiij,' that 
of  infringement — and  also  moved  for  n 
feigned  issue  to  try  the  (lUestioii  of  tlu' 
novelty  of  tho  jdaintiirs  iiiveiitidii, 
//ltd,  that  the  originality  of  tlio  plain- 
titPs  inventi(m  being  denied,  it  was  ;i 
proper  case  for  the  granting  of  an  or- 
der allowing  a  feigned  issue.  Ilmti:  v. 
SM>ij,  1  Ulatchf.,  .')45,  640,548.— Nel- 
son, J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

14.  Where  on  a  bill  for  an  injum'tioii. 
it  appeared  that  there  had  been  tliioi' 
trials  at  law,  in  which  there  had  been  a 
verdict  in  favor  of  each  party  plaiiititr 
and  defend.ant,  and  a  divided  Jury  (Hi 
the  other  trial,  and  originality  of  inven- 
tion was  denied,  //«/(/,  that  the  (itu'stinii 
of  originality  could  not  be  considortd 
settled,  and  therefore  decision  was  siii- 
ponded  on  the  injunction,  and  an  ac- 
count was  ordered,  and  an  issue  was  sent 
to  be  tried  before  a  jury  as  to  the  (lues- 


i 


.*^«% 


IKKiNKI)  ISSUE,  A.  H. 


Ml 


wiiR!f  cmnRRNP.    irnrr  or  rciimcT  tit. 


timi  iif  Drij^iimlily.   Jlfrn  v.  Sfr<iyni\  1 
151  It.  Ill",  »07,  flOH.~  N  Ki  HO.N,  J.;  N.Y., 

I.').  A  f«'i^n<'<I  Uhuc  rt'HtM  in  tlu«  ilis- 
(■ri'iioii  of  tlio  court.  A  tritti  nt  law  ii* 
onliTi' 1  to  iiit'orm  tlio  (•oiiHciviu'i)  of  tlii> 
court,  not  iK'cmiNf  iilli«'i'  p.iily  may  tli- 
nijinil  it  »ri  A  rij^lit,  or  that  a  coint  of 
('(iiiily  is  iii('oin|U'ttiit  to  jihIjl;*'  of  (jncs. 
lions  of  tiu't,  or  of  Icj^al  titles,  fioo^- 
i/eiir\.  l*"lfi  'i  Wall,  I'r.,  'JIKI. — (ikikii, 
■.!.;  N.  .1.,  IH.-.'J. 

Itl.  In  tlHM'onrtH  of  tlu'  I'liiliMl  States 
llio  |tra«'tieo  of  Heni|iii<4  parlies  to  a 
tiittl  at  la>v  is  by  no  means  as  eoinnioii 
a»  in  Kni-'lainl,  or  as  it  woiiM  lie  if  (lie 
troulile  of  trun^  issues  at  law  (|e\olveil 
upon  ailitVerenl  court;  anil  siu'li  courts 
(Id  mil  always  consider  it  a  proper  ex- 
t'l'ciso  of  tlu'ir  <liserelion  to  order  sucli 
issues  to  lie  tried  at  law  liefore  <^rantiiij; 
i'.n  iiijiinction.     /A/</.,  liitT. 

17.  Where  tlio  court,  therefore,  alh-r 
tlio  liearin;;  of  a  cau>*  on  cvhiliitH  and 
|ii'iMits,  and  a  careful  consideration  of 
the  lestiiuuny,  felt  IK>  douht  or  diUlcul- 
ty  on  the  <iuestionH  of  the  ori^dn.ility 
of  the  invention,  and  of  tlio  fact  of 
iiilViiiLCeinent,  mid  the  rt'<;ul;irity  of  the 
intent,  it  will  not  Hcnd  the  ease  to  the 
iiry  prior  to  j^rantini;  a  final  injunction; 
;  ii'l  especially  if  the  <iuestions  in  the 
c:iHo  do  not  depend  ho  nuich  on  the 
cri'dihility  of  witnesses,  or  tho  weight 
iif  oval  testimony,  as  on  the  application 
if  principles  of  science  nnd  law  to  nd- 
liiitted  facts,  and  where  a  jury  trial 
would  he  long  aiul  (iostly,  aiul  more 
than  probable  that  no  verdict  wouhl  be 
iolitaiiied.     If>i<f.,  208. 

18,  A  ftiirncd  issue  to  try  the  v.ilid- 
ity  of  a  jiatent  will  not  be  granted  at 
the  request  of  a  defendant,  wlio  has 
liecn  guilty  of  frequent  infringements, 
auJ  who  has  before  allowed  judgments 


to  be  taken  ntfiiinst  him  in  nctioiiM  at 
law,  ami  taken  a  licenNC  under  the  pat- 
ent, and  when  no  mistake  or  mi«repre. 
seiitation  is  allegeil,  nor  the  diseovery 
of  new  (•videiu'e,  nor  that  auyliody  but 
himself  di>(put(>N  the  vaK  lity  of  the  p.at- 
ent.  <,'it<)ifi/,ttr  v.  /->(///,  MS, — (JlMKlJ, 
.1.;  N.  .1.,  |H.')'.>. 

111.  Where  on  a  bill  filetl  for  the  in- 
fringement  of  a  patent,  and  for  an  in- 
junction, the  d«'fenci«  was  m-t  up  that 
the  invention  had  been  known  and  iisecl 
prior  to  ihe  invention  thereof  liy  the 
patentee,  but  the  evidence  wan  ho  un- 
certain and  insuHlcient  that  no  satisfac- 
tory judgmeiil  couhl  be  foumled  Upon 
it,  //(/</,  that  an  issue  should  be  or- 
<b'ri'd  to  decide,  First,  whether  the 
patentee  was  the  iliscoverer  or  inv«'ntor 
of  the  thing  patcnteil  to  him,  and. 
Second,  wlu'ther  such  invention  was 
known  and  used  by  others  two  years 
itefore  tiie  applic.ition  for  a  patent. 
»S/c/7(7r  V.  /'iK-iJlc  Mail  Sti<itns/iiji  Co.., 
4  IJIatclif. — lN(iKUHoi.i.,  J, ;   N.  V.,  IHoT. 


n.  Kkfkct  of  Vkudict  in. 

1.  A  verdi(!t  upon  an  issue  ordered 
by  a  court  of  eipiity  is  in  no  just  sense 
final  upon  the  facts  it  finds,  or  binding 
upon  the  judgnu'iit  of  the  court,  .lllf/i 
v.  Jllunt,  :i  Story,  740. — Stokv,  .1.; 
Mass.,  iH4.'i. 

2.  The  court  may  at  its  pleasure  set 
it  .aside  and  gnmt  a  new  trial,  or  disre- 
garding it,  nujy  proceed  to  he;ir  tlie 
cause  and  decide  in  contradiction  to  the 
verdict,  or  it  may  adopt  the  verdict  su/> 
modo,  and  give  it  a  limited  efTect  only, 
lijid,  740, 

3.  liut  it  can  never  be  known  wh.it 
(•fVect  is  given  to  the  verdict,  or  whether 
any  is  given  to  it,  until  a  subsequent 


artnf^ 


i,  >■■-  .j^-, 


«^'l 


-H 


-^ 


-^•-vwi^ 


"  ti>^  I,, I 


tiNl 


;  ni 


S^.h— f. 


^w*r:;»te 


Ml 


KOIIKKJV  PATKNT. 


eKAKiNii  •!•  »s  liOMi  PAVon.    MOW  raovm. 


*'4. 


*)'♦*. 


))i>nriti({  upon  ihn  iiuiritN,  niiil  a  tliTri'i' 
rciulvrttil  ilii'rciiii  by  tli(>  ciMirt.  /AA/., 
746. 

4.  AVIifllu'r  n  vvniict  in  n  miiU  nl  law 
\h  I'xir  cvi'li'iirt'  of  ttny  tliiii)x«  I'lil  tlu< 
fiirj  that  it  wiis  n  lulrrctl,  iintcMH  ii  iinli»- 
imiit  \\Hf>  Im'i'Ii  duly  irtiiini'd  tln'ii'oii  ; 
qutry.     Ihlil.^  74«. 

ft,  A  vt'iilift  on  an  is<.iii>  nl   law,  <li 

r«'ft('i|  lij    II  culill  of  c'llillH'ft  V,  will    (Htl 

bo  Ni't  UMidc  on  tlii>  ^roiuiil  it  is  ii^aiiist 
IIm'  wt'ij^lit  of  i>vii|(<ii('<>,  luilcMM  I  In'  |»r<'- 
poiKlfraiico   if*  v«'ry  ("Icar.     JlfonAn   v. 

Mirkinll,    »   M(L«IU1,   !2,  74.— Mt  T.KAN, 

J.;  Oliio,  iHt,'). 

tt.  AfltT  II  jury  liiivc  panMcd  upon  tlio 
qnotiunx  NiilMnittcMl  to  thciii  on  a  li'i<,'nt>*l 
issui',  it  i^  Cor  llif  conrt  to  say  wlu'lmr 
tin'  \cii|ii't  in  iii,'lit ;  ami  tin'  ((nirt  i  lay 
let  it.  aNJik'.  I'li/i  Jlonk  V.  J'l iiJl< tcui, 
1  lllatchf.,  lOfl.— ISKHri,  J.;  N.  Y., 
184U. 

7.  A  vordlct  rcinli'rt'il  by  tlic  jufy 
on  u  It'i'jin'd  issue  is  in)t  ru'ccssaiilv  fon- 
cliiHJvt'  or  coiitrollinu;  upon  tin-  court 
(lirt'('tin<;  siieli  iswut' ;  but  such  vcnlicf 
nmy  bu  (lisrcf^'ardcil,  an<l  adi'cr«'c  ciitiT- 
od  in  opposition  to  it,  if  ihc  court  deem 
it  proper,  /'ante  v.  tSilnf,i^^  :.'  iJialchf., 
27r».— Nkison,  J.;  N.V.,  1H51.  [AlHriu- 
oAtjHmt  I  O.J 

H.  Where  after  a  stiit  at  law,  deti-r- 
miin'd  in  favor  of  the  plaintilfs,  the 
plaintitls  tiled  their  bill  ajjjainst  the  same 
defeinhilits  for  an  injuin'tion,  and  u 
feiijiK'd  issue  was  ordered,  upon  tlie 
trial  of  which  a  ver<lict  was  n'lidered 
fur  the  defendants,  the  court  entered  .a 
decree  for  the  plaintitls,  not  withstandiii}^ 
such  verdict.     Ibid.,  27.'>. 

0,  A  verdict  at  law,  f)r  a  fiiidiiijj^  in 
case  of  a  feigned  issue,  is  never  conclu- 
nive  upon  a  j'ldge  sitting  in  equity. 
The  judgment  of  the  judge  upon  the 
law  and  the  evidence  must  determine 


hiM  nt'tion,  nnil  not  tlio  juilKnieiif  of  t|i„ 
jury.  Ihiy  v.  n<iit»hi)rn^  Ms,  1',^, 
MAV,  J.;   U.  I.,  iHSft. 

10,  The  decinion  of  the  court  in  t'lmd 
V.  Sihhtj,  '.»  Hlulchf.,  -Jiift,  artlrnied,  thii-t 
in  fact  sUMiaiiiing  the  position  that  \\ 
court  of  eipiily  may  disregaril  tlie  liit,|. 
inj(of  a  jury  upon  the  trial  of  fi-imictl 
issues,  and  enter  II  «lecree  in  opptn^iiion 
to  such  (liiding.  SlUhy  v.  /'oo^,  .-q 
How.,  .'iwft,— Nicim)N,  J,;  Sup,  t't., 
1887. 


roUKRJN  I'ATIvSr. 

1.  The  isMuo  of  n  foreign  p.atent  to 
one  Ainerii'an  inventor,  to  alfect  tlic  jn. 
sueofii  home  pati'iit  to  an  alleged  piiiir 
inventor,  on  llie  ground  that  sudi  lor. 
eign  p.'iteiit  h  ecu  granted  more  tli;m 
six  months  1  'he  appli<-atioii  ot'ijifi 

latter  (.acts  of  \^'M\,^  H,  and  1k;i!i,  ^  c), 
will  be  considi'red  as  luiving  rerercinc 
to  the  time  of  the  original  appiictijcjn 
of  sueii  prior  inventor.  Wadi'  v.  Mat- 
f/ii  inn,  JNIS,  (.\pp.  Cax.)— Cka.N(  II,  Ch, 
.1.;  1).  C,  lHr>u. 

'J,  Where  M.  made  bin  first  applicii- 
tioti  for  a  patent  in  IMay,  1848,  wliicli 
application  was  afterward  witlidia\Mi, 
but  was  instantly  renewed,  and  in  tlio 
same  words,  and  W.  obtained  foivijrn 
patentH  for  tlio  Kiuno  invention  in  July, 
IHIH,  !ind  before  the  il;ite  of  such  second 
or  renewed  application,  //efd,  that  tho 
two  applications  of  ,M.  were  to  he  con- 
sidered as  a  continuous  application,  so 
that  MX  months  h.id  not  e.vpired,  at'tor 
the  issue  of  sueli  foreign  patents,  before 
M.'s  application.     ff>id. 

.*?.  It  seems,  however,  th.it  the  foreign 
patent,  to  affect  the  issno  of  a  hoinu 
patent  to  the  original  and  first  involit'T, 


'■S^^'' 


FOllM. 


mUMMM  mi  WVM  FAtmTABIJ,  AND  WHM  KUt. 


„iu«t  l)«)  Imiio*!  luTort!  tlii>  Aiii"rii-nii  itU- 

4,  A  Miiti'*!)  |>i>t<'til,  )*oiii;;  niillii'iiti- 
citixl  liy  tlu'  ;^it':il  Hcril,  iimviH  ilwt'll'; 
I, lit  in  only  pritmi  J'lhir  •>  iili'iit'i',  um  n 
pati'iit  i>»i«ii«'«l  J»y  <»iir  own  Kovorniii» iit, 
llirtt  tlui  liiv»'iitioii  wu«  of  HiiiiK'  prnliii- 
1,1,1  \iiliu>.  <ii%tUHif\.  Xrinil/,  tl  Ilid, 
8«'i.— I'kiikinh,  J.;  IikI.,  1h:.7. 

6,  A  Ittrt'iKii  |mti'iil,  in  ••nlcr  to  do- 
fi'tit  All  Aiiutricitii  piiti'iit  lor  ili(>  nnuw 

illVtilli"".  lllllKt    llllVl'  ImM'M   ft'lfi  hfnl  Im'- 

fori'  ill*'  ilLst'DVfry  or  iiivi'tilinn  Inn-; 
hihI  not  UHTi'Iy  lu'lnni  tho  ii|>|ilicuti(»ii. 
Jliiw:  V.  Mt>rto>iy  l:i  Mo.  Liiw  Ufp.,  "o. 
— Si'itAin  K,  J. ;   MiiMM.,  lH(i(). 

0.  All  invt'iilioii  is  not  "  |»!ili'nti'tl"  in 
Kti,i;lini<l,  vutliin  tho  niciininix  of  tlif 
actH  of  Conj^ri'MS  (net  of  Ih:««,  {}  i:»), 
iiiilil  ili>'  foiiiplot)*  npt'citic.'ition  In-i  )MM>ri 
ciin)II<'<l,  until  tin*  iiivt'iitiun  s)  liavi' 
bei'ii  niaiU'  putuni  to  tin*  woiM.     ll>!>l. 

7.  WluTc  lottorM  patent  wcro  f{ranti>i| 
in  En;il;iiul  to  V,  lunl  (t.  for  iniprovi,*- 
iiiriitsin  wcwiiij^  uiacliint's,  in  DfcfmlMT, 
1HI4,  Itiit  tim  Hpt'ciHciitioM  was  not  v\\- 
riilleil  until  Juni',  lHtr>,  and  II.  coni- 
jili'toil  an  iuvcntion  for  a  Hiiiillar  itn- 
lirovi'int'iit  or  arranpcinont  as  tliat  ili>- 
scrilii'd  in  ¥.  ami  (I.'h  spi'cifu'ation,  in 
M:iy,  1H45,  but  \m  appliration  for  a  pat- 
iiit  was  Hiihscquentto  June,  184ri,  Ifvld, 
that  F.  atul  O.'h  invention  was  not  jxtt- 
m(ed  until  aOcr  H.'h  invention,  and  tli:it 
II.  was  entitled  to  a  patent  under  the 
]ir()visions,  and  within  the  meaning  of, 
§  15  of  the  act  of  1830.     Ibid. 


FORM. 
See  also  Colorable  /xteratioxs. 
1.  Whether  an  improvement  is  on  the 


l»rint'ifilt>  «»f  n  luai'hiiie,  •)r  on  \\\t' j\>rin 
itr  fifi>fH>ttioh»  riieri'ly,  Im  u  «pie«iioii  of 
fai'l  fur  the  jury,  lintijrn  V.  h'-inmfi-g, 
I  Wash.,   171.     WAMiii\uit)N,  J.;  I'li., 

IHOI. 

'i.  All  improveinent  hi  lli«/«m«  or 
fifn/Hirlionanf  i\  niaehitie  ii'wvn  no  ri;^lit 
to  tiHe  the  orij^iind  niachini>.  //»/</.,  171. 
AIno,  /'iirk  V.  /Jfflt;  .1  \Va«h.,  li)8. — 
WAMiiiNttroN,  J.;  I'll.,  iHi:i, 

.•).  A  mere  ehan^e  of  former  propor- 
tions will  not  entitle  a  party  to  a  patent. 
\\',„»/<'i)<k  V.  /'(triir,  I  (Jail.,  110.— 
Siour,  .1. ;   .Mass.,  IMIM. 

4.  If  a  dineovery  or  improvement  bo 
only  ill  the  form  or  proportions  of  n 
niaeliine,  it  has  not  the  merit  of  a  dis- 
eovery  which  e.an  entitle  the  party  to  n 
patent,  /''luitm  v.  h'utnn,  I'et.,  C.  C, 
.M'.'.— Wasiiinutov,  J.;  I'a.,  IHIO. 

T).  A  mere  el  anj,'e  of  tlu'  form  or  pro- 
portions of  any  mauhine  cannot,  y«r  .•««, 
he  deemed  a  now  invention,  Lnimll  v. 
f^firit,  1  Mas.,  11)0. — Stokv,  J. ;  MaNS., 
iH|7. 

fi.  If  the  dilleretu'e  Itetween  a  patent- 
ed article  and  the  thinj^  made  by  ano- 
tiier  bo  only  in  form  or  proportions,  they 
are  tho  saim>  in  lej^al  contemplation. 
/)ijr<>n  V.  Min/rr,  4  Wash.,  71. — Wash- 
in*  iTo.v,  .1.;  I'a.,  1«'21. 

7.  Improvements  in  tlio  form  or  pro- 
portions of  an  itivention,  adopted  in 
coiise«pience  of  the  suj^f^estioiis  of  tho 
mechaiiii!  employed  to  make  tho  Hj»eoi- 
meii,  or  of  others,  arc  not  inventions  or 
improvements  for  which  a  patent  eoiild 
be  obtained,  nor  can  they  invalidate  tho 
patent  for  tlio  thing  to  which  they  were 
.applied.  Pennock  v.  DiaUujne,  4  W^ash., 
544. — Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1825. 

8.  Suggestions  of  alterations  in  tho 
form  or  proportions  of  a  machine  are 
not  such  a  discovery  as  will  entitle  tho 
pui  ty  making  them  to  a  patent  therefor. 


-i::. 


■~  V-< 


gij 

:    ""w 

m. 

^Wl 


!*'#. 


'»Wl> 


834 


Fomr. 


(•1I.\N(1K.S   in;    WIIKN    VATKXrAlll.K,    AND    WllKN    NOT. 


:m^A 


^^iii*" 


A  Hi 


"«» 


Miffson  V.   Ji/aifi'fi,  4    Wiisli.,   582.— 
Wasiiin(;to\,  J.;  I'u.,  iHJd. 

0.  It  iH  liot  every  elian^e  of  form  aii«l 
jtroixirtioii  which  is  deelared  (muler  the 
at't  of  17i>;t,  J;  2)  to  bo  no  diseovery>  l»iit 
siU'Ii  as  is  simply  a  cliaiiij;e  of  form  ami 
])r()|ior(loii,  ami  notliiiij^  more.  If,  by 
ehaiiLfing  the  form  ami  proportion,  a 
new  ellect  is  proilueed,  there  is  not  wim- 
jily  a  chant^c  of  form  and  proportion, 
but  of  ehaiif^c  of  principle  also.  JJaria 
V.  Ptdnur,  2  IJrock.,  310. — Makshall, 
Ch.  J.;  Va.,  1827. 

10.  Tn  every  case,  it  is  a  question  for 
the  jury,  whether  the  chan<j;e  of  form 
and  proportion  in  an  invention  has  pro- 
duced a  dift'erent  eflTect,  and  is  a  now 
invention.      Ibid.,  SIO. 

11.  A  dilference  in  the  manner  c* 
form  of  applying  an  invention,  if  it  be 
the  same  in  principle,  will  not  justify  a 
j)afent.  Delanov.  Scott,  Gilpin,  500. — 
IIoPKiNsox  .1.;  Pa.,  18;{4. 

12.  A  mere  formal  dirt'erenco  c.innot 
be  protected  by  a  patent  ;  the  dilference 
nuist  be  substantial.  Sta/dei/v.  W/i/'/>- 
2)le,  2  McLean,  ',\8. — 3IcLi:an,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1880. 

13.  A  slight  alteration  in  the  struc- 
ture of  a  mj'chine,  or  in  the  improve- 
ment of  it,  will  not  entitle  an  indivi<lual 
to  a  patent.  There  must  be  a  substiin- 
tial  diiference  in  the  principle,  and  the 
application  of  it,  to  constitute  such  an 
improvement  as  the  law  will  protect. 
Smith  V.  Pcarce,  2  McLean,  178. — Mc- 
Lkax,  J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

14.  Amaclune  substantially  the  same 
in  operation  and  construction  with  one 
patented,  though  differing  somewhat  in 
form  atid  arrangement,  is  still  an  in- 
fringement npon  it.  Wyeth  v.  Stone, 
1  Story,  280.— Story,  J.  ;  Mass.,  1840. 

15.  A  mere  difference  of  form  Avill 
not  entitle  a  party  to  a  patent.    Carver 


V.  Ih'(iintr(C  Miihiif.  Cn.,  2  Storv, 440. 
— SroUY,  J. ;  .Mass.,  1843. 

l(i.  A  diange  in  the  manner  of  a:- 
taching  several  knives,  for  tlie  pur|insi> 
of  grinding  them,  on  a  cylinder,  iiisttail 
of  one,  or  in  attaching  that  one  to  a 
flange  on  the  cylinder  by  screws  instead 
of  attachl.ig  it  to  the  cylinder  by  riuf's 
at  the  end  ;  Ifcld,  not  to  be  a  siilli(i(>iit 
change  in  form,  or  jjrinciple,  or  results 
to  justify  ;i  patent.  Howy  v.  .S'^(y;^^•, 
1  Wood.  Sc  Min.,  209,  300.— Wood. 
ni'jtv,  J.;  ^fass.,  1840. 

17.  Tiiere  must  be  difrerencc  in  iniii- 
ciple  to  constitute  a  patentable  dilVi.r- 
euce.  A  more  change  of  form  will  not 
do,  unless  lorm  .  a  part  of  the  \\\\\\ft 
invented,  and  is  essential  to  iis  viiliie. 
Mdinj  v.  Jayijcr,  1  IJlatchf.  3.SU. — Xel- 
sox,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1848. 

1  !.  If,  however,  the  form  is  a  mate- 
rial ;»art  of  the  discovery,  and  is  essen- 
tial to  its  V  .lue,  then  a  dejiarture  from 
the  form  wou'.d  be  a  substantial  (lepart- 
ure,  because  form  is  essential  to  the  in- 
vention,    livid..,  380,  087. 

19.  There  are,  however,  many  new 
manufacf  iu'es,  where  the  particular  ibriii 
of  the  thing  is  not  essential  to  its  utility, 
and  there  may  be  a  departure  from  that 
form,  and  still  be  no  substantial  change, 
because  the  particular  form  is  not  esst'ii- 
ti.al  to  the  production  of  the  mamitac- 
ture.     Ibid.,  380,  387. 

20.  .An  improvement  in  a  burring 
machine  consisted  of  hooked  teeth,  cut 
upon  rings  or  plates,  and  those  so  ar- 
ranged upon  the  cylinder  that  the  wool 
or  cotton,  when  taken  up  by  the  tcctli, 
would  be  drawn  into  the  interstices  be- 
tween the  teeth,'  leaving  the  burrs  and 
other  foreign  substances  on  the  surt'ict', 
to  be  knocked  off  by  the  beater ;  IIcU, 
that  the  change  of  form  of  the  teeth  from 
that  of  gullet  teeth,  Laving  large  slots 


FOKM 


Nv 


ClIANUKt:  iN;    WHEN   I'ATKXTADI.e,    AND  \VIIKM   NOT. 


;it  tlio  l)ott(iin,  to  that  of  the  letter  V, 
son*  ^*^  iiiiiko  the  hIoIs  iit  the  Itottom 
muhIIci",  to  opcnito  bi'ttt'i"  on  thi-  cotton, 
lie,  wii!*  not  "  .  .ibstJUiti;il  chiiiigi'  in  tin- 
iMiiistnu'tion,  bnt  a  niodilication  of  foruj, 
wliii'li  was  a  natural  rosull  of  workin;^ 
;!u'  iiKU'hhic.  Varkltio'Ht  v.  ICuiHtnuti, 
1  r.latclif.  401,  407,  408.— Nklsun,  J.; 
X.  Y.,  1H40. 

lil.  Form  and  structure  are  very  ini- 
piirtaiit  matters  in  machinery :  if  they  e.i- 
.ibk't lie  operator  to  do  the  work  in  a  In  t- 
Wx  iiiMD'UT,  or  with  more  case,  or  less  ex- 
iii'iiso,  or  in  less  tinie,  they  are  not  an  in- 
turfcrencc,  but  constitute  a  jjatentablc 
iiniirovement.  Jialn  v.  J/(>;w,]MS.  (A|H). 
Cas.)— CuANCii,  CIi.  .1.  ;  J).  C,  1^40. 

l!2.  AV'heii  the  aiii)lication  is  for  a  pat- 
ent for  a  combination  of  machinery  ami 
miitcrials,  forn\  and  structure  bi'come 
sufisfitiicc.  Form  and  structure  consti- 
tute the  identity  of  macliincry.     I/>i(/. 

23.  A  mere  ditFerence  in  form  or  size 
is  !i(»t  a  diil'erence  in  priiu'iple.  I'ootr 
V.  SUshij,  1  Blatchf.,  430.— Nklson',  J. ; 
X.Y.,  i-40. 

24.  A  formal  change  in  a  machine  by 
adofeudant,  will  not  distinguish  the  in- 
vention or  thing  used  from  that  of  the 
plaintiff.  Tliat  is  an  evasion.  The  change 
iinist  be  substantial.  It  must  be  a  dif- 
ference in  the  mechanical  structure,  in 
the  physical  existence  of  the  thing,  and 
;ilso  iu  its  practical  operation  and  effect 
in  producing  the  result.  Back  v.  Jhr- 
hunice,  1  Blatch.,  406. — Nelsox,  J. ;  X. 
Y.,  1840. 

25.  A  mere  change  in  form  or  pro- 
portion, or  a  substitution  of  mechanical 
means  or  equivalents  in  any  one  or  all 
the  elements  of  a  combination  ])roducing 
the  same  results,  does  not  constitute  a 
substantial  difference.  Gorham  v.  J//x- 
kr^  1  Anier.  Law  Jour.,  X.  S.,  543. — 
Spk^gue,  J. ;  Muss.,  1849. 


2(i.  A  formal  change,  s\ich  as  a  chango 
in  proportions,  a  mere  change  of  form, 
or  a  dilKrctit  shape,  is  not  a  clumge, 
within  tlie  nu-aning  of  tlie  patt'ut  law, 
Muflicicnt  to  support  w  patent.  JfnU.  v. 
Wiles,  2  lliatchf.,  2U0.— NixsoN,  J.  ; 
N.  v.,  iHr.i. 

27.  A  change  iu  tiie  form  of  a  ma- 
chine, end)odying,  however,  tiu'  princi- 
ple and  subHtaiu-e  of  a  prior  invention, 
and  which  is  only  the  result  of  practi- 
cal experience  in  the  use  of  sucli  prior 
invention,  is  not  .lu  improvenu'iit  upon 
such  former  invention.  Tntcif  v.  T<irri>f, 
2   iJlatchf.,  27H.— Nklson,  *.T.  ;  N.  Y., 

2.S.  A  change  in  form  from  the  con- 
struction of  an  existing  nuichiue,  or  in 
its  proportions,  is  not  a  substantial 
change,  in  tlie  eye  of  the  patent  law. 
Such  changes  re(iuire  no  gri'at  ingemi- 
ity,  ond  do  not  call  for  tlie  exercise  of 
the  inventive  faculty;  they  are  simply 
the  work  of  a  mechanic.  Tuthiim  v. 
Le  Itoy,  2  Ulatchf.,  485,  480.— Xki.sox, 
J.;  X.  Y.,  1852. 

29.  Under  our  law,  a  patent  cannot  bo 
granted  for  merely  a  change  of  form.  §  2 
of  the  act  of  179;}  so  declared  in  ex- 
press terms,  and  though  this  declara- 
tory law  was  not  re-enacted  in  the  law 
of  1830,  it  is  a  principle  which  necessa- 
rily makes  part  of  every  system  of  law 
granting   patents   for   new    inventions. 

WiiKinn  V.  DaoncAnI,  15  How.,  341. — 
Cuin-is,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

30.  ]Nrerdy  to  change  the  form  of  a 
machine  is  the  work  of  a  constructor, 
not  an  inventor  ;  such  a  change  cannot 
be  deemed  an  invention.     P>id.,  :541. 

31.  Where  a  patent  was  gra-Ued  for 
[  constructing  the  body  of  a  railroad  ear 
I  in  the  form  of  the  frustum  of  a  cone, 

and  the  claim  was  for  making  it  in  sucli 
form  Avhereby  certain  specified  advau- 


I 


'  im  i^i 


•■'   '~::m 

^3 

^^ 

ji^ 

'■'  ''^  -TbagLA 

%«t 

m 

,,^^tii^ 

Ci. ' 

i,      '^   »».  ■ 


I- 1 


•Vlf 


i  11 


•h-.«<i, 


^^Nn. 


sse 


FORM. 


'-* 


CIIAX(ii:S   I.S;    WIIK\    I'ATKNTAIII.K,    AM)   WHKX   NOT. 


■r./i^p 


t^ft  ^' ,'■■;:: 


^!V: 


LKf 


^'i^w^ 


tapft's  wore  siH-iircd,  ami  ;i  new  ami  jjho- 
fiil  result  j)r  iiifcil,  and  tlui  «lt'fi'ii(latits 
coiistnii'ted  tlio  Ixtdy  of  their  car  ootar/- 
o?t(if,  tlio  efti'ot  of  which  was,  however, 
the  same  as  when  nsado  circular,  as  de- 
Kcrihcd  in  tlio  plaintiff's  patent ;  Jfdt/, 
that  it  was  an  infringement  ujjon  plain- 
tift''s  patent,  and  that  the  i»laintifl''s  pat- 
ent, tlioui^h  describing  only  the  form  of 
a  frustum  of  a  cone,  embraced  every 
such  variation  of  form  as  substantially 
embodied  his  mode  of  operatic  >n,  and 
lhcre1)y  attained  the  same  result.  Ibid., 
341-344.  (Tanky,  Ch.  J. ;  Catkox,  Dan- 
iel, and  Camphell,  JJ.,  dissenting.) 

32.  Where  a  particular  geometrical 
form  is  alone  capable  of  embodying  a  pat- 
entee's invention,  if  the  form  is  not  used, 
the  invention  is  not  cojjied,  and  there  is 
no  infringement ;  otherwise  where  that 
particular  form  is  the  best,  but  other 
forms  may  and  do  embody  the  inven- 
tion.    I/ikl.,  343. 

33.  Patentees  sometunes  add  to  their 
claims  an  express  declaration  to  the  ef- 
fect that  the  claim  extends  to  the  thing 
patented,  however  its  form  or  j)ropor- 
tions  may  be  varied.  But  this  is  un- 
necessary. The  law  so  interprets  the 
claim  without  the  addition  of  these 
w^ords.     Ibid.,  343. 

34.  Where  a  patentee  describes  a  ma- 
chine, and  then  claims  it  as  described, 
he  is  genenilly  understood  to  claim,  and 
does,  by  law,  actually  cover,  not  only 
the  precise  forms  he  has  described,  but 
all  other  forms  which  embody  his  in- 
vention.    Ibid.,  343. 

35.  There  may  be  cases,  as  in  Davis 
V.  Palmer,  2  Brock.,  309,  where  the 
letters  patent  include  only  the  particu- 
lar form  described  and  claimed;  but 
the  reason  why  such  a  patent  covers 
only  one  geometrical  form  is  not  that 
the  patentee  has  described  and  claimed 


that  form  only,  but  because  siuli  r.niu 
only  is  capable  of  end)odyiiig  iiis  iuvcu. 
tion ;  and  consequently,  if  the  form  is 
not  copied,  the  inventit)n  is  not  usod. 
Tbid.,  343. 

3(!.  Where  form  and  substance  are  in. 
separable,  it  is  enough  to  look  at  tlio 
form  alone.  Where  they  are  8ep;iriil)lc 
— where  the  whole  sMbstanc(>  of  the  in- 
vention  may  be  copied  in  a  diHiivnt 
form,  it  is  the  duty  of  courts  and  jmii's 
to  look  through  the  form  for  the  .sub- 
stance of  the  invention — for  that  wliidi 
entitled  the  inventor  to  his  patent,  ami 
which  the  j)atent  was  designed  to  .si- 
cure ;  wdiere  that  is  found,  there  is  an 
infringement,  and  it  is  no  defence  tliat 
it  is  embodied  in  a  form  not  deseribod, 
and  in  terms  not  claimed  by  the  paten- 
tee.    Ibid..,  343. 

37.  It  is  a  well  settled  principle  of 
law,  that  the  mere  change  in  the  foini 
of  machinery  (unless  a  particular  form 
is  specified  as  the  means  by  m  liich  the 
effect  described  is  produced),  or  an  al- 
teration in  some  of  its  unessential  part:*, 
or  in  the  use  of  known  ecpiivalent  pow- 
ers, not  varying  essentially  the  maeliino, 
or  its  mode  of  operation,  or  organiza- 
tion, will  not  make  the  machine  a  new 
invention.  G'lteilly  v.  Morse,  15  How., 
123. — Tankv,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

38.  A  mere  change  in  the  form  of  ma- 
chinery, or  the  means  specified  by  which 
the  result  or  effect  described  is  produ- 
ced, or  an  alteration  in  some  unessential 
parts,  or  a  substitution  or  use  of  known 

I  mechanical  powers,  not  varying  essen- 
tially the  machine,  or  its  mode  of  oper- 
ation or  organization,  is  not  invention, 
Amer.  Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Co.,  3  A.  L.  R., 
138;  3  Blatchf.,  192. — Nelson,  Lvoer- 
BOLL,  JJ.;  Ct.,  1859. 

39.  Where  in  a  patent  for  improve- 
ments in  cooking  stoves,  the  claim  was 


i 


FRAUD  AM)  FUArDrLKNT  INTENT. 


WHAT  DKKMKD  TO   IIE ;    ErFRC'T  OF. 


"tlie  placiiij;  the  flre-dianilKT  in  the 
iiiiildle  of  the  oven,  so  that  the  hitter 
iimv  recc^ive  the  he:it  on  three  siiles  at 
once,"  but  there  was  no  peculiarity  in 
the  oven  or  lire-chamber,  and  the  in- 
vcntii)n  appeared  to  be,  that  iuMtead 
of  forming  tliree  ovens  or  comj)art- 
meiits  around  tlie  iire-ehamber  as  usual, 
tlif  inventor  removed  tiie  partitions  be- 
hind the  fire-chamber,  and  made  a  sin- 
gle cooking  space  instead  of  three ;  (jtfe- 
ri/,  whether  the  change  is  a  j)atentable 
(li>cuv('ry.  IVilnuii  v.  Joiics  !<  Ulalchf., 
iL'D.— Hktts,  J. ;  N.  v.,  1654. 

40.  A  change  of  form  merely,  or  of 
ineclianical  structure,  the  jiractical  ef- 
fect of  Avliich  is  small,  and  from  which 
no  new  or  materially  improved  result  is 
obtuiuod,  is  not  the  subject  of  a  patent. 
Sarf/einit  v.  Larned,  2  Curt.,  349. — 
C'Lims,  J. ;  Mass.,  1855. 

41.  A  patent  for  an  improvement  in 
applo-paring  machines,  consisted  in  so 
iittiicliing  the  knife-block  to  the  rod, 
which  moves  it,  as  to  allow  the  knife- 
block  to  rotate  round  the  rod  at  right 
angles,  to  accommodate  itself  to  iiy  ir- 
regularities in  the  surface  of  the  fruit. 
The  defendants,  instead  of  making  the 
knife  movable  in  the  rod,  made  the  rod 
movable  in  its  socket,  but  the  knife- 
block  had  the  same  motion ;  Ifeld,  that 
it  was  only  a  change  of  form,  and  an  in- 
fringement on  the  patent.    Ibid.,  349. 

42.  If  the  article  produced  is  substan- 
tially the  same  with  tlie  one  patented, 
tile  variations  being  in  form  and  not  in 
substance,  or  where  no  new  or  substan- 
tial result  is  produced,  it  Avill  not  affect 
tlie  right  of  the  patentee,  but  is  an 
infringement  on  his  rights.  Teeae  v. 
Phelps,  1  McAllis.,  49. — McAixisteb, 
J.;  Cal.,  1855. 

43.  Mere  formal  changes  of  machin- 
ery do  not  evade  a  patent.    Sickles  v. 

22 


Borden,   3   Ulalchf.,    .541. — Nelson,   J.; 
N.  v.,  18 ')(•). 

44.  However  difiereiit  apparently  the 
arrangements  and  combinations  of  a  ma- 
chiiic  »!iay  be  from  the  machine  of  an 
inventor,  it  may  in  reality  embody  his 
invention,  and  be  as  much  an  infringe- 
ment !is  if  it  were  a  servile  copy  of  the 
plaintilf's  m.achine.     Ibid, 

45.  A  change  in  the  forms  or  propor- 
tions of  instrumentalities — a  substitu- 
tion of  one  motive  power  for  another — 
a  diffiu'ent  position  or  gearing  of  the 
working  apparatus — a  superior  iiiiish  in 
any  other  particular,  resting  in  mere 
mechanical  skill  or  taste,  and  not  involv- 
ing invention — does  not  render  ma- 
chines appearing  to  the  eye  exceedingly 
unlike,  substantially  difterent  in  judg- 
ment of  law.  Smith  v.  llifjgina,  31S. 
— JJetts,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

4G.  Although  there  m.ay  be  a  differ- 
ence in  form  between  two  devices  .idoj)- 
ted  for  a  given  jmrpose,  yet  if  there  is 
no  substantial  difference  in  i)rincii)le,  a 
patent  will  not  be  granted.  Chatfield 
cfc  Dutcher,  Ex  parte,  ]VIS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— MoRSKLL,  J.;  D.  C,  1859. 

47.  Differences  in  size  and  proper 
tions,  so  long  as  the  construction,  arrange- 
ment, prhiciples,  and  n^ode  of  opera- 
tion are  substantially  the  same,  are  en- 
tirely immaterial.  Gahoon  v.  Ming, 
Mi)  —Clifford,  J.;  Me.,  1859. 


FRAUD  AND  FRAUDULENT  IN- 
TEJJT  IN  RESPECT  TO  PAT- 
ENTS. 

1.  If,  of  two  joint  inventors  of  a  ma- 
chine, one  of  them,  without  the  other 
relinquishing  his  interest  to  a  joint  in- 
terest in  the  patent-right,  obtains  a  pat- 


''!:^\ 


^^'tetivi 


338 


FRATTD  AND  FRAUDULENT  INTENT. 


a  '  •■■  '4i!>f  t 


*^j,'.*-*..ui^j 


^«r;>' 


^►•l... 


Hf'.  /"•lila.li 


WHAT  DEKMKD  TO   HE;    EKFECT  OK. 


cnt  in  liis  own  nanip,  lie  will  bo  flocnicd 
guilty  of  ii  fraiul,  and  will  in  i'(iuity  be 
considered  ns  n  truHtee  for  tlno  other. 
Jieutffcn  V.  JCanowrs,  1  Wash.,  171. — 
VVAHiiix<iTOX,  J. ;  Ph.,  1804. 

2.  Under  §  0  of  the  act  of  1793  no 
defect  or  concealment  in  a  specification 
will  avoid  a  patent  unless  it  arose  from 
an  intention  to  deceive  the  public. 
Wliittemore  v.  CutUr,  1  G.ill,  437.— 

Stoky,  J. ;  Mass.,  1813. 

3.  In  an  action  for  fraud  in  the  sale 
of  a  paten t-riglit,  it  is  competent  for 
the  party  to  show  that  a  previous  pat- 
ent had  been  granted  for  the  same  in- 
vention as  that  sold  by  the  defendant. 
Bidl  V.  Pratt,  1  Conn.,  340.— Swift, 
Ch.  J.;  Ct.,  1815. 

4.  The  refusal  of  a  defendant  to  sub- 
mit his  claim  for  a  patent  to  arbitration, 
under  §  9  of  the  act  of  1793,  and  »\\h- 
sequently  obtaining  a  patent  after  the 
plaintiff  had  obtained  his,  is  not  of  itself 
condusire  proof,  in  an  action  brought 
under  §  10  of  the  same  act,  that  the  pat- 
ent of  the  defendant  had  been  obtained 
surreptitiously  or  upon  false  suggestion. 
Stearns  v.  Barrett,  1  ^Mas.,  174. — Sto- 
ky, J.;  Mass.,  181G. 

5.  Undfr  the  act  of  1793  if  a  specifi- 
cation is  materially  defective,  it  will  not 
invalidate  the  patent  unless  the  jury  are 
satisfied  that  the  concealment  of  the 
circiuustances  was  intended  to  deceive 
.the  public.  Gray  v.  James,  I'et.  C.  C, 
401. — Washixgtox,  J.;  Pa.,  1817. 

6.  What  degree  of  evidence  will  be 
required  to  prove  such  fraudulent  inten- 
tion rests  with  the  jury  to  decide.  Pos- 
itive evidence  can  seldom  be  expected, 
nor  is  it  necessary.  It  may  be  presum- 
ed from  circumstances,  which  woyld  be 
sufficient  to  authorize  the  jury  to  find 
the  fact     Ibid.,  402. 

H,  If  .the  specification  is  not  so  full, 


clear,  and  exact  .'is  to  enable  a  skilful 
person  to  eonipouixl  and  use  the  Nanip 
this,  under  g  0  of  the  act  of  179;),  »l„o,s 
not  avoid  the  patent,  unless  the  defec. 
tive  conceahnent  or  description  has  hcon 
made  for  the  purpose  of  deceiviM<»  the 
public.  Lowell  \.  Lewis,  1  Mas.,  loo. 
— Stoky,  J. ;  Mass.,  1817. 

8.  A  patent  cannot  bo  said  to  li^vo 
been  obtained  siuTcptitiously  or  in  fr.iinj 
of  another's  right,  under  §  0  of  (he  act 
of  1793,  if  the  inventor  gave  up  his 
riglit  of  discovery  to  the  i)!itentec,  hy 
expressly  or  impliedly  permitting  lilm 
to  encounter  the  trouble  and  expense 
of  obtaining  a  patent.  Dixon  v.  Mojjer, 
4  Wash.,  71,  72. — Washingtox,  J,; 
Pa.,  1821. 

9.  If  a  patentee  include  in  his  patent 
along  with  his  own  invention  the  inven- 
tion of  another  person  previously  pat- 
ented, and  sell  the  whole  to  a  jjcrson 
ignorant  of  these  facts,  and  mIio  sup- 
posed he  was  buying  an  exclusive  ri<»lit 
to  the  whole,  the  sale  is  a  fraud  upon 
such  person,  and  the  vendor  caiuiot  re- 
cover a  note  given  for  the  purchase. 
Turner  v.  Johnson,  2  Cra.  C.  C,  287. 
— Craxch,  J. ;  D.  C,  1822. 

10.  If  an  inventor  suffer  his  invention 
to  go  into  general  and  public  use  with- 
out objection,  and  assort  no  title  to  it 
for  years,  and  then  afterward  attempts 
to  gain  the  exclusive  right  by  a  patent, 
and  secure  it  by  a  patent,  such  attempt 
would  operate  as  a  fraud  upon  the  pub- 
lic. Melius  v.  Silsbee,  4  Mas.,  111.— 
Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1825. 

11.  If  the  public,  with  the  knowledge 
and  tacit  consent  of  the  inventor  is  per- 
mitted to  use  an  invention  without  op- 
position, it  is  a  fraud  upon  tliat  public 
afterward  to  take  out  a  patent.  Pe/t- 
nock  V.  Z)ia?o<7«<e,4  Wash.,544. — Wash- 
IXGTON,   J.;    Pa.,1826. 


sup- 

iglit 

upon 

ot  re- 

\!ise. 

2Si. 

nlion 
with- 
to  it 
mpts 
atent, 
tempt 


ledge 

[s  per- 

|it  op- 

Vublic 

Pen- 

'ash- 


fraud  AOT)  FRAUDULENT  INTENT. 


839 


WHAT  DEKUED  TO  DE  ;   EmXT  OF. 


12.  Under  the  not  of  1790,  if  an  in- 
ventor iilloweil  his  iiivt'Mtion  to  go  into 
i)\i\)\k  use,  it  was  doenuHl  ii  fraud  in  law 
if  afU'r  siu'h  use?  he  took  out  n  patent, 
such  iif^e  heinj?  considiTcd  as  an  abiui- 
iloninent.  ^V^utncy  v.  Emmctt^  IJald., 
;)09,  310.— Baldwin,  J. ;  Pa.,  18.T1. 

i;).  Under  the  act  of  1703,  evidence 
of  fraudulent  intent  as  to  the  conceal- 
ment or  addition  of  something  contain- 
ed in  the  specification  of  a  patent,  is 
retiuired  only  in  the  particular  case,  and 
for  the  [)articular  purpose  stated  in  §  0, 
that  is,  to  annul  the  patent.  Grant  v. 
Raymond,  0  Pet.,  247. — Maksiiall, 
Ch.  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1832. 

14.  If  a  i)arty  should  seek  to  include 
several  distinct  improvements  in  one 
patent,  so  that  there  should  be  but  one 
surrender,  and  the  [)aymcnt  of  but  one 
fee  under  §  13  of  the  act  of  1836,  and 
take  out  several  new  patents,  it  would 
be  such  a  "fraudulent  and  deceptive  in- 
tention" as  would  prevent  the  issuing  of 
a  patent  .after  the  surrender.  Anon.,  3 
Opin.,  105.— Butler,  Atty.  Gen.,  1836. 

15.  A  offered  to  sell  a  patent-right  to 
1),  who  declined  to  purchase  unless  C 
would  join  with  him.  A  then  went  to 
C  and  agreed  with  him  that  he  should 
join  with  B,  and  that  he.  A,  would  take 
the  notes  of  each  for  lialf  the  agreed 
sum;  but  as  soon  as  the  business  was 
closed  he  would  give  back  to  C  his 
note,  and  pay  him  for  thus  inducing 
I)  to  buy.  B  was  thus  induced  to  buy, 
but  he  afterward  sold  his  interest  fur 
wore  than  he  gave  for  it.  In  an  action 
by  B  against  A  for  the  fraud.  Held, 
(hat  B  had  a  right  to  recover  against 
A  any  damages  he  might  have  sulFered 
by  not  having  C  as  a  joint  owner  to  aid 

f  assist  in  m.aking  sales  of  tl»e  patent, 
nd  that  the  flict  that  he  had  sold  his 
ntercst  for  more  than  he  gave  for  it,  i 


did  not  show  that  he  h.ad  not  sustained 
damage.  Culrcr  v.  Wvhb,  lii  Conn., 
441,  44.3.-^Waitk,  J. ;  Ct.,  1838. 

10.  An  inventor  who  has  first  actually 
perfected  his  invention,  will  not  be  deem- 
etl  to  have  surreptitiously  or  unjustly  ob- 
tained a  p.atent  for  that  which  was  in  fact 
first  invented  by  another,  imless  the  hat- 
ter was  at  the  time  using  reasonable  dili- 
gence in  adapting  and  perfi-cting  the 
same.  Iteed  v.  Cutter,  1  Story,  590. — 
Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1841. 

17.  The  defence  authorized  by  §  13 
of  the  act  of  1836,  that  the  plaintiff 
had  "surreptitiously  or  unjustly  ob- 
tained his  patent  for  that  which  Avas  in 
fact  invented  or  discovered  by  anoth- 
er," is  only  applicable  in  the  case  of  ft 
patent  so  obtained,  while  the  '•  first  in- 
ventor was  using  reasonable  diligence  in 
adapting  and  perfecting  his  invention  ;" 
and  if  pleaded,  it  may  be  necessary  for 
the  defendant  to  show,  in  order  to  va- 
cate such  patent,  that  he  was  using  rea- 
sonable diligence,  when  the  p.atent  was 
obtained.  Perry  v.  Cornell,  ]MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— CuANxii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1847. 

18.  Though  the  provision  rendering 
a  patent  valid,  notwithstanding  too 
much  is  claimed  in  the  specification,  is 
limited  to  cases  where  the  excessive 
claim  Avas  made  by  mistake  and  without 
fraudulent  intent,  still,  as  fraud  is  not 
to  be  presumed,  the  patentee  claiming 
the  benefit  of  the  provision,  need  not 
prove  that  he  acted  under  a  mistake  and 
fronx  honest  motives.  Those  who  at- 
t.ack  the  patent  must  establish  the  fraud. 
Jlotchkiss  V.  Oliver,  5  Denio,  318. — 
McKissocK,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

19.  Where  fraud  is  charged  upon  a 
party,  "in  respect  to  his  patent,  it  must 
be  luade  out  at  le.ast  2}>'ifna facie.  Good- 
year V.  Day,  MS. — Griee,  J. ;  N.  J., 
1850. 


'flit 


sc.^c 


IE' 


I,. I* 


^^wi 


w..:M^ak 


mf 


'   A 


',i^^:^^ 


'fl^ny'- 


340 


FRAUD  AND  FltAUDl'LENT  INTENT. 


WHAT  DKKUKD  TO  BK;    KFfKCT  OF. 


i 


f  j^«i«»; 


20.  The  fact  of  procuring  ii  patent  for 
a  iicwaiKl  useful  iiiachino,  uinlty  tlio  as- 
hiiinptioii  of  a  roissuf,  which  was  not  use- 
ful as  patented  in  the  surrendered  patent, 
for  want  of  Home  parts  use<l  in  the  reis- 
sued patent,  Avould  present  a  (piestion 
of  fraud,  committed  on  the  jdiblic  by 
the  jtatentee,  l)y  giving  his  reiss\ied  jiat- 
cnt  date  as  an  original  discovery,  nnule 
nt  the  time  of  the  original  patent,  and 
thereby  overreaching  similar  inventions 
made  between  the  time  of  tlic  original 
patent  and  the  time  of  the  reissue<l  pat- 
ent. Brooks  V.  Fiske,  15  IIow.,  220.— 
Catuox,  J»;  Sup.  Ct.  1863. 

21.  A  question  of  fraud  in  tlic  grant- 
ing of  a  patent  will  not  be  passed  up(jn 
by  the  justices  of  tl»e  Circuit  Court  of 
the  District  of  Columbia,  on  an  appeal 
from  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
of  I'atents,  but  such  question  is  to  be 
tried  by  a  jury.  Hurkwy.  O^N^iel,MS. 
— Mohsei'l,  J.;  D.  C,  1853. 

22.  Where  a  party  seeks  in  equity  to 
have  an  assignment  of  a  patent  rescind- 
ed, and  the  consideration  restored  to 
him,  on  the  ground  of  fraud,  but  he  lias 
acted  under  such  assignment  by  making 
sales  under  it,  he  should  aver  that  any 
Buch  proceeds  were  received  by  him 
prior  to  the  discovery  of  the  fraud,  and 
he  should  return,  or  offer  to  return,  the 
consideration  received  by  him.  He 
that  asks,  must  do  equity.  Edmunds 
V.  3/ycrs,  16  111.,  210,  211.— Scates,  J.; 
111.,  1854. 

23.  If  fraud  h-ris  been  practised,  as  in 
the  sale  of  a  pretended  patent,  a  court 
may  rescind  the  contract,  nnd  compel 
a  return  of  what  has  been  paid  ;  but  it 
will  at  the  same  time  compel  the  com- 
plainant to  account  for  Avhat  he  has  re- 
ceived, and  the  profits  derived  from  the 
UBO  or  sale  of  it.    Ibid.,  211. 

24.  Parties  defrauded,  or  those  in- 


jured by  the  fraud,  can  alone  take  nil- 
vantage  of  it,  to  atmul  a  contract.  />/. 
niiifit/s  v.  J/ildrcfh,  10  III.,  215.— Scates 
J.;  III.,  1N54. 

25.  Parties  to  a  fraiul  cannot  avoid 
the  act  for  the  fraud.     Ibid.,  215. 

20.  If  the  party  injured  acquiesce  in 
or  confirm  the  contract  with  a  kuowl- 
edge  of  the  fraud,  no  one  can  have  a 
right  to  annul  it  for  him.     Ibid.,  iiio. 

27.  A  contract  for  the  purchase  of  a 
patent,  may  be  rescinded  for  false  and 
fraudulent  representations,  constiliitini; 
an  inducement  to  it,  and  Avliether  the 
party  making  them  knew  them  to  In- 
false  or  not.  GatUng  v.  Ncwall,  9  Irul., 
570. — Pkiikixs,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  InJ., 
1857. 

28.  But  such  representation  nnist  be 
as  to  a  fact  or  facts,  and  go  to  a  niati'- 
rial  issue ;  and  nnist  be  one  on  whirli 
the  party  to  whom  it  is  made  has  a  ri^ht 
to,  and  does  rely.     Ibid..,  676. 

29.  A  party,  however,  who  woull 
rescind  a  contract  on  the  ground  of 
fraud,  must  offer  to  do  so  within  a  rea- 
sonable  time  after  the  fraud  is  discover- 
ed.    Ibid.,  511. 

30.  The  defence  that  the  plaintiff 
had  "  surreptitiously  and  unjustly  obtain- 
ed the  patent  foi-  that  which  was  in  fact 
invented  or  discovered  by  another,  who 
was  using  reasonable  diligence  in  adapt- 
ing and  perfecting  the  same,"  does  not 
necessarily  imply  bad  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  patentee,  against  whose  patent 
this  defence  is  set  up.  The  injustice  re- 
lied on  is  rather  injustice  in  the  abstract, 
than  resulting  from  any  intentional 
wrong  of  such  patentee.  The  words  were 
intended  to  be  used,  and  are  used  in 
their  broadest  sense.  Phelps,  Dodge 
d;  Co.  V.  Brown  Bros.,  18  How.,  Pr.,  9. 
—Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1859. 


GENKUAL  ISSUE,  AND  NOTICE,  A. 


341 


KVIIiBKOK   UNDIR  OKMKRAL  IdMUB. 


GEXEKAL  ISSUE  AND  NOTICE 
OF  Sl'ECIAL  MATTElt. 


\,    EvinRNCB  UNDKn  Orskral  ISSUH 341 

B,  When  Notice    iikquiukd  ;  what  to 

CONTAIK 3t2 

C.  Whbs  SPEOuii  Pleas  ALLOWADI.K lilO 

A.    Evidence  undkk  General  Issuk. 

1.  Thoro  is  no  limitation  of  time  in 
wliicli  !i  ik'fcndiuit  may  not  plead  tlio 
('cneral  issue  and  give  in  evidence  that 
the  plaintiff  was  not  the  original  inven- 
tor of  the  thing  for  whieh  the  patent 
was  granted.  ICvans  v.  Ktiton^  Pet.  C. 
C,  348, — Wasiiinotox,  J. ;  I'a.,  1810. 

2.  Whether  in  an  action  for  an  in- 
fringement of  a  patent-right  under  the 
general  issiie,  the  oltjeetion  can  bo  taken 
to  the  validity  of  the  p.ateiit,  that  the 
thing  p.'itented  was  not  useful,  and  had 
been  abandoned;  query.  The  defence 
is  by  no  means  involved  in  the  gcner.al 
issue.  Gray  v.  J<t>nes,  Pet.  C.  C,  402. 
— Wasuin-gtox,  J. ;  Pa.,  1817. 

3.  The  originality  of  an  invention  is 
not  in  issue  on  a  plea  of  not  guilty.  Ev- 
ans v.  Hettiek,  3  AVash.,  411.— Wash- 
ington, J. ;  Pa.,  1818. 

4.  Under  the  plea  of  the  general  is- 
sue, the  defendants  may  give  in  evi- 
dence the  act  of  Congress  without  no- 
tice ;  but  this  permission  extends  no  fur- 
ther than  to  exempt  the  defendant  from 
the  necessity  of  pleading  the  statute 
specially,  which,  where  it  is  of  a  pri- 
vate nature,  it  would  otherwise  be  nec- 
essary to  do.  ITneass  v.  Schvylkill 
Bank,  4  Wash.,  11. — Washington,  J.; 
Pa.,  1820. 

5.  Matters  of  a  special  nature,  other 
than  those  enumerated  in  §  0  of  the  act 
of  1793,  as  alienage  of  the  plaintiff,  and 


a  license  by  him  to  use  the  patented  in- 
vention may  also  bo  given  in  evidence 
under  tlu'  general  issue,     ff/id.,  11. 

0.  The  defences  enumerated  in  §  0  of 
the  act  of  1703,  that  the  specillcation 
iloes  not  contain  the  whole  truth  rela- 
tive to  the  discovery,  or  that  it  contains 
more  than  is  necessary  to  produce  the 
desired  eflect,  and  this  with  a  view  to 
deceive  the  public,  cannot  be  set  up  at 
the  trial,  luiless  due  notice  li.as  been 
given  to  th(3  plaintiil".     Ifjitf.,  13. 

7.  But  under  the  general  issue  with- 
out notice,  tiie  defence  may  be  made 
that  the  patent  is  broader  than  the  dis- 
covery ;  that  it  is  for  an  improvement 
which  the  specification  does  not  so  par- 
ticularly describe  as  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  original  invention ;  that  the 
suggestions  of  the  petition  arc  not  re- 
cited in  the  patent,  and  others  similar 
in  principle.     lOid.,  13. 

8.  Evidence  on  the  part  of  the  de- 
feiulant  as  to  whether  the  m.achine  used 
by  him  is  like  the  model  of  plaint  iff's 
machine,  j)roduced  in  court,  is  proper 
under  the  general  issue,  and  no  notice 
is  necessary  to  authorize  such  inquiry. 
EiHius  v.  llettick,  7  Wheat.,  409. — Sto- 
itv,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1822. 

9.  Under  the  plea  of  the  general  issue, 
without  a  notice  to  that  effect,  or  spe- 
cial pleas  setting  up  such  defence,  evi- 
dence tending  to  show  a  want  of  novel- 
ty in  the  invention  claimed  by  the  plain- 
tiff, is  not  admissible.  Moot  v.  Ball^ 
4  jNIcLean,  180. — McLean,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1846. 

10.  A  witness  cannot  be  asked  wheth- 
er there  are  not  other  machines  in  use 
similar  to  that  patented  by  the  plaintiff, 
unless  notice  is  given,  as  the  statute  re- 
quires. Parker  v.  Ildworth,  4  McLean, 
371.— McLean,  J. ;  111.,  1848. 

11.  Under    a  plea    of  the    general 


•<  K^r 


T 


^;W' 


*•  ■.,.  w 


V'Vl 


•.,,,..  ~,.'  H 


■'Viv»M« 


:^fc-:.5'' 


S4a 


r.KXKKAL  ISSUK,  AND  XOTICK,  H. 


WIIKN   MHlct:  UKgUlttKU;  WUAY  TO  CONTAIN. 


'\m'^r 


■if  ^•"' 


a 


isHiiP,  (ivitlfiici'  may  h<«  liitnMliici'cI  to 
bhow  fruiul  <»r  rrumliilfiit  n-prcsi'titii- 
tioiiH  oil  tliu  piirt  oi'  lliu  plaiiitiir  us  to 
the  Huhji'ct  iiiatUT  of  tilt'  Hiiit.  Good- 
year  v.  JJity,  MS.— Giueb,  J.;  N.  J., 
1«50. 

B,     WUKX   NOTICK   UlCqUIBKU;    WHAT 
TO   CONTAIX, 

1.  go  of  tlie  act  of  170.3,  <1ooh  not 
cmimorato  all  the  (U'loiicos  of  wliicli  the 
(lefrtidaiit  may  icgiilly  avail  liitusclf ;  liu 
may  give  in  evidi'iico  that  In;  ncvei'  iVhI 
the  act  attrihiitiiil  to  him,  that  the  pat- 
tiiituc  is  an  aliuii  not  entitle*!  nnder  the 
net,  or  tliat  ho  lias  a  license  or  authority 
from  the  |)!itentee.  Whittnnore  v.  Cut- 
ter^ 1  Call.,  436. — Stouv,  J.;  Mass., 
1813. 

2.  Under  §  0  of  the  net  of  1793,  in 
an  action  for  a  violation  of  a  patent,  if 
the  general  issue  be  pleaded  with  iu)tico 
of  sjiecial  matter  th.it  the  patentee  is  not 
the  original  inventor,  it  will  he  sufficient 
in  such  notice  to  state  that  the  plaintilV 
is  not  the  first  inventor,  without  setting 
forth  who  was  the  inventor,  or  specify- 
ing where  the  machine  had  been  used. 
JEvtnis  V.  Jvremer,  Pet.  C.  C,  215. — 
Wasuington,  J.;  Pa.,  1810. 

3.  If  the  notice  specify  where  the 
machine  h.-vd  been  used,  evidence  may 
be  given  of  its  use  in  other  pl;iccs  than 
those  particularly  specified.    Tbkl.,  215. 

4.  Under  a  notice  of  special  matter, 
specifying  certain  pliices  in  which  a  ma- 
chine like  that  of  which  the  ]»laintitr 
claimed  to  be  the  inventor,  had  bet-n  in 
use  anterior  to  the  supposed  discovery 
of  the  plaintiflF;  Held,  that  the  plaintiff 
could  give  in  evidence  that  such  ma- 
chine had  been  used  in  places  other 
than  those  particularly  named  in  tlie 
notice.    Evans  v.  Eaton^  Pet.  C.  C, 


3:»8.— Wasiiinotun,  J.;  Pa.,  1810.  [Af. 
firnu'd  pi^st  1 1.] 

5.  All  matters  of  defence  or  of  oh- 
jection  to  n  patent  are  not  enuinerati'.l 
in  J5I5  0  and  10  of  the  act  «»f  1703.  J^nw 
ill  \.  Lewis,  1  Mas.,  180. — Stouv,  J. • 
Mass.,  1H17. 

0.  Hut  it  is  not  a  nuitter  of  defence 
that  the  invention  of  tlie  patentee  is  not 
of  such  general  utility  as  to  supcisnlc 
others  of  the  same  kind  in  use.  Ibid. 
180. 

7.  The  object  of  the  stattite  of  1703, 
ch.  9,  55  0,  was  to  guard  against  defeat- 
ing patents  by  tliij  settitig  up  a  prior  in- 
vention  which  had  never  been  lediici'd 
to  practice.  If  it  was  the  mere  specu- 
lation of  ii  philosopher  or  a  nicchaiiiclun, 
which  hail  never  been  tried  by  the  test 
of  experience,  and  never  put  in  actual 
operation  by  him,  the  law  would  not 
deprive  a  subse(]uent  inventor,  who  had 
employed  his  labor  and  his  talents  in 
putting  it  into  practice,  of  the  rowanl 
due  to  his  ingenuity  and  enterprisr. 
Bedford  V.  Hunt,  1  JNIas.,  305.— Stouy, 
J.;  Muss.,  1817. 

8.  Although  in  the  statute,  §  0  of  the 
act  of  1793,  a  prior  patent  is  not  nien- 
tioned  in  the  notice  of  special  matter  to 
be  given  in  evidence,  this  omission  docs 
not  afford  suflicient  ground  to  rejort 
such  evidence,  but  it  furnishes  a  reason 
to  recjuiro  the  defendant  to  give  !i  sati.v 
factory  explanation  of  the  i)rinciples  of 
the  machine  described  in  such  patent, 
and  the  manner  in  which  it  is  openitcd. 
Gray  v.  James,  Pet.  C.  C,  400. — Wash- 
ington, J.;  Pa.,  1817. 

9.  The  section  of  the  patent  act  rela- 
tive to  noti-  js  of  special  matter  with 
the  general  issue,  appears  to  have  been 
drawn  on  the  idea  that  the  defendant 
would  not  be  at  liberty  to  contest  the 
validity  of  a  patent  on  the  general  issue ; 


OENEUAL  ISSIIK,  AND  NOTICK,  H. 


343 


WIIRN   NOTICB   ItRgi'lRNn;    WHAT  TO  CI)!fTAI!f. 


iiiitl  iiitcixlM  to  rt'licvu  tlu)  tlufciKliint 
from  tlit^  (lirtlciiltk's  <»t'  |»l('iullnf,',  l)y  al- 
litwini;  liiiii  t(»  give  ill  cvidnico  tnattiM' 
wliiili  arti'cts  tlu!  piiti'iit.  SiuOi  notice 
is  liowi'vor  for  tlio  Hocurity  of  tho  pluiii- 
titV,  utid  to  protect  him  iifjiiiiist  that  sur- 
piist'  to  wiiicli  III!  iiii^lit  1)0  exposed 
from  iin  unfair  use  of  the  privilej^e. 
J'A'diis  V.  Katony  :»  Whiat.,  50:J,  504. — 
Makhiiaix,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  Irtl8. 

10.  Ami  Hiu'li  notiec  neeil  only  l»e 
ifivcii  when  it  is  intended  to  oiler  the 
(iiu'cial  mutter  in  evideneo  on  the  j^eii 
t'liil  issue.  The  <lefendant  is  not  ohlii^ed 
to  pursue  this  course,  but  may  set  up  the 
Hpoeial  matter,  by  special  pleas,  and  then 
the  plea  is  the  only  notice  the  plainliil' 
can  claim.     //>/</.,  504. 

11.  Under  Bueh  notice  evidence  msxy 
he  given  as  to  previous  use,  not  only  as 
to  the  places  specified  in  the  notice,  but 
also  as  to  other  [tlucos  not  speciHcd. 
Ibid.,  504,  505. 

12.  Under  a  notice  that  evidence 
would  ho  offered  to  prove  that  the  pat- 
entee was  not  the  original  discoverer 
of  the  thing  p.itented,  but  that  it  had 
been  in  use  in  various  places  in  the  Uni- 
kd  Sldtes,  evidence  cannot  be  given  of 
:i  prior  nsc  in  England.  Dixon  v.  Moi/er, 
4  Wash.,  74. — Wasuixutox,  J.;  Pa., 
1821. 

13.  No  notice  is  necessary  to  author- 
ize the  inquiry  by  defendant  of  a  wit- 
ness on  his  examination  in  chief,  whether 
the  machine  used  by  defendant  was  like 
the  model  of  plaintiff's  nuichine  exhib- 
ited in  court.  Such  inquiry  is  perfectly 
proper  under  the  general  issue.  Evans 
V.  Bettick,  1  Wheat.,  469.— Stoey,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1822. 

14.  If  the  notice  of  special  matter 
mention  the  names  of  certain  persons 
who  had  used  the  invention  before  plain- 
tiff's patent,  evidence  may  be  given  of 


its  prior  une  by  persons  other  than  tlioso 
naiiH'il.  IVritdwellv.  Ulitdiit,  i  Wash., 
705.— Wasiiinuton,  J.;  Ta.,  IH27. 

15.  ^  (I  of  the  act  of  I70:i  d<»es  not 
enumerate  all  tlit!  defences  which  a  party 
may  in:ike  ui  a  nuit  brought  against  him 
for  violating  a  patent.  One  obvious 
omission  is  where  he  uses  it  uinli-r  a 
license  or  grant  fromthe  inventor.  /Vv<- 
nock  V.  JJhilof/ue,  2  l*et.,  23. — Sloitv, 
Sup.  Ct.,  1H21). 

10.  It  is  not  inconsistent  with  the 
principle  or  meaning  of  KU(;h  section 
that  a  defence  may  bo  made,  that,  al- 
though the  patentee  is  the  first  as  well 
as  the  true  inventor,  ho  has  abandoned 
or  dedicated  hiii  invention  to  the  public. 
Ibid.,  23. 

17.  A  party  who  only  seeks  to  defend 
himself,  may  either  plead  speciially  or 
plead  the  general  issue,  and  give  the 
notice  reipiired  by  §  0  of  the  act  of 
1793.  If  lie  shows  that  the  patentee 
has  failed  in  any  of  the  prerequisites 
on  which  Ihe  authority  to  issue  the  pat- 
ent is  made  to  depend,  his  defence  is 
complete,  and  ho  is  entitled  to  the  ver- 
dict of  the  jury  and  the  judgment  of  the 
court.  Grunt  v.  Jiai/mond,  0  Pet.,  240. 
— Mausiiali,,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1832. 

18.  Hut  if  not  content  with  defending 
himself,  he  seeks  to  annul  the  patent,  he 
must  proceed  in  precise  conformity  to 
§  0  of  the  act  of  1793,  and  "fraudulent 
intent"  must  bo  found  by  the  jury  to 
justify  a  judgment  of  vacatur  by  the 
court.     Ibid.,  247. 

19.  The  defendant  is  permitted  to 
proceed  according  to  §  6,  but  is  not 
prohibited  from  proceeding  in  the  usual 
manner,  so  far  as  respects  his  defence, 
except  that  special  matter  may  not  be 
given  in  evidence  on  the  general  issue, 
unaccompanied  by  the  notice  which  that 
section  requires.    Jbid.,  247. 


'■'•"MUk 


«    «.yj, 


iVMOwC^Wu^ 


IM'irlr, 


''"'  1..I 


J — , 

'^1 


944 


{'.KN'KItAr,  ISSrK,  AM)  NOTK^K.  R 


WIIKN   Nimt'N  RligVIMDi   WHAT  Tl)  CONTAIN. 


^'^<. 


«!:1?: 


'20.  WIhth  a  ilcfrinliint  in  n  \u\\t<u\ 
Miiil  rt'licM  (III  tlio  tiift  «>r  pri'vioiiN  iiivni- 
>inii,  kiii>\vlcii;;t',  or  iist>  of  tlit>  tliiii|; 
|ii  tcritcii,  ho  iiiiiiHt,  iiinlor  (}  15  nt'ilic  it«-t 
of  IHIKI,  ^ivit  nolicu  of  the  p««rm»iiK  l»y 

Ullntll    h«>    illtfllils    to    |>I'CIV«>    Hllcll    flK't. 

^^'itllotlt  Niicli  notice  Ik*  fuiiiiDt  cxiiiiiiiK* 
witiii'HHt'H  relative  thereto,  iititl  tlie  otn/,H 
ftrof'iimfi  in  on  tll^  tlefetnlaiil  to  show 
that  thi'  notice  has  Itecn  jriveii.  /*////. 
lb  Ti-rti.  A'. A".  V.  Sthiijmoiu  1 1  IVi.,  irii). 
— Stoijv,  .F.;  Slip.  Ct.,  iHto. 

lil.  The  lani,'iia;,'e  «il'  I  lie  a«M  ot"  is;i(l, 
^  IT),  reipiireH  iiothiii<r  nioi-(>  than  the 
imiiieM  an<l  resiiU'iiccs  of  the  persuiH 
mIio  po^Hc^«M•ll  the  prior  kimwieilp'  ot' 
the  thing  pateiiteij,  :iiiil  the  names  of 
the  places  at.  which  it  had  liccn  ns«>i|. 
The  nanies  and  resiiUnces  of  all  the 
witnesses  who  are  to  lie  sniiinioned 
tioed  not  hepven.  Wilton  v.  7'/ii  liuil- 
roadu^  1  Wall,  Jr.,  lt).'». — (iisiicit,  .1.;  I'u., 
1847. 

22.  This  provision  was  intended  to 
guard  against  surprise  from  siieli  evi- 
dence as  Avas  {xiveii  in  Whitney's  e.nse, 
the  cotton  pjin ;  one  witness  testifying 
that  li(!  had  seen  such  an  invention  in 
Knj^Iand,  Keventeeii  years  liefore;  and 
another,  that  he  had  seen  a  like  machine 
in  Ireland.     Ibid.,  lt)5. 

23.  In  the  notice  of  special  matter, 
the  defeinlant  is  only  recjuired  to  fj;ive 
notice  of  the  name  of  the  person  having 
a  prior  knowledge,  and  need  not  give 
the  names  of  the  witnesses  by  wlioin 
Hueh  jirior  knowledge  is  to  be  proved. 
Many  v.  Jdytjer,  1  Jilatchf.  370. — Nel- 
son, J. ;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

24.  The  defendants,  in  their  notice  of 
special  matter,  under  §  15  of  the  act  of 
1836,  had  given  notice  that  one  Bald- 
win had  had  jirior  knowledge  of  the 
plaint  ifTs  invention  before  his  patent 
therefor.     On  the  trial,  they  called  one 


Fry  as  a  witness  to  prove  that  ItaLUjn 
had  such  prior  kiiowled;;e.  Tin-  \vitiii><ii 
\\i\<  olijiclcd  to,  because  his  nniiii'  uat 
not  in  the  notice;  but  the  court  held  ||« 
was  a  compfteiit  witiic-s  to  prove  siu'h 
fart,  and  that  it  w.-is  not  neeessjiry  to 
iiis<-rt  his  name  in  tlie  notice.  11,1,1 
:f7(J. 

25.  In  the  notice  of  t*pociaI  matter 
gi\eii  under  J{  15  of  the  act  of  ls;|(j^ 
referi'iice  was  made  to  a  ciiiain  w(irk 
as  "  I're's  Dictionary  <if  .\rts,  Maiiiitlic 
tares,  ami  .dines,"  the  title-page  nf 
which  read,  "  .V  Dictionary  of  Art<, 
Mamil'actiires,  Ac,  by  Andrew  I'lc,  M, 
D.,  ttc.,  London,  «fcc.,  iHtO;"  i//,/, 
that  the  title  was  Hnfllciently  correctly 
indicated  in  the  notice.  Footi  y.  Slln/iif, 
1  Mlalchf.,  451,  452.— Nki.son,  J.;  \. 
v.,  1SH». 

20.  Jlcld,  however,  that  no  part  of 
the  work  could  be  read  in  evidence,  lie 
cause  I  he  notice  did  not  specify  any  ii.i'^c 
or  heailiiigto  which  reference  wmild  Ik; 
iiuuli'.  The  volume  cont.aiiiol  l,;);tt 
pages,  and  was  arranged  alphalietically. 
.V  general  reference  to  a  work  is  calcu- 
lated to  mislead  and  embarrass  a  party; 
there  should  be  a  jiarticular  rcfcri'iicu 
to  the  part  of  the  book  intended  to  be 
relied  on.  Ilyhl.,  454,  402.  [Atlinn  ■(! 
post  MO.  I 

27.  //('A/,  also,  that  under  such  notice 
the  book  was  not  admi-;sible  for  the  inir- 
pose  of  showing  th:it  the  invention  uiis 
previously  known  to  Dr.  IFre,  theaiitlior 
of  the  work.     If>hl.,  454,  4(»J. 

28.  J/chl,  also,  in  the  case  of  such  .1 
defective  notice,  that  it  w.as  not  coinpe- 
tent,  with  a  view  to  show  that  the  notice 
was  sufliciently  explicit  and  specific  :ui(l 
thus  allow  the  book  to  be  read  in  evi- 
dence, to  prove  by  experts. and  sciciifilic 
men  that  they  could,  in  seeking  infor- 
mation as  to  the  subject  matter  ol' tlie 


(iKSVMWs  ISSl'K,  AM)  NOTU  K,  11. 


S45 


^, 


wiiM  NonoB  Rn)uiMu>;  what  to  UINTAIK. 


pliiinliir'H  |>alt>iit,  willitiut  tlilliciilty  flml 
lli<>  |itvrtii>iii(  |><ro|Mmi*)l  to  li<>  rviul,  uitli- 
iiiit 
454,  40'i. 
j'.i.  Nttr  I'liii  a  |iiilili(i  wmk  ho   read 
vi<li'iif('  to  hli«)\v  a  want  of  iittvHty  in 


H|>H'cial  rciuri'iiou  t(»  tlicni.     ll>Ul.^ 


Ill* 


tlu'  iilMiiititVn  iiivohtion,  tlio  only  iioiii-c 
nf  wliit'li  voliinii*  \N  :>»  iriM  ii  in  a  H|iri  i:il 
|ili>;i,  mIiIi'Ii  liail,  liotitiv  tlic  trial,  bc-fii 
olrickon  out  by  llio  court.     //><</.,  454, 


fil  to  1)0  tli«>  mtfnu  QM  that  )tftt«>nl(Ml,  or 
the  iianio  of  till'  p«>rNon  or  o\vin-r  UMintX 
it  nIioiiM  hr  j;iv«n  ;  tlii>  iiaim-  oftlifcity' 
or  l<i\m  Ih  not  Mitllcii-ntly  <l*'liiiiif  i\n  tu 
fitiirf.  fjnitit  V.  Shinek^  MS. — I.ii.vvrrr, 
J.;  Ohio,  1H50. 

.'l.'i.  If  is  ulwavH  |>r«>Huriii>i1  from  the 
palcnt  itHt'lt'  llial  the  invciitinn  \>*  ni*\v, 
and  it'  a  party  kihmI  woiiiil  avail  liinisi-lf 
ot'thu  want  ot'NUch  uovt'lty,  it  is  inciiin* 

[»;:.  Ix'nt  upon  hini  to  provu  it  hy  giviii-^  n 

no,  A  K*'"*''*''''    refcrrncc,   in  a  iiotici'    ptopt-r  iiotico  to  the  plaiiitill*  to  prrvorit 

trsiu'cial  niatlor  with  the  mncral  issiir,    Ninprisi        Hidrmaii  v.    Lrinor^    MS, — 


to  a  voliiino,  iii|  **  Ure'n  Dictionary  of 
Arts,  .ManiifacturoH,  and  Miiu'm,"  in 
wliii'li  an  invention  liaH  hct-n  drscrili«M|, 
iH  not  siithcirnt,  hut  there  niUHt  Ix;  a 
iiidc  particnlai'  referi'iiee  to  tlu'  part  re- 
lio.l  (in,  either  l»y  im^eH,  titles,  or  otlier- 
wiso.  Sil.ifii/  V.  I'oote,  14  How.,  221!. — 
CiUTis,  .).;  Su|..  ('t.,  \Hr,'2. 

;}!.  Nor  eaii  Hueli  hook,  nnth-r  such  a 
notice,  bo  referre<l  to  as  evi<lenee  of 
prior  knowledj,'o  and  use,  by  said  L're, 
llic  iioliic  not  slatiii;,' w  I  iTC  the  thinj; 
\va.s  used.     Jl^id.,  '-".'4. 

3'.'.  In  nn  notion  of  infrinj^c^tnent,  a 
(li'fi'iidant  will  not  ht-  alhnved  to  8ur- 
prise  a  patentee  hy  evidcntreof  a  prior 
iiiveiitioii,  of  w  liicli  no  notiee  lias  lu^en 
U'ivt'ii,  even  though  Hueli  cvi<len('e  is 
lomaiiied  in  a  vohiino  of  law  reports, 
wliicli  are  usually  cited  as  of  course. 
(/Rcil/y  \.  jVorsr    I  -.  How.,  1 10.— T.v- 

NEY,  CIl.  J.;   Suji.  Ll.,   185a. 

;i;!.  A  notice  of  speci.il  matter  may 
k'  filed,  or  served,  in  terin-tinio,  but  it 
must  he  filed  full  thirty  days  before 
tiia!.  Bruiiswh'k  v.  Jlolzulb,  MS. — 
Lkaviit,  J.;  Ohio,  IHoS. 

;t4.  Xotic'es  of  special  matter,  in  the 
seventh  circuit,  as  to  the  prior  use  of 
the  invention,  the  phices  where  used 
must  specify  the  street  or  factory  where 
ihcstructuro  was  used,  Avhich  wusclaini- 


I.KAvriT,  J.;  Ohio,  iHr)i). 

iUJ.  The  provision  of  the  statute  ro« 
(piiring  noiict>  ut'  the  previous  use  of  a 
paleiiti'd  thiiij;  is  designed  to  give  the 
patentee  the  benefit  of  an  exaniinatioii 
into  the  facts  of  the  niipposetl  prior  iiso. 
f/,i,f. 

:J7.  In  \\h-  seventh  cin'Uii  such  n<»tico 
must  specify  t  lie  particular  place  of  fiUeh 
prior  use ;  a  refereneo  merely  to  tho 
«'ounty  in  which  hucIi  prior  use  happen- 
ed is  not  suflleienl.     Ifn'if. 

;{H.  Under  the  provision  .  f  j^  15  of 
the  act  of  IHHO,  a  defendiint  may,  under 
the  genenil  i!*sue,  und  with  notice  .18 
reipiired  by  that  act,  give  any  sipe(;ial 
matter  in  evidence,  tending  to  prove 
that  the  patentee  was  not  the  original 
and  first  inventor  <»r  discoverer  of  tho 
thing  patented,  or  a  substantial  or  ma- 
terial part  thereof  claimed  as  new,  or 
that  it  hail  be(  i  deseribed  in  some  pul)- 
lic  work  anterior  to  the  8up}>osed  dis- 
covery by  tho  pati.'iitee,  or  had  been  in 
public  use  or  on  sale,  with  the  consent 
and  allowance  of  the  patentee,  beforo 
his  apitlicatiou  for  a  patent.  Tnse  v. 
Jfiintitiijdon,  23  I  low.,  7. — Cliffokd, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1859. 

.•J!*.  Hut  whenever  the  defendant  re- 
lies on  the  fact  of  a  previous  invention, 
or  knowledge,  or  use,  he  must  st.ito  in 


■i^k 


Wi^ 


m\ 


^HS-ttaifc^- 


340 


(JKXKUAL  ISSUK,  AND  NOTICE,  C. 


WUkM  •tr»:ri«i.  fl.».*N  ai.m>\»  aiii  k. 


^4. 


i^". 


Mm  iiiilir'c  till*  ntuni'N  uml  |il!iri>H  of  ri>Hi 
tit  iici'   of    tli<>st>    \\\\n  liml   hiii'li   |iriiii' 

klloH  lri|^t>  of  ill)'  tiling,  ttlld  wllt'lU  lilt' 

•null'  IiikI  Itt'iii  iiMttil.      /hiti.f  7t 

40.  No  oriliT  of  court  iit  ticociiHnrjr  to 
«>rititli>  II  (li't'irnlaiii  to  Mt'rvi*  uikI  flli'  tlii> 
notirt'  of  nprciul  uitlUiT  rf<|uirt'i|  in  ){ 
lA  of  tlitt  Hit  (if  1H30.  It  U  only  ntu'f^ 
Htiry  tliiit  Hiit'li  notii't*  Ih>  in  writing,  uml 
l)(>  Ht'i'M'il  iiiorr  ihaii  thirty  ilayH  lu-furc 
tilt'  trial,     /f'iii.,  10, 

•♦I.  Aii'l  if  a  Hi-Mt  notifi'  ih  ilufct'livi', 
or  not  Hiitllrit'iitly  coiiiiiri'lii'iiNivc  to  tul- 
liiit  till'  pi'optT  ilfft'iitit',  till'  tlcfi'inlaiil 
limy  ii'wi  oilit'r  iiotirt's  to  niiit'il)  kihIi 
tlt'fci't,  or  supply  iho  ilcfn'lfucy.  J /ml., 
10. 

42.  I'lult-r  HUrli  iiotict>,  ilfpoHitioiis 
liiki'ii  iM'fort'  tilt'  notice  was  jtcrvcd,  as 
well  as  those  taken  aftei\v:iril,  urc  atl- 
miHoihle,  provided  the  depositiotiH  are 
iippiicaltle  to  I  Ik;  lutiltcrd  thus  put  in 
iHsue.      If>i(Ly  10. 

41).  Ill  tlie  Hcveiith  circuit,  in  the  no- 
tice ;;;iven  of  tliepri(U'  use  of  a  patented 
invention,  it  in  necessary  not  only  to 
Htato  where  and  liy  wh  lit  was  ho  used, 
lull  Hiieh  notice  should  ..iso  set  forth  the 
name  of  the  person  who  had  kiiowledj^e 
of  HU(;h  use,  and  hy  whom  such  fact  is 
to  bo  proved.  Jttdson  v.  Cop>\  MS. — 
LKAvirr,  J. ;  Ohio,  iHdo. 

44.  Notice  of  tho  time  when  the  per- 
son possessed  the  knowledLfe  or  use  of 
the  invention  is  not  reipiired  l»y  the  act ; 
the  name  of  the  person,  and  of  his  place 
of  residence,  and  the  jilace  where  it  has 
been  used,  are  suftii-ieiit.  J*/u'/lij)s  v. 
J'affe,  21  How.,  108. — Nklson,  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1860. 

C.  When  Special  Plkas  allowaiii^. 

1.  The  notice  mentioned  in  the  stat- 
ute is  required  only  to  be  given  when 


it  In  intended  to  olTer  the  n\ iai  tnntit.r 

ill  eviilenct*  OM  the  (general  ixNiu'.  '|'||,, 
di'ti'iidant  Im  not  obli<{i'd  to  piirmic  t|,i, 
coiirMc.  He  may  utill  plead  Mpvciulji 
and  then  the  pica  In  tliti  only  nniic,. 
which  the  plaintill*  can  claim.  Ainl  ^ 
plea  would  not  he  defecti\e  which  i|i,| 
not  atati*  the  place<i  in  wliieli  tint  tliiiiL' 
alle^eil  to  litivo  been  previously  uieil 
was  placed  or  iisetl,  A't-nnt  \.  /-'ni,,,, 
:i  Wheat.,  ftOI.— iMAUKii.w.i,,  (h.  j.. 
Sup.  t't.,  IHIH. 

'.'  If  the  defendant  only  si'eks  todc 
fend  himself,  he  may  either  plead  npcei. 
ally  or  plead  the  |reneral  issue,  and  p\<> 
the  notice  required  by  |^  1)  of  the  ait 
of  I70U  ot  any  special  matter  he  iiieaih 
to  uso  lit  the  trial.  If  ho  hIiown  ihat 
the  p:itentee  has  failed  in  any  of  th,. 
prereipiisiles  on  which  the  aulhoritjt,, 
issue  the  patent  is  made  to  depcnil,  hit 
defence  is  eomphtte.  (Jnintv.  /iuynuiiKl, 
(I  IVt.,  '240.  — MAitHilAl.l.,  Ch.  J.;  Sii),. 
Ct.,  lH:t2. 

:<.  Ibit  if  ho  BtickN  to  annul  the  ]int> 
cut,  he  must  proceed  in  exact  conform- 
ity to  g  (J  of  the  uct  of  17l);(.  Iliiii, 
•J4il. 

4.  The  defendant  is  permitted  to  pro- 
ceed aecordiii}?  to  JJ  U,  bui  is  not  pro- 
hibited from  proceediii}^  in  the  UHual 
manner,  so  far  as  respects  his  deftiKr, 
except  that  special  matter  may  not  lio 
j;iven  in  evidence  on  tho  general  i'smio 
imaiH-oinpaiiied  by  the  notice  which  that 
section  reipiires.     Ibid.,  247. 

5.  Instead  of  pleadinj;  the  fjoiipial 
issue,  and  j?ivin<;f  notice  of  special  mat- 
ter as  uuthori/ed  by  the  statute,  tlu'  di'- 
fendant  may  plead  special  pleas,  settiiit; 
up  tho  matters  of  which  he  could  givo 
notice.  The  right  to  plead  the  geiioral 
issue,  and  give  notice,  is  an  enlargeiiient 
of  the  defendant's  mode  of  defence,  but 
does  not  take  away  his  right  to  plead 


(iOOl)  N\  ILL  OF  IlirsiNKSM. 


.147 


VNAT  IB,  AW  raoraaTT  iir. 


»|wM'ifilly.      /'/tilltjn    V.    Cvmntin-k,    4 

Mtl.«';»".  ■'-'*■— ^'''•*:*^.'^  ;  ^"1'.  •"■*'» 
0.  lit  nil  action  tor  llio  inlViiiijciiiciit 
ul'  a  |)ikl«'iil,  llii>  <l<>tt'rii|uiiti«  |ili'ii)|t>i|  iIm< 
^'(•ncrul  ioHiU',  iumI  ulHoiiiiiiu'ruitM  M|K>«>iitl 
yU'.in,  ami  iiUo  ^tivc  iiotici*  of  Hpcciiil 
iicititr  iiiiiliT  d  l.'^  of  till'  act  of  I  Nail. 

Tilt*  iii.'kttci-H  Hct  lorih  ill  tint  N|t«><Mal 
|,|r:io  were  tlioNu  of  which  iHtticc  might 
|ii\c  liccii  given  uii<lcr  1$  lA.  Oil  motion 
tlic  Npcciul  |)l(<aM  were  Ntriii'k  wIiIicohIm, 

WiUff  V.  (,'<ii/trr,  I  IHutchf.,  r.i»7,  r.HM. 
-Nm^on,  J.;  N.  v.,  1M5(). 

7.  Thit  matt«'rH  rcmiircd  liy  }}  15  (o 
Iit>  Kct  forth  in  tlic  noticr  Hccoiii|ian}ing 
the  general  i^4NUl*,  cannot  he  picail  speci- 
ally as  inalterH  of  tiefence.  /AA/,,  .MiH. 
[Ovurnilc.l,  lM:\,fM.H  I'J,  l.t.j 

8.  Thero  may,  lio\vi'v«.»*,  l"»  ;,..•, iii<i>t 
of  ilefciiic  not  M|iccilic<|  liy  ^  l.'i,  whiili 
iiiij^iit  he  H'  t  lip  in  i)ar  of  the  action, 
by  hpecial  pica.     ////(/.,  r»l)H. 

0.  The  ilcfcnccH,  niiMitionciI  and  al- 
lowed liy  J5  15  of  the  act  of  1h;ii),  to  In- 
given  in  evidcnet'  with  the  general  is- 
siii',  hy  way  of  notice,  lu-etl  not,  how- 
over,  ho  niado  in  Hueh  particular  man- 
HIT,  hut  may  aluo  be  net  up  hy  special 
|.|i'as.  SinUh  v.  AVy,  15  How.,  1  U.— 
Ta.nky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ot.,  lH5a. 

10.  A  defendant  is  not  liinitc<l  to  the 
plea  of  tho  general  issue,  even  if  his  dit- 
fc'iico  rests  upon  matters  which  may  l»y 
statute  he  given  in  evidence  under  the 
goneral  issue,  hut  he  may  plead  those 
matters  specially.  J)((f/  v.  iV.  7i'.  Cur 
l<l>nn(/  Co.,  :)  lllatcbf.,  181. — 15ktt8,  J.; 
So.  N.  v.,  18.-, 4. 

11.  To  an  action  for  tho  infringement 
of  a  patent  brought  by  an  assigneo  of 
the  patentee,  tho  defendant,  M'ith  the 
general  issue,  pleaded  special  pleas,  not 
impeaching  tho  validity  of  the  i)atent, 
or  denying  his  use  of  the  patented  in- 
vention, but  sotting  up  a  license  under 


the  patentee  paramount  to  the  right  of 
the  plaintitl';  /A/*/,  that  xnch  plea*  did 
not  aniMiiiit  in  the  general  i«Nue,  luitl 
Nhoiild  not  be  Htriekvii  uut  oil  iiioiioii. 
//>U,  IM'J. 

I'i.  rinlor  tho  deciftioim  of  tho  .Hii- 
preine  Court,  h'i'oitH  v.  Kiifun,  H  Wheat,, 
ftiM,  iukI  (ifintt  V.  liinjtnniiity  ll  I'et,, 
'J  10,  in  aelioiiH  at  law  for  the  infringi>« 
ment  of  It  patent,  ii  defendant  \*  not 
limited  in  his  defence  to  tlie  plea  of  thu 
Ljeneral  iMHiie,  even  if  his  del'cnee  reintrt 
upon  matters  which  the  htatnle  unlhor- 
izes  to  bi>  given  in  evidence  under  ^  lA 
of  the  act  of  INIIU,  but  he  may  plead 
those  particulars  specially.     //'/</.,  181. 

l:i.  The  case  of  \Vilili:r  v.  (iinjl,'t\  \ 
illatehf,  5)lH,  in  ho  far  as  it  is  in  eonjiict 
with  thosi'  cases  must  be  coiixidered 
erroneoiiH  and  not  u  binding  authority. 
//;/(/.,  IHl 

14.  Where  iiotic*'  of  hpecial  matter 
is  given  under  tho  general  issue,  special 
pleas  cannot  also  be  tileil  ;  at  least,  such 
seems  to  bo  the  practice  in  the  seventh 
circuit.  LdtUi  v.  (^hawk.,  MS, — Lkaviit, 
J.;  Ohio,  1830. 


GOOD-WILL  OF  IJUSINESS. 

1.  The  good-will  of  an  established 
trade,  the  custom  of  an  inn,  and  the 
right  of  a  publisher  of  books,  may  bo 
injured  by  acts  of  deception  and  piracy; 
but  the  injury  for  which  redress  is  given 
in  Hueh  cases  results  from  the  imposture 
practised  upon  the  customers  of  an  (!X- 
isting  establishment  or  upon  the  public. 
^Howden  v.  Noah,  Hop.  Ch.,  352. — 
AValwoutii,  Chan.;  N.  Y.,  1825. 

2.  The  good-will  of  a  trade  does  not 
survive,  but  is  partnership  property. 
Tho  contiuuing  partners  cannot  be  com- 


i 


«w»; 


t' 


.^ 

•< 


1  'ii 


t 


7 


^«*^^-t-Sfe.:.  *- 


^h^ 


348 


improvk:ments,  a. 


I!?''^ 


Wi 


'•i»»Mi!  •; 


k. 


WHAT   PATENTABLE;    TO   WHAT  EXTENT. 


pi'll'.ul  to  talvc  the  lease  and  pood-will 
at  a  valuation,  as  that  would  he  coin- 
IH'Hiuij  il'om  to  boi'oiue  imrchasers. 
Duiujhcrtxj  V.  Van  Nostrandy  1  IIolK 
Ch.,  CO.— lIoFJ  MAxV,  V.  Ch.;  N.  Y., 
1S30. 

3.  If  not  d'sposed  of  by  consent,  the 
good-Avill  niist  be  sold  a8  other  partner- 
8hi|)  ])roi)erty.     Ibid.,  09. 

4.  The  gocd-will  of  a  business  built 
up  by  the  several  partners  belongs 
ccpially  to  all,  and  is  an  important  and 
valuable  interest,  which  the  law  recog- 
nizes  and  will   protect.      WtUitonH  v. 

Wil8o)i,  4  Sand.  Ch.,  380. — Sanuford, 
V.  Ch.;  N.  Y.,  1846. 

C.  l^nless  otherwise  arranij;ed  be- 
tween the  partners,  such  good-will  will 
be  sold  with  the  lease  of  the  place  where 
carried  on,  and  either  of  the  partners 
may  become  purchas^ers.  If  neither 
purchase,  all  will  be  restrained  from 
onducting  the  same  business,  either 
directly  or  imlirectly,  in  the  same  place. 
Ibid.,  ;?81. 

0.  It  is  a  well  settled  rule  that  the 
good-will  oi  a  parinership  business  does 
not  survive  to  a  continuing  partnei'.  It 
belongs  to  a  firm  as  much  as  the  ordi- 
nary stock-in-trade,  and  must  be  disposed 
of  hi  some  manner  for  the  benefit  of  the 
firm.  Howe  v.  Searing,  19  IIow.  Pr., 
17. — Hoffman,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1800. 

7.  Good-will  resolves  itself  into  repu- 
tation.    Ibid.,  17. 

8.  The  sale  of  the  good-will  of  a  bus- 
iness does  not  transfer  a  right  to  the 
use  of  the  vendor's  name  of  trade. 
Ibid.,  25. 

9.  Where  the  plaintiif  sold  to  the 
defendant's  assignor  his  lease  of  the 
premises  known  as  "  Howe's  Bakery," 
together  Avith  the  stock-in-trade,  and 
tho  "  good-will  of  the  business  of  bak- 
ing, now  or  heretofore  carried  on  by  me 


in  the  city  of  New  York,"  IfehJ,  that 
the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  an  injunc- 
tion to  restrain  the  defendant  froiu  (l<js. 
ignating  his  bakery  establishniunt  as 
"Howe's  Uakery,"  and  from  niln.iwi.so 
using  the  name  (»f  7/owt'in  his  liusjnoss 
so  as  to  induce  the  public  to  hcUfvo 
that  the  business  carried  on  l)y  Iiini  was 
carried  on  by  the  plaintiff.     Ibid.,  25. 

10.  It  is  a  principle  of  public  policy 
that  any  business  should  be  tiaiisiutcd 
under  the  name  of  the  actual  partners 
doing  it,  and  not  under  other  nanus. 
Ibid.,  25. 

11.  The  neglect  of  a  parly  to  carry 
on  his  business  lor  a  number  of  years 
does  not  prevent  him  from  rosnniini' 
the  same,  or  entitle  another  to  use  the 
name  of  liis  business.     Ibid.,  25. 


GRANTEE  OF  PATENT,  WHO 
IS. 

Sec  AssiGNEi:,  B.  1. 


IMPROVEMENTS. 

A.  "What  Tatentable  ;  and  to  what  Ex- 
tent  348 

B.  lIOW  SHOULD  liE  SET  FOUTII 352 

C\    Patent  FOR;  what  secukedby;  Cox- 

S IHUCTION  OF 355 

A .    What  Patentable  ;  and  to  what 
Extent. 

1.  An  improvement  on  the  principle 
of  a  machine  is  patentable,  but  an  im- 
provement in  form  or  proportions  is 
not.  Hcntgen  v.  Kanoxcrs,  1  "Wasli., 
171. — Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1804. 

2.  An  improvement  in  the  j)rinc!plc 


Wi 


iii. 


ii 


LMI'itOVEMKXTS,  A. 


.')40 


WHAT   rATEXTAULE;   TO   WHAT   KXTKNT. 


,if  a  niiu'Iiinc  w  no  invasion  of  the  rij^lits 
of  the  invt'iitor  and  pati'iilfc  of  Huch 
iiiiu'l'ii"'— otlicrwisi',  if  it  is  only  an  ini- 
provi'Mii'nt  in  tlii'y'ony*.  Purkw  Littli; 
3  Wiisli.,  108. — Washin(;ton,  J.;  Pa., 
1R13. 

;i.  It  is  (liflioult  to  dofine  tlic  casos, 
wiiL'ie  tiie  wliolc  niaciiino  niuy  l)o  dt'cm- 
ed  11  iiinv  invention,  and  wliere  only 
all  iiiiiirovement ;  the  cases  oflon  up- 
•noiu'li  very  near  each  other.  In  the 
m-i'Soiil  improved  state  of  machinery,  it  is 
ahnost  impracticable  not  to  employ  the 
8aHie  elements  of  motion,  and  in  some 
iiurticiilars,  the  same  maimer  of  opera- 
tion, tu  prodn(!e  any  new  etfect.  Whit- 
(einore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  479. — Stuuy, 
J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

4.  If  a  person  is  not  an  inventor  of 
the  whole  machhie,  but  only  of  an  im- 
proveiiient  thereof,  he  is  entitled  to  on- 
ly a  patent  for  the  improvement.  lold., 
4V9. 

5.  ^Vhore  a  specific  machine  already 
exists,  ])r'"ducing  certain  effects,  if  a 
mere  addition  is  made  to  such  machine, 
to  produce  the  same  effects  in  a  better 
manner,  a  patent  cannot  be  taken  for 
the  whole  madiine,  but  for  the  improve- 
ment only.     Ibid.,  480. 

6.  On  the  other  haiid,  if  toell-known 
effects  are  produced  by  machinery,  in  all 
its  combinations  entirely  new,  a  i)atent 
may  he  claimed  for  tlie  whole  macliiu'- 
Ibid.,  480. 

V.  If  a  machine  substantially  existed 
before,  and  a  person  has  made  an  im- 
provement only  thereon,  he  is  entitled 
to  a  patent  for  such  improvement  only, 
and  not  for  the  whole  machine.  Wood- 
cock v.  Par.ceVy  1  Gall.,  439. — Stoky, 
J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

8.  If  a  person  invent  an  improvement 
on  a  machine,  he  is  entitled  to  a  patent 
for  such  improyement  only,  and  not 


for  the  ori;;inal  machine.  Oliornr  v. 
Wiii/dci/,  'i  Gall.,  53. — Stoky,  J. ;  Mass., 
It<i4. 

9.  If  the  discovery  bo  of  an  improi^e- 
meut  only,  it  must  bo  an  improvement 
of  the  j>riiici[ilo  of  a  machine,  art 
or  manufactinH',  l)efore  known  or  in  use. 
If  only  in  the  form  or  proportions,  it 
has  not  the  merit  of  a  discovery  whi''h 
can  entitle  the  party  to  a  patent.  '.  - 
(ins  V.  I'Mton,  Pet.,  0.  C,  342. — W  .-.ti- 
iNiiTDX,  J.;  P.I.,  1810. 

10.  A  machine  or  improvement  may 
be  new,  and  the  proper  subject  of  a  pat- 
ent, althoiiujh  the  parts  of  it  were  beio  o 
known  and  in  use.     Ibid.,  343. 

11.  Where  an  inventor  makes  an  ad- 
dition or  improvement  to  a  combination 
of  machinery,  he  must  confine  his  pat- 
ent to  the  improvement ;  if  he  takes  a 
j)atent  for  the  Avhole  machine  as  im- 
prov^nl,  not  limiting  it  to  the  imi»rove- 
ment,  it  is  void,  because  as  so  claimed, 
it  is  not  his  invention.  Harrett  v.  Ifall, 
1  Mas.,  476.— Stoey,  J.;  Mass.,  1818. 

12.  If  an  invention  consist  in  a  new 
combin.ation  of  machinery,  or  in  im- 
provements upon  an  old  machine,  to 
produce  an  old  effect,  the  patent  should 
be  for  the  combined  machinery,  or  inx- 
provements  on  the  old  machine,  .indnot 
for  a  mere  mode  or  device  for  producing 
such  effects,  detached  from  the  machin- 
ery.    Ibid.,  476. 

13.  The  distinction  between  a  ma- 
chine .and  an  improvement  on  a  machine, 
or  an  improved  machine,  is  too  clear 
for  them  to  be  confounded  together. 
Evans  v.  Eaton,  3  Wheat.,  516. — Mar- 
shall, Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 

14.  If  the  same  combinations  existed 
before,  in  machines  of  the  same  nature, 
up  to  a  certain  point,  and  the  party's 
invention  consists  in  adding  some  neAv- 
machinery,  or  some  improved  mode  of 


"'■'"■■  w^  ^.^. 


irim 


■   'mSsa^mH^ 

w 

'**^.J^7mttA^^mmHimLiJm 

^  ^^ 

i^c^wSt 

':"4i!^tei 

L^/' ttQtT 

i«^;9 

»%(  J/TShh 

nHK 

p  '■•^Virf  ^^dL^^ 

I^C, 

-.-^^^-nn 

1  iduScnWi^nw 

xC 


<^^k' 


'"'■S!«i\l,i 


'J 


''^it^ 


350 


IMPROVEMKNTS,  A. 


7L 


V.   ■  -        I 

it 


WHAT   l'ATKNTAIII,K;    TO    WHAT   KXTKNT. 


Operating,  to  Iho  old,  tlio  patent  should 
1)0  limited  to  Kueli  improvement.  /vV- 
ans  V.  £itton,  7  Wheat.,  130. — Sxouv, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.  1822. 

1.').  If  ail  iiiiprovcmont  is  jiow  and 
\iseful,  and  lias  not  been  known  or  used 
hefbro,  it  constitutes  an  invention  with- 
in the  terms  ami  meaning  of  tlie  pat- 
ent aets,  and  the  inventor  is  entitled  to 
a  patent.  Mtrle  v.  Sawyer,  4  Mas.,  7. — 
Stouy,  J.;  IMass.,  1825. 

10.  A  machine,  and  an  improvement 
'on  a  machine,  or  an  improved  macliiiie, 
must  not  he  confounded  ;  a  grant  of  the 
exclusive  use  of  an  imi)rovement  in  a 
machine,  principle,  or  process,  is  not  a 
grant  of  the  improvement  only,  but  the 
improved  machine  :  an  improvement  on 
a  machine  and  an  improved  machine, 
are  the  same.  Whitney  v.  EinmHt, 
Bald.,  314.— Baldwin-,  .T.  ;  Pa.,  18;M. 

17.  If  the  same  combination  existed 
before,  iij)  to  a  certain  ])oint,  and  the 
invention  consists  in  adding  some  new 
machinery,  in  some  improved  mode  of 
operation,  or  some  new  combination, 
the  patent  must  be  limited  to  the  im- 
provement.    Ibiil.,  314. 

18.  A  slight  alteration  in  tlie  struc- 
ture of  a  machine,  or  in  the  improve- 
ment of  it,  Avill  not  entitle  an  individu- 
al to  a  patont.  There  must  be  a  sub- 
stantial difference  in  the  principle,  and 
the  ai)i)lication  of  it,  to  constitute  such 
an  improvement  as  the  law  will  protect. 
S)Hith  V.  Penrce,  2  McLean,  178. — Mc- 
Lkax,  J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

1 9.  An  improvement,  to  entitle  a  per- 
son to  a  patent,  must  not  only  be  new, 
but  iiseful;  it  must  bo  a  substantial, 
material  improvement.  ]\Ie»*e  colorable 
or  slight  improvements  cannot  affect  the 
rights  of  the  original  inventors.  Street 
V.  Silver,  Brightly,  99,  100.— Rogers, 
J.;  Pa.,  1840. 


20.  If  an  improvement  be  made  on 
an  original  invention,  a  patent  may  in 
obtained  for  such  iinpro«eineiit.  Uuta 
substaiili.il  part  of  an  original  invention 
c;iniii)t  bi-  patented  as  an  iiniiroveiiiout, 
Smith  v.  J'Jly,  5  McLean,  88.— MiLkan-, 
.!.;  Ohio,  1849. 

21.  An  improvement  upon  an  old  con- 
trivance, in  order  to  be  the  sulijcct  of 
sufficient  imjiortance  to  supjiort  a  int- 
ent, must  embody  gome  originality,  and 
something  substantial  in  the  cli;in{,'e, 
producing  a  more  useful  effect  and  o|). 
eration.  irall  v.  Wiles,  2  Blatchf.,  i>ijo. 
— Nklsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

22.  In  determining  this  (piestioii,  tlic 
jury  have  a  riglit  to  take  into  considcMii- 
tioii,  in  connection  with  the  change,  tlie 
result  which  has  been  produced ;  le- 
cause  the  result,  if  greatly  more  benefi- 
cial than  it  was  with  the  old  contri- 
vance, reflects  back,  .and  tends  to  char- 
.'icterize,  to  some  degree,  the  impor- 
tance of  the  change.     Ibid.,  200. 

23.  In  .an  action  of  infriiigeniont,  it 
was  objected  that  the  arrangenieiil  ami 
combination  of  the  plaintiff's  iiiij)rovi'- 
ment  was  so  simple  and  obvious,  that  it 
was  not  the  subject  of  a  psitent ;  //tW, 
that  novelty  .and  utility  in  the  iniprovo- 
mcnt  was  all  that  the  statute  reqtiirtd 
as  a  condition  to  granting  a  jialmt. 
McCormick  v.  Seymour,  2  Blatchf.,  243, 
244.— Xelson,  J.;  iSr.  Y.,  1851. 

24.  A  change  of  construction  in  a 
machine,  which  is  only  the  result  of 
practical  experience  in  tlie  use  of  siiili 
machine,  is  not,  in  law,  an  inii)rovoiuciit 
on  it.  Traccy  v.  Torrey,  2  Blatclif ,  278. 
— Nki-son,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

25.  An  improvement  of  a  macliiue, 
for  which  a  patent  may  issue,  may  con- 
sist in  the  introduction  of  a  new  ele- 
ment into  an  old  machine,  so  as  to  pro- 
duce new  power  or  greater  facility  in 


.»•:.<•>% 


LMI'IIOVK.MKNTS,  A. 


351 


WHAT  patkntaiii.k;  to  what  exiknt. 


'^.C' 


the  ni>i>Ii*'''itii)u   of  power.     li/mni   v. 
lIolU'!(iy,  ItJ  lV»ii.,  y52. — Coii.TUK,  .1.; 

Ta.,  1«'^1- 

•jO.  ScmblCt  that  iniprovcinciits  iiiikU' 
l,v  workiuon,  working  iimlor  tho  \n\y  of 
nil  invontor,  and  niiikini^  expi'riiiK'Tits 
urnler  his  dircotioiis,  uro  to  l)c  fonsider- 
(mI  fur  the  credit  and  benefit  of  sncli  in- 
ventor. Ooodi/eui-  V.  I>aj/,  MS. — Dnii- 
EKsos,  J. ;  N.  J.,  1852. 

•27.  An  improvement  on  a  combina- 
tion is  tlio  subject  of  a  patent,  but  at 
the  same  time  tho  improvement  cannot 
1)0  used  without  the  consent  of  the  orii;- 
inal  patentee.  I'oster  v.  Jfoore.  1  Curt., 
293.— CuUTis,  J.  ;  Mass.,  185'J. 

28.  One  may  discover  an  imjMove- 
ment  in  a  process,  irrespective  of  any 
jKiiticular  form  of  madiinery.  Corultuj 
\,  Burden,  15  llow.,  207. — Stouy,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

29.  A  patent  for  an  improvement  of 
a  macliine,  is  the  same  as  a  patent  for  an 
improved  machine.  Fidtz,  Kf  jxirtc,  MS. 
(App.Cas.)— MoKSKM.,  J.;  D.  C,  1H53. 

'M.  Improvement  applied  to  niachine- 
rv  is  where  a  specific  machine  ah'eady 
exists,  and  an  addition  is  made  to  pro- 
duce thi  <ame  effects  in  a  better  manner, 
or  some  new  combiiKitions  are  added  to 
pioducc  new  eff'ects.     Ibid. 

yi.  Under  g  13  of  the  act  of  183G,  a 
]iateut'  may,  if  he  desires  it,  annex  m\ 
iiiiprov.  lent  upon  a  former  invention, 
already  p  'ented,  to  his  former  specifi- 
cation, so  as  to  make  it  from  that  lime 
a  part  of  the  original  patent.  But  tlicre 
is  notliiiiu:  in  tho  act  which  forbids  liim 
taking  out  a  new  patent  for  the  improve- 
ment, if  lie  prefers  it.  O'lteilly  r. 
Morse,  15  How.,  122. — Tanky,  Cii.  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct,,  1853. 

32.  Nor  is  lie  bound  in  his  new  pat- 
ent, to  refer  specially  to  his  former  one. 
All  that  is  required  is  that  he  shall  not 


claim  as  new  what  is  covered  by  a  for- 
nu-r  invention.     Ibid.,  122. 

33.  An  improvement  upon  a  machiiiu 
to  constitute  it  an  invention,  must  bo 
new  and  useful.  }fr<!i)rmick  v.  Sey- 
mour, 3  r.Uitchf.,  213.— Nki.son,  J. ;  N. 
v.,  1H54. 

34.  There  must  be  novelty  in  the  ar- 
rangement of  tho  improved  machinery 
— novelty  created  by  the  mind  of  tho 
person  claiming  to  be  the  inventor — 
and  in  connection  with  that  novelty 
there  must  be  utility.     Ibid,,  213. 

35.  Improvements  and  discoveries  tlio 
most  important  in  their  consecpiences 
.and  in  their  beneficial  effects  on  tho 
business  interests  of  the  community, 
are  oftentimes  among  the  simplest  ideas 
of  the  mind  ;  and  again,  improvements 
of  less  magnitude  in  their  consiMpiences 
and  in  their  beneficial  eilects,  indicate 
the  most  laborious  and'  complex  exertion 
of  the  iiiiiicl  of  the  invontor.      //'/</.,  213. 

30.  An  improvement  on  a  c<Mnbined 
machine  is  patentable.  I'ltls  v.  Weniple, 
0  McLean,  501. — McLean,  J.;  III.,  1855. 

3  7.  An  improvement  has  cssenti(d  ref- 
erence to  .1  subject  matter  to  be  im- 
proved.    It  is  not  an  origin.al,  but  em 
braces,  and  either  adds  to  or  ;ilters  the 
original.     Page  v.  Ferry,  MS. — Wil 
KINS,  J.;  Mich.,  1857. 

38.  When  an  alleged  invention  pur 
ports  to  be  an  improvement  on  an  ex- 
isting machine,  the  inquiry  as  to  what 
is  new  and  what  old,  must  bo,  not 
whether  the  same  elements  of  motion 
or  the  same  component  parts  are  used, 
but  whether  the  given  effect  is  produced 
substantially  by  the  same  mode  of  oper- 
ation, and  the  same  combination  of 
powers  in  both  machines;  or  whether 
some  new  element,  combination,  or  fea- 
ture, had  been  added  to  the  old  ma- 
chine, which  produces  either  the  same 


X.J 


i2;>-^i 


^kt^- 


852 


IMPIlOTlliBini,  A. 


»>i 


*^.'"«t 


I 


now  SHOULD  BB  BKT   FOUTil. 


effort  ill  a  <'ho!i|>('r  or  nioro  expeditious 
niiimiiT,  or  an  i-iitiroly  m-w  ofl't'ct,  or  an 
ettect  ill  some  material  respect  supirior, 
llioiiLfli  ill  otlier  respects  Miiiiilar  to  that 
jirodiiced  l>y  tlie  old  inachiiic.  J/lManf, 
J^V'  parte,  JMS,  (Ajip.  Cas.) — !Moksei,l, 
J.;  i).  C,    1857. 

30.  If  a  eliani^e  introduced  constitute 
a  mechanical  equivalent  in  reference  to 
tlie  means  used  hy  another  jiatentec  and 
besides  being  such  an  equivuleiil,  accom- 
j)lish('s  some  other  advantages  beyond 
tlie  effect  or  purpose  accomplished  by 
the  patentee,  such  further  advantage 
may  make  it  a  patentable  subject  or  an 
improvement  upon  tho  former  inven- 
tion.    Ibid. 

40.  If  a  person  invent  a  new  mechan- 
ical device  or  arrangement,  to  be  used 
in  the  place  of  a  former  device  or  ar- 
rangement, which  was  a  part  of  a  cer- 
tain 'combination,  and  which  new  device 
is  independent  of  all  other  similar  devi- 
ces, and  is  not  to  be  used  in  conjunction 
with,  or  ill  aid  of,  or  in  addition  to,  such 
old  device,  which  made  one  of  tho  ele- 
ments of  the  old  combination,  he  may 
have  a  patent  for  a  combination  contain- 
ing his  new  device  or  arrangement,  in 
connection  with  the  remaining  parts  of 
the  old  combination,  as  such  combina- 
tion constitutes  a  new  machine,  and  not 
an  improvement  merely  on  the  machine 
containing  the  combination  of  the  old 
elements.  Potter  v.  Holland,  MS. — 
Ingersoi.l,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

41.  But  if  such  new  mechanical  de- 
vice is  but  an  improvement  on  the  old 
or  former  one,  and  is  to  be  used  in  con- 
junction with,  or  in  aid  of,  or  in  addition 
to,  the  old  one,  then,  it  seems,  he  could 
only  have  a  patent  for  his  improvement, 
in  that  element  of  the  combination, 
and  not  for  the  whole  combination. 
Ibid. 


B.     How   SIIori.D   UK  SCT   KoitTII. 

1.  The  patentee  must  doscribc  in  [\{[\ 
and  exact  terms  in  what  his  invention 
consists;  and  if  it  bo  an  improvtnu.iit 
only  upon  an  existing  machine,  In. 
should  distinguish  what  is  new  and 
what  is  old,  in  his  specification,  so  tliut 
it  may  clearly  appear  for  what  the  tint- 
ent  is  granted.  If,  therefore,  tlic  do. 
scription  .nixes  up  the  old  and  tliu  new 
and  does  not  distinctly  ascertain  fur 
which  in  particular  the  patent  is  cliiiin- 
ed,  it  is  void.  Lowell  v.  Lewis,  1  Mjis, 
188. — Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

2.  It  is  sufficient,  however,  if  wlmt  is 
claimed  as  new  appear  with  reasonalile 
certii'iity  on  tho  face  of  the  patent,  cilhor 
exp  ■^ly  or  by  necessary  imidication. 
Ibit  it  ought  to  appear  with  reasonable 
certainty;  for  it  is  not  to  be  left  to  mi- 
nute inferences  and  conjectures  as  to 
what  was  previously  known  or  un- 
known ;  since  the  question  is  not  what 
was  before  known,  but  what  the  pat- 
entee claims  as  neio.     Ibid.,  188. 

3.  If,  however,  the  invention  is  de- 
scribed with  such  reasonable  certainty 
as  to  distinguish  the  same  from  all 
things  before  known,  but  the  specifica- 
tion is  not  in  such  full,  clear,  and  exact 
terms  as  to  enable  any  person  skilled  in 
the  art  or  science  of  which  it  is  abrancli, 
or  with  wliich  it  is  most  nearly  connect- 
ed, to  make,  compovmd,  and  use  the 
same,  this,  under  §  6  of  the  act  of  1793, 
does  not  avoid  the  i)atent,  unless  the 
defective  description  or  concealment  has 
been  made  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving 
the  public.     Ibid.,  188,  189. 

4.  If  a  patent  be  for  an  improved  ma- 
chine, or  for  an  improvement  on  a  ma- 
chine (the  terms  meaning  substantially 
the  same),  the  patent  must  state  in  what 
the  improvement  specifically  consists, 


wwii;, 


IMl'KOVEMENTS,  I  J. 


889 


now  Hin)ii,i>  UK  SKT  Kitmir. 


ami  it  must  bo  liiiiitctl  to  tlio  iinprovc- 
iiii'iil.  lidrrett  v.  J/ult,  1  Mas.,  470. — 
jjroKV,  J. ;  Mass.,  Ihih. 

5.  A  j^oiicral  stati'inciit  that  the  pat- 
cnteil  articli'  is  in  all  irspi'cts,  without 
statin}^  what  these  are,  an  improvement 
on  an  old  article,  is  no  speinfication  at 
all.    If>i(f-,  -^'H. 

0.  Where  a  ])atent  is  for  .an  improve- 
ment the  spccitication  must  descriho  in 
full,  clear,  and  exact  terms  whjit  the 
impi'ovcinent  is:  1st,  to  enable  the  j)ub- 
lic  to  enjoy  the  full  benefit  of  the  dis- 
covery when  the  monopoly  is  expired, 
by  having  it  so  described  on  record  that 
it  can  he  constructed,  and  2d,  to  put 
every  citizen  on  his  t^uard,  that  he  m.ay 
not  through  ignorance  violate  the  law, 
by  infringing  the  rights  of  the  patentee. 
Hmtns  V.  Jlt'ttick,  3  Wash.,  425,  420.— 
\VASiiiN<iTOX,  J. ;  Pa.,  1818. 

7.  If  the  improvement  bo  on  a  pat- 
ented machine,  it  may  be  sufficient  to 
refer  to  the  patent  and  specification  for 
a  description  of  the  original  machine, 
and  then  to  state  in  what  the  improve- 
ment consists ;  if,  however,  the  improve- 
ment he  on  a  machine  not  p.atented,  it 
would  ho  necessary  to  describe  the  orig- 
inal machine  and  also  the  improvement. 
Eiwis  V.  Eaton,  3  Wash.,  454. — Wash- 
ington, J.;  Pa.,  1818. 

8.  The  nature  and  extent  of  the  im- 
provement must  be  clearly  and  fully 
stated,  or  the  patent  will  be  void.  Ibid., 
452,  455. 

9.  If  the  patent  be  for  an  improve- 
ment, the  specification  should  distin- 
guish what  is  new  from  wh.at  was  old 
and  before  in  use,  and  point  out  in  what 
tlie  improvement  consists.  It  is  not  suf 
tieient  that  the  improvement  should  be 
apparent  from  testimony  introduced  by 
the  plaintiff,  or  even  for  the  jury  to  per- 
ceive it  by  examining  the  thing  patent- 

'2a 


ed  and  comparing  it  with  others  boforo 
in  use.  No  description  of  the  tliscov- 
ery  secured  by  a  patent  will  fulfill  the 
demands  of  justice  and  of  law,  but  such 
as  is  of  record,  and  of  which  all  the 
world  may  have  the  benefit.  Dixon  v. 
M(>i/(')%  4  Wash,,  7;). — WAHiiiN(iTON,  J.; 
I'a.,  1821. 

10.  A  specification  which  mixes  up 
the  old  and  the  new,  but  does  not  ex- 
plain what  is  the  nature  or  limit  of  tho 
improvement,  which  the  party  claims, 
cannot  be  sustained.  JiJi'K/is  v.  J'Jdtoii, 
7  Wheat.,  434. — Sroitv,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1822. 

11.  A  party  should  describe  Avhat  his* 
improvement  is,  and  limit  hi.s  ))atent  to 
such  improvement,  .and  if  he  does  not 
his  patent  is  defective.     Ibid.,  435. 

12.  When  the  specification  does  not 
describe  the  invention  so  as  to  show  in 
what  respect  the  plaint ift''s  invention  or 
improvement  differs  from  what  had  been 
known  or  used  by  tho  patent  is  void. 
Langdon  v.  De  Groot,  1  Paine,  207. — 
Livingston,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1822. 

13.  If  a  patent  be  for  an  improve- 
ment, it  should  describe  the  thing  pre- 
viously in  use,  so  that  it  can  bo  clearly 
seen  in  what  the  improvement  consists. 
Sullivan  v.  Hedjield,  1  Paine,  451. — 
Thompson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1825. 

14.  A  patent  was  taken  for  an  imprO'Ve- 
ment  in  the  mould  board  of  ploughs ; 
Held,  that  a  particular  description'  of 
former  mould,  boards  was  not  necessary. 
A  general  reference,  either  in  general 
terms  Avhich  are  not  untrue,  or  a  refer- 
ence to  a  pai'ticular  mould  board  com- 
monly known,  accompanied  by  such  a 
description  of  tho  improvement  as  will 
enable  a  workmjin  to  distinguish  what 
is  new  will  be  sufficient.  Davis  v. 
Palmer,  2  Brock.,  309.— Marshal^ 
Ch.  J.;  Va.,  1827. 


4_ 


/>i4^1 


hM 


iiii 

'I  ;•» 


•  :■  ■■  'i       ,'*;^J^ 


9i 


^^Mit 


•Smm 


■•  '-;^ife 


■    I    i  i  lAi 


'  ^'-^.l: 

^^-m' 


^  I 


'J 


^i\ 


i: 


",>»••  *. 


4 


■4,' 


Sut 


i:mi'R()Vkmf<:nts,  n. 


IIUW  HIIOULD  IIB  8ICT  roUTII. 


16.  The  iniprovoiiu'rit  piitciifcil  must 
1)0  the  improvciiu'iil  invt'iiliil.  'I'lu'pMt- 
cntoi'  must  show  llii'  oxti'iil  ol"  the  im- 
ju'dvt'iiu'iit,  K()  that  a  person  who  ufKhT- 
HtaiulH  (lie  Niihjrct  may  know  in  wliat  it 
conHists.  Whit  in  y  v.  Etinndt,  llahl., 
314.— IIai.dwin,  J.;  I'a.,  imtl. 

10.  AVhi'ii  ii  patent  is  for  an  improve- 
meat  in  iv  machiiu>  ah'catly  in  uhc,  the 
8pecilication  ner-d  not  deserihe  the  orij^- 
inal  maehint',  tmh'ss  there  is  no  otiier 
way  in  whleh  it  «'an  he  aseertained  witli 
reasonahh^  eertainty  in  wliat  the  im- 
provemcnt  eonsiHts,  and  liow  it  is  to  be 
applied.  //iirDion  v.  Tit'nf,  22  Wend., 
;M.— IJuoNsoN,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  IX'M). 

17.  If  the  Kpeeilieation  eontain  such 
a  deseription  of  the  natnre  of  the  in- 
vention and  tlie  manner  in  wliieh  it  is 
to  be  performed,  as  will  enable  persons 
of  eonipetent  skill,  by  followinjjf  the 
directions,  to  praetiec  the  invention 
without  the  labor  or  expense  of  trial  or 
ox})eriment,  the  patentee  need  not  go 
further  and  deseribe  the  original  ma- 
chine.    77>u/.,  115. 

.  18.  To  secure  the  benefits  of  §  0  of 
the  act  of  1837,  and  save  a  patent  from 
becoming  absolutely  void,  by  reason  of 
the  patentee  elainung  more  than  he  has 
invented,  the  sitecification  must  state  in 
what  the  improvement  consists.  Peter- 
son  V.  Wuodc'fi,  3  3IcLean,  240. — ^Ic- 
Leax,  J. ;  Ohio,  1843. 

19.  In  describing  an  improvement, 
the  structure  in  detail  of  the  entire  and 
improved  machine  need  not  be  given. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  describe  the  im- 
provement, by  showing  the  parts  of 
which  it  consists,  and  the  effects  which 
it  produces.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  Mc- 
Lean, 2G1.— McLeax,  J.;  Ohio,  1843. 

20.  In  a  patent  for  an  improvement, 
it  may  not  be  necessary  to  describe  the 
machine  before  it  was  improved,  though 


if  gives  great»'r  distinctness  to  do  sm' 
hut  it  is  essential  th:it  the  part  inipnivi'ij 
sliould  lie  HO  distinctly  stated  as  to  It,' 
distinguisluMl  from  every  other  pint 
of  tlio  machine.  It  is  not  enough  tliat 
the  invention  can  he  made  apparent  m, 
the  trial,  by  a  comparison  of  the  new 
with  the  old.  Jintokn  v.  Ilick/ivll,  ;i 
McLean,  444.  —  McLkan,  J.;  Ohi,, 
1844. 

21.  In  a  patent  for  an  impntveuipiit, 
the  patentci'  should  iu)t  only  desfiilM' 
the  macliine,  with  all  its  parts,  hut  lie 
should  distinguish  what  is  new.  Wlmt. 
ever  is  the  jiarticuhu  improvemeMl  must 
be  clearly  stated  ;  both  that  the  piiMi,. 
may  know  what  he  claims  as  new,  aiid 
that  parties  may  know  what  they  are  to 
defend  against.  Jfovey  v.  JStriritii,  3 
Wood.  &  Mill.,  25,  20.— WooDHUKV, 
J.  ;  Mass.,  1840. 

22.  Where  a  patent  was  for  an  im- 
jirovement  on  an  old  and  known  tiling, 
as  for  the  sid)stitution  of  double-  jiiiitis 
in  the  pl.ace  of  spokes  in  a  car  wlieel, 
and  the  objection  was  made  that  tlie 
old  wheel  was  not  fully  described,  iM/, 
that  it  was  sufficient  for  the  patentee  to 
refer  in  general  terms  to  the  old  wlictl, 
as  a  spoke  wheel,  as  that  alforded  nil 
the  information  necessary  to  a  ]i('rsoii 
skilled  in  that  department.  3l<(inj  v. 
JiKjger^  1  Blatchf.,  380. — Nklson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1848. 

23.  If  the  sjwcification  includes  as 
well  the  original  discovery  as  the  alleged 
improvement,  and  does  not  point  out  in 
what  the  improvement  consists,  the 
patent  is  void.  Street  v.  Silver,  iJriglil- 
ly,  101. — RoGEKS,  J.;  Pa.,  1840. 

24.  Where  a  patent  is  for  an  iniprovo- 
ment  on  an  old  machine,  if  the  whole  of 
it,  the  old  and  the  new,  is  described  in 
the  specification,  the  patentee  must  dis- 
tinguish what  part  he  claims,  or  the  pat- 


.     ^  „a£l!;.S>iA 


-'^w. 


IMrUOVEMENTS,  C. 


3fi5 


PATINT  rOI  i  WHAT  WtCUKIU  BT. 


,.iit  will  1h'  v<»'nl  for  atiiiii;,'uity.  117//- 
Urmtite  v.  /ieilhiytoii,  M.S. — \Vii:s(».v, 
J.;  Ohio,  lH.-)0, 

•j,».  If  iho  wlinl(>  iictoirnic,  ill  its  iiii- 
provo'l  sliiti',  Ih  cliiiiiuul,  tlitt  piih'iil  will 
l)C  voiil  for  c'liiiiiiiiijj  too  much.     Jf>i</. 

20.  Ill  s|»('<*if}iiif^  iiii  iiiiprovi'iiu'iit  in 
a  iiiiu'liiiii'i  il-  •"•'ly  lj«  muH'Msary,  and 
wlit'ii  HO,  it  i«  proper  to  ilestMilns  the 
wiioli' iimchiiK',  UH  it.  opcratoH  with  the 
iiiipniveiiu'iit,  ill  onlur  to  niake  the  de- 
ticii|ili"ii  iiiiilefstood  to  !i  piTSon  of  the 
triulo  to  which  it  l»('lonjj;s,  and  if  this  is 
iidt  tioiic,  the  patent  fails  for  obscurity. 

ii7.  Where  an  invention  consistH  of 
an  improveiiu'iil  on  a  machine,  the  spo- 
cltii'alion  should  distiii<j;uish  tlu;  new 
iKii'ts  fimn  the  old  ;  and  tlu>  claim  should 
cxcluile  the  old  parts,  am'  claim  only 
(he  new,  hy  which  the  old  were  ad.-ipt- 
clI  to  tiie  new  use,  prodiicinj.;  the  new 
result,  riiillijm  V.  i'////c,  24  How.,  lUH. 
-Nelsox,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1860. 

t!,    Patkvtfor;  what  skcuuko  hy  ; 

CONSTUUcmoN   OK. 

1.  If  an  inventor  be  not  an  inventor 
of  the  whole  inaciruu',  but  only  of  an 
im|iroveinent  thereof,  and  the  patent  is 
lor  the  whole  maehine,  the  patent  is  too 
broad  and  is  utterly  void.  Whittemore 
V.  Cutlery  1  Gall.,  479.— Sroicv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1813. 

2.  If  an  inventor  obtain  a  patent  for 
ail  entire  machine,  when  he  is  the  inven- 
tor only  of  an  improvement  thereon, 
liis  patent  is  too  broad  and  therefore 
void.  Odlarne  v.  Whikhijy  2  Gall.,  53. 
— Stouy,  .1.,  M.'iss.,  1814. 

3.  If  a  ]jatont  be  taken  out  for  .in  en- 
tire machine,  Avhen  the  invention  con- 
sists only  of  an  improvement  on  such 
machine,  the  whole  patent  is  not  void, 
but  the  patentee  is  not  entitled  to  more 


than  his  improvement ;  nor  can  lie  make 
or  use  the  ori<;inal  discovery,  nor  pnmo» 
cute  any  person  for  iisin^  such  ori^^inal 
discovery  without  cnj^rallin;^  on  it  the 
imptovemeiit  invented  by  the  p.atenteu. 
(iondyiiir  V.  jVntf/H'wa,  1  I'aine,  'M'2.— 
liiviMisToN,  J.;  Ct.,  1H14. 

4.  The  <,'r!int  can  only  be  for  the  dis- 
covery as  recited  in  the  patent  and  spe- 
cifu-ation.  If  the  patent  is  for  the  whole 
of  a  machine,  and  the  (liseovery  was 
only  of  an  improvement,  the  patent  Ih 
void.  J^'raim  v.  J^Jatoii,  Pet.,  V.  C,  :t  V2. 
— W,\HiiiN(iTo.\,  J.;  Ph.,  1810. 

r*.  If  iinprov(unents  be  made  upon  an 
invention  which  has  been  pateiilt'd,  by 
any  person  other  than  the  inventor  or 
patentee,  the  inventor  of  the  orii^iiial 
tiling,  and  those  elaiming  under  him, 
have  no  right  to  use  the  improvements 
without  a  license  from  the  inventor 
thereof;  nor  can  the  inventor  of  such 
improvements,  or  luiy  other  person  law- 
fully use  the  prineip.'il  machine  williout 
the  license  of  the  inventor  thereof. 
arxi/  v.. /(lines,  IVt.,  C.  C.  :301).— Wasii- 
iN<iTON,  J.;  Pa.,  1817. 

0.  If  the  terms  of  a  patent  .ire  ho  ob- 
scure or  doubtful  th.1t  the  court  cannot 
say  what  is  the  particular  improvement 
which  the  patentee  claims,  and  to  what 
it  is  limited,  the  patent  is  void  for  am- 
biguity. Barrett  y.IMl,  1  Mas.,  470. 
— Stoky,  J.;  M.1SS.,  1818. 

1.  A  patent  for  .in  improvement  in  .a 
m.ichine,  which  had  1/een  previously  pat- 
ented to  another,  cannot  jjrotect  the 
subsequent  patentee,  unless  there  is  a 
subsfanti.ll  difference  in  tlie  jniiicijde, 
and  in  the  application  of  tin;  improve- 
mont.  Smith  v.  JPearce,  2  McLe.in,  1 77, 
178.— McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

8.  If  a  person  makes  an  improve- 
ment upon  the  invention  of  another, 
such  improvement  gives  him  no  author- 


* 


I 


\^\ 


iVLllll 


Si^^, 


,iS-5feS,r-^ 


iT 


•'**ifc 


'h  I 


ri 


'•HI 


(^! 


fe-' 


C 


•00 


IMPROViaiKNTS,  (• 


PATIMT  mR ;  WHAT  IICVRID   BT. 


ily  t(»  UMc  tlic  iiiachitic  upon  wliicli  it  is 
an  irn|ir»iv('riu'iit.  Wiinlthnrtt  v.  (I'otiltf, 
i\  Sl«»iy  150.— Stouv,  J.,  Muss.,  1H44, 

0.  It  Ih  well  nettled  tliat  no  one  can 
make  an  iniprovenitMiton  apatuntnl  m.a- 
cliino,  and  iisu  important  parts  of  th«' 
originiil  invention,  while  tlie  orii;iii:i! 
term,  or  the  reniniintsof  it,  exiHt,  with- 
out the  license  of  the  ori<rinal  piitcntec, 
or  a  pnrehaso  from  him  of  the  rij;ht  so 
to  nse  what  beionj^s  to  him.  Wooihrorth 
V.  liof/ers,  3  Wood.  &  Min.,  141. — 
WooDntKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1847. 

10.  Nor  e.'m  one,  having  the  riplit  to 
use  the  orij^inal  machine,  nse  an  im- 
provement npon  it,  without  a  license  or 
j)urchase  from  the  inventor  of  such  im- 
j)roveinent.     fhul.,  141. 

11.  An  addition  or  an  improvement 
of  a  cotnhin.'ition,  or  of  any  element 
thereof,  f^ives  no  right  to  appropriate 
or  use  the  ori<j;inal  combination.  Gor- 
ham  V.  Mlxhr,  1  Amer.  Law  Jour., 
543.— Si'KACii'K,  J. ;  Mass.,  1849. 

I'J.  If  an  improvement  is  engrafted 
on  a  machine  or  mamifjicture  before 
made  and  patented,  it  gives  no  right  to 
use  Avhat  liad  been  previously  patented, 
Mithont  obtaining  a  license  or  purchase 
from  the  patentee.  But  if  the  inven- 
tion amoimts  not  merely  to  an  improve- 
ment, but  to  more,  and  constitutes  a 
new  and  useful  combination,  the  inven- 
tor lias  a  right  to  use  it  without  license 
from  others.  Smith  v.  Downing^  MS. 
— Woodbury,  J. ;  Mass.,  1850. 

13.  A  patent  for  an  improvement  in 
a  machine  is  not  void,  though  it  appears 
from  the  description  or  specification 
that  a  part  of  the  elements  included  in 
the  description  were  not  new,  but 
Avhidi  are  claimed  to  be  newly  com- 
bined with  the  new  elements.  Jiheem  v. 
Ilolllday,  16  Penn.,  352. — Coulter, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  Pa.,  1851. 


14.  A  combination  may  be  intprovcil 
aixl  a  patent  taken  for  such  iiiiitrnvf. 
nicnt,  but  at  the  same  time  tlie  inihnivt'- 
merit  cannot  be  used  without  tliu  con. 
sent  of  the  original  patentee.  Fonler 
v.  Moore,  1  Curt.  2t)2.— Cirtw,  J.- 
.Mass.,  iH.'i'i. 

ir».  A  patent  for  an  iniprovcnicnt  cm. 
braces  nothing  inf>re  than  the  improvt- 
meiit  described  and  claimed  as  new 
and  any  one  who  afterward  discovers  a 
method  of  accomplishing  the  saiiiu  oli. 
ject,  substantially  and  esseniinlly  (\\{. 
fering  from  the  one  described,  Las  a 
right  to  nse  it.  (/Jieilli/  v.  M,ji:ie,  15 
How.,  110.— Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  ,S«p.  Ct., 
1863. 

10.  There  may  bo  nn  improvement 
iip<m  a  useful  machine,  which  entitlcn 
the  party  ma'-ing  it  to  a  patent;  but 
the  fact  of  li..viiig  made  an  improve. 
ment  on  an  old  machine,  does  not  ab- 
sorb tlie  original  machine,  nor  give  any 
right  to  the  use  of  it.  Cre/iore  v.  Kwtm^ 
MS.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  I85;j. 

1 7.  The  original  inventor  has  no  riglit 
to  use  the  improvement  without  the 
license  of  the  inventor ;  neither  has  the 
inventor  of  the  improvement  a  right  to 
use  the  original  machine.     Ibid. 

18.  An  improvement  on  a  combined 
machine  may  be  patentable ;  but  in  such 
a  case,  the  patentee  cannot  use  the  com- 
bined machine  without  a  license,  nor 
can  the  owner  of  such  machine  use  the 
imjtroveii^nt,  without  a  license.  PitU 
V.  Wemple,  0  McLean,  601. — McLean, 
J.;  111.,  1865. 

19.  Where  the  parts  of  acombina 
tion  have  been  invented,  whether  such 
invention  be  of  a  new  machine,  or  a 
combination  of  mechanical  powers,  it  is 
protected  in  its  distinctive  character. 
Ibid.y  662. 

20.  If  a  patentee  has  invented  only 


INFUINGEMENT,  A. 


•IT 


OP  oopTRiiiiiT;  WHAT  ooraTtTtmi. 


:iii  iriiprovornoiit  on  n  known  niiicliino, 
ho  I'iiniiot  treat  as  an  intViiij;tT  «»ni'  who 
Ims  iiin>niv«'<l  tlir  original  iiiacliiiic  liy 
ii>iiii<' a  (liiri'n'ht  Ibrin  or  combination, 
iKMloriiiiiiK  *''"  «''>ino  tunctioii.  JAc- 
Cormit'k  V.  Talcott,  20  Mow.,  40.^.— 
(iuiKK,  J.;  Slip.  Ct.,  ls.-)7. 

'jl.  'I'lie  iiivi'iitor  of  a  first  Iniprovf- 
iiii'iit,  caiiiioi  iiiV(»kt'  tlu'  doi-trim!  ofiin'' 
clKinii'aU'qiiivalents  t«)  suppri-ss  all  otli«'r 
inmrovonu'nts,  wliich  arc  not  niero  col- 
(iriiMo  invasions  of  tlio  first.  I/iid., 
105. 

•j2.  A  more  nddition  to  a  patented  in- 
vfiitioii,  will  not  justify  the  nso  of  the 
iiivi'iition  first  patented.  Coktnan  v. 
/jVw'/-,  MS.— Lkavht,  J.;  Ohio,  iKr.l). 

•J,').  An  iiiiprovenient  on  a  machine 
jjivcs  no  right  to  uho  the  original,  but 
lliu  use  of  such  original  machine  is  an 
infniigeiiient,  although  with  the  iin- 
|irovt'iiients,  the  ni.-xchnio  may  be  much 
more  useful  than  it  would  be  Avithout 
thorn.  Howe  v.  Morton^  13  Mo.  Law 
Hep. — Si'RAOUK,  J. ;  Mass.,  1800. 


INFRINGEMENT. 

A.  Or  CopYRioaT 357 

B.  Of  Patents 

1.  General  jirinciples  as  to 300 

2.  What  held  to  amount  to 365 

3.  What  held  not  to  amount  to 370 

4.  Actions  for,  and  Defences  in 373 

5.  Evidence  as  to,  and  by  whom  de- 

cided   373 

C.  Of  Tradk-Marks 373 

A,    Of  Copyright. 

1.  The  question  as  to  the  violation  of 
a  copyright  by  an  unlawful  sale  of  the 
books,  as  to  which  a  copyright  has  been 
secured,  is  not  aflTected  by  the  fact  that 
tuch  books  may  have  been  printed  by 


one  who  had  an  intcrent  in  nuoh  copy. 
right,  and  a  riglit  to  publish  and  hv\\ 
tluMii.  //iiifson  V.  Piittcn^  I  Hoot,  13.'J. 
— CiiiiAM  ;  Cf.,  I  Th(». 

12.  'I'lic  plaint  ilVf*  had  purchased  of  W. 
his  copyright  to  vend  and  sell  a  certain 
work  within  the  state  of  Cnimecticat ; 
(',  also  purchased  of  \\ .  i\  like  right  for 
New  York.  ('.  employed  plaiiitilfs,  who 
resided  in  C'onnecticut,  to  print  for  hitn 
a  number  of  copies,  which  tiiey  did,  and 
dt'livercd  in  New  York.  The  defendant 
bought  some  copies  from  C,  and  then 
brought  them  to  Hartford,  and  sold 
them.  7A/(/,  tluit  such  sale  was  against 
the  st.'itiite,  and  the  same  as  if  C.  had 
himself  printed  them.     //>*</.,  WW. 

;j.  This  suit  W!is  brought  under  a  copy- 
right law  of  the  state  of  Connecticut, 
passed  January  8,  17h;1,  and  similar  in 
its  provisions,  as  to  the  term  of  copy- 
right, to  the  act  of  Congress  of  1790. 
Such  act,  however,  gave  the  power,  in 
case  the  author  of  a  work  put  so  high 
a  price  upon  it  as  to  discourage  its  sale, 
to  the  Supremo  Court  of  the  state  to 
regulate  and  fi.K  the  price  at  which  the 
work  should  be  sold.     (Ed.) 

4.  The  intent  with  Avhich  a  work  is 
reprinted  caimot  be  taken  into  consid- 
eration ;  the  act  of  reprinting  is  prohib- 
ited by  the  statute.  Nichols  v.  Rugglea^ 
3  Day,  158.— Curiam;  Ct.,  1808. 

5.  Though  the  original  sources  of  in- 
Ibrmatioii  are  open  to  all,  subsequent 
parties  have  no  right  to  use  and  copy 
the  compilation  of  a  former  person. 
Where  a  person  has  made  original  sur- 
veys, and  prepared  a  more  perfect  map 
therefrom,  though  ho  cannot  supersede 
the  right  of  any  other  person  to  make 
similar  surveys,  no  one,  without  such 
surveys,  has  a  right  to  copy  the  map. 
Gray  v.  Russell^  1  Story,  18. — Stoey, 
J.;  Mass.,  1839. 


If; 

••$0-    r^|Hr,«M> 


'.■5-i 


r,„ 


Wf^l 


■H 


-..'.txii      ''^ 


''^•^f^'Lg^ 


is» 


lNKKl><iKMKNT,  A. 


or  GOrTMOIITi  WRAT  onvvnTVTxii. 


.  '*'v- 


rv, 


0.  If  in  of  ri')  (*onM«<i]itctu'i<,  iih  to  tlit>  ii«>WH|iri|)fr,  in   which    thi>  nuthor  |ia,| 

qiu<Nti«)ii  of  iiifriii^i'tiifiil,  in  what   form  hitnHolf  |inl)!i<«h«<(|  it,  nn<l  in  whicli  |«;|iH>r 

thf  woikn  of  tinotht'i*  nr«' MKid,  whfthii  iH'itln'r  lh«'   author  ni>r  any  other  Ii:i,| 

it  h«'  by  n  hiMiplj'   M'|»rint,  or  l»y  incoi  any  f«»pyri>,'lit,     Milhr  \.    )f''h'fi;,>i,  \ 

poralinj;  the  whoU<  or  ii  Iarj,'f  portion  Auht.  Law  Uc^.,  204,  2or».— iuickin 

tlivrcof  in  Nome  other  worlt.    Ihid,^  )9.  ho.v,  J.;  I'a.,  iHiiO. 

7.  Tlu'  inrorporatiifi  of  a  treatise  in  ^      I'.'.  To  coiiMtitnto  an  Invasion  ofcDpy. 


un  cncyi'IopH'ilia  \*  just  as  nnnh  a  pira- 
cy upon  a  fopyri;;hf  as  if  it  were  pul»- 
liHhcd  in  a  win^He  volnmc.     I  hid.,  li», 

H,  In  many  casiJH  of  violation  i if  copy- 
right, the  (pu'stioii  may  tinii  upon  tlu* 
p<*in(,  not  so  mncli  of  tlie  qnatitity,  aH 


riirht/ir  is  not  ntut'SMary  that  t|it>  h|,„!,, 
of  a  Work  shouhl  In*  <•  ipiml,  or  i.\,ii  n 
larj»o  portion  <tf  it,  in  form  nr  in  :,iii,. 
stance.  f^Anom  \ ,  Munt/iy  2  Story,  n,-,. 
— Stouy,  J, ;  IMass.,  IH4I. 

in.   If  HO  much  is  taken  that  tin)  valu, 


of  the  vuluti  of  tho  Htilucted  inateriulK.   of  the  original  In  neiiitihly  ditniniNhtil, 


J  hid.,  10. 

1).  In  many  cases  it  is  n  very  nice 
<lMcstion  what  iimounts  to  a  piracy,  ;i*  in 
a  review,  whether  the  extracts  are  de- 
Bij,'ne<l  hotiajldc  for  the  •  rpose  of  crit- 
ji'ism,  or  were  (lesi^ne<  (o  Mujiersede 
the  ori;{inal  work,  ni  lor  the  pretence 
of  a  review.     Ihi<l,,  JO. 

10.  The  author  of  an  edition  of  ft 
Latin  ;<;rammar  made  nUeratioris  niid 
mlditions  ill  tlie  work,  and  also  collect- 
ed and  [>rcpared  notes  to  it,  some  of 
■which  wtie  not  original;  8uch  notes 
were  copied  and  used  by  u  Ruhsecpient 
editor  of  the  same  work :  ITdd,  that  sn  \\ 
tise  was  an  infraction  of  tlic  copyri;.:ht 
as  to  the  notes,  wliicli  had  Im-cii  first 
collect!  d  together  and  arranged  by  the 
former  editor.     Ibid.,  21. 

11.  Tf  a  copyright  can  be  secured  for 
a  work  Avlien  the  aiihor  has  printed  it 
in  a  ni'WKpaper  before  lie  has  obtained 
a  copyright,  although  with  notice  that 
ho  had  secured  a  copyright;  query, 
whether,  under  siuh  circumstances,  one 
can  be  charged  with  nn  infringement 
upon  8uch  right  if  ho  has  in  fact  never 
Been  or  co]>icd  from  the  book  so  entered 
and  secured,  or  in  any  manner  used  it 
in  his  pu})licatitin,  but  lias  reprinted  tlie 
same  matter,  in  part  or  whole,  from  such 


or  the  labors  of  the  original  author  arc 
substantially,  t"  n  injurious  extent,  ai>- 
propriated,  that  is  siitiieient,  in  point  if 
law,  to  constitute  a  piracy.     Ihiil.^  n,-,. 

14.  The  entirety  of  the  <'opyright  ii 
the  property  of  tli  author,  and  it  is  no 
defence  that  another  has  nppi'ii|»riatcil  a 
part  nil  1  not  the  whi  i'  of  such  jiroiur- 
ty.     I  hid.,  110. 

15.  Nor  docs  it  necessarily  dopeml 
upon  till  (piantity  tal<en,  whether  it  i- 
aii  inlVingement  of  tin  copyright  or  iioi. 
It  isot'teii  aflcded  by  other  considera- 
tions, the  value  of  the  materials  taken, 
and  the  import;iiico  of  it  to  thu  sale  of 
the  original  work.     Ihid.,  1  ii), 

10.  Where  A  published  a  "Life  of 
Washington,"  in  two  volumes,  contain- 
ing 800  pages,  of  wliich  S.'J.T  were  copi- 
ed from  the  last  eleven  volunios  of 
"Sparks'  Life  .md  Writings  of  Wasli- 
ington,"  in  twelve  volumes,  04  papos 
being  officicd  letters,  and  2")5  being ;>W- 
V(tte  letters  of  Washington,  and  orii;!- 
nally  published  by  Sparks,  under  a  con- 
tract with  the  owners  of  (ho  ori<;iiia: 
papers  of  Washington,  Held,  that  tlio 
work  of  A  was  an  invasion  of  thccoj' 
right  of  Mr.  Sjjarks.  Ibid.,  103,  Id, 
108,  109,  118. 

17.  Inteutiou  cannot  be  takcu  into 


INFIUNUEMENT,  A. 


360 


or     itpfliniltYi    WHAT  OIWimTt;Ttai. 


ricw  ill  refiirvBoe  to  nn  IniViiif^vuioiit  «>(' 
a  eo|>yrij(lit ;  li'a  copyi  i'^lil  Um  Imh'II  iii- 
vfttlt'il,  wli«'tlior  the  piiri}  kiU'W  it  wii- 
(■(.|i)iiK'liti'«l  «»•'  1 11  it,  ho  in  liable  t«»  tin- 
ptiiully.  MiU'tt  V,  SiunoUiH,  1  NVtmt. 
Lrtw  .lour.,    -'40.— HiciTH,  J. ;    X-  V., 

\H.  Tlir  omission  of  a  word,  u  liiu-, 
or  |iimiKriHil»  in  lliu  book,  Jfco.,  piib- 
lisliiil  ill  violation  of  II  copyi'ijj;ht,  can- 
nut  cliuii};!*  it  no  uh  tu  avoid  the  statute. 
7/;|./., '-'40. 

19.  A  dofi-iidant  may  mIiow  thai  llio 
Wink  copyrij^htcd  was  not  orij^inal  with 
thu  ittitltnr,  or  liiat  it  wiin  nil  ublni'via- 
tiuii  or  alt«Talioii,  and  tlu;  jury  t-aii  do- 
toriiiiiio  wlii'tlicr  it  i.s  calciilali'd  to  in 
iVin^^e  the  coi>yright  or  not.  //'/•/., 
240. 

20.  It  in  not  Mnflh^li'iit,  to  conHtitiite  a 
iiiracy  of  a  copyrij^ht,  to  show  that  ono 
work  may  ha\o  In-t'ii  Hiiggestcd  by  an- 
..thor,  or  that  MOini!  parts  or  jiagi's  of  it 
have  rcsi'inblaiiceH,  either  in  metliod, 
di'tiiils,  or  illuHt  rations.  It  must  be  fur- 
tliLT  sliown  that  siu-h  rosi'mblancos  an* 
HO  cIdso,  full,  uniform,  and  striking,  as 
to  lead  to  thu  condiision  thai  tho  uno  is 
n  suhstuntial  copy  of  the  other,  or  main- 
ly borrowed  from  it.  i^meraon  v.  Da- 
vies,  u  story,  7B7. — Sioiiv,  J. ;  Mass., 
1845. 

iil.  A  copy  is  ouo  tiling,  an  imitation 
or  rcsetublaucc  is  anot  her.  Ibid.,  Y87, 
788. 

2'J.  lu  many  cises  it  is  a  very  nice 
f|msuoii,  what  degree  of  imitation  con- 
stitutes an  infringement  of  a  copyriglit 
ill  a  particular  wofk.     Tbid.,  788. 

23.  If  the  sim'litude  can  bo  supposed 
to  have  arisen  from  accident,  or  neces- 
sarily from  the  nature  of  the  subject,  the 
defendant  is  not  liable.     Ibid.,  791. 

M.  The  true  test  of  [dr.icy  or  not  is, 
wLeiher  the  defendant  bus  in  fact  used 


till)  plnintitrtt  wtirk,  with  cohiraltk 
all«>r  lionn  niid  vnriutiuii<t  only  to  diA> 
guiM'  the  use  lliereof;  or  whelhtT  III* 
work  ';»  the  result  of  his  <  ^n  labor, 
skill,  and  ui«>'  <f  eommou  materiiiU  and 
HcHireoN  of  knowledge  open  to  all.  lu 
other  words,  whutbor  the  defeiidaiit'i 
book  i<*,  ijiuxnt  /tor,  a  servile  or  evar^ive 
iiiiitatlon  (»f  thu  plaiiititrs  wi^rk,  ov  a 
bona  Jidt  ofiginal  compilation  from 
other  comm(»n  or  inde|iendcnt  sourcoii. 
[bid.,  7(t;i. 

'25.  Similarities  and  stiuH'  usoof  ])rior 
wcnks,  even  to  copying  of  small  parts, 
■.\ro  tolerated  ui  v>niu  kinds  of  books, 
as  dictionaries,  ga/t.>ttuerH,  grammais, 
maps,  arithmutics,  almanacs,  cyclopio- 
tlias,  itineraries,  guide-books,  and  imi- 
lar  publications,  if  the  main  design  and 
execution  are  in  reality  novel  and  im- 
pri>\  ed,  and  not  a  inen^  cover  for  import* 
.nut  piracies  from  others,  Webhw  Pow- 
ers, 2  Wood,  it  Mill.,  512. — Wuouutuv, 
J.  ;  Mass.,  1H47. 

JO.  Where  two  Itooks  >vero  Home- 
wh;if  similar  in  design  and  exeeuticm, 
and  tlu  line  was  to  :  oino  extent  copied 
from  the  first,  but  was  smalhi  and 
chciiper,  and  in  many  respects  of  a  dif- 
ferent arrangement, ////</,  that  the  lead- 
ing iiKjuiry  was,  w  lielher  tho  book  of 
tho  defendant,  taken  as  a  whole,  was 
substantially  a  copy  of  the  plaintiiFs ; 
whether  it  had  virtually  the  same  plan 
and  character  tlii(»ughoii»,  and  was  in- 
tended to  8U|  ersedo  the  other  in  the 
market,  with  tho  same  class  of  readers 
and  purchasers,  by  introducing  no  cou- 
si<lerulile  new  matter,  or  little  or  nothing 
new  except  colorable  deviations.  Ibid., 
514,  515. 

27.  When  tho  m.iin  design  in  the  de- 
fendant's book  is  difTorent  in  imjiortaiit 
respects  from  that  of  the  plaintiff's,  and 
in  bevernl  things  varying  iu  material 


4 


,t0'.iJf 


i«  k'Umt^wwuwUW 


, ,  5(^'' 


■p- 


'"^^m^. 


?•'» 


aoo 


IM'KMNMKMKV'P,  n.  I. 


I>r  rAIHNf;    ilKMKIIAI.   I'MNCII'tM    \H  Til, 


ft 


ilrtnilt  with  n  vl«*w  tn  iiinkc  it  U'**  vx 
pt'iiMvc  iiimI  |i)  i'iroiliilr  Ktiioii^  mlilli'i'- 
«*iit  I'likM  of  riniilfrM,  rat  tier  tliitii  Ih*  u 
Hiil)Mtiiiii«>  witli  till*  p*tiiiu<  I'liiNM,  it  will 
It"  III)  itilViii^i'iiifiil  1)11  till*  ('o|)\ri^til  of 
till'  pluiiilitVi.     //</(/.,  .'ilH,  .'»n». 

'2H,  W  ilii<  loiiiliii^  ilt'Mi^ii  iM  truly  t«i 
iiltriil^i*  a  work  iiml  i'lii'!i|ti<n  tin*  prii'(>, 
iiiul  tliiit  liy  itii'iilal  i:ilM>f  \h  ruitlirully 
iltiiit',  il  Im  no  ^rri)iiiii|  for  a  |ii'om'fiiliiiii 
hy  lliii  owiii-r  of  a  i'o|tyiij,'lil  ol"  tlii' 
|it-iiici|>.'il  work.  Hut  il  if  otlii>rwi<«(<  it' 
tlu*  iilirii|<;iiu'iil  or  Niinilar  work  lie  i>ol 
<)ial)li',  or  a  tiuTt'  Htii)Htitiit*>.  /AAA, 
•VJO. 

'JO.  Till'  iiiti'iit  not  to  ill*  ffiiilly  of 
|iinu'y  U  not  material,  il'iniicli  IniN  Ih'cm 
iictiialty  ciiiiittl  aihl  tlu*  ik  w  work  is  a 
nuM'i*  Niil)sruiili>.  i'liit  if  litis  li«>  doiiht- 
i'lil,  till'  iiitfiit  Mot  to  |illl'cr  li-oiii  anollirr, 
coNtraltlv  or  otli«>rwiMi>,  for  tin*  HiiliHtati- 
tial  pariK  ot'  lln'  new  work,  may  lie  iin- 
l.ortaiit.     /A/W.,  :)JI. 

:»().  Till'  inrriiijittin'iit  of  a  copyrij^lil 
iIooH  not  ilcpcihl  so  iiiiicli  ii|Hin  till' 
Ii'ii2:t!i  of  till'  I'xlrarts  as  ii|toii  tlu'ir 
value.  >SVo/*y'/i  /•,>/•.>*.  v.  Ifolfomhc, 
4  M.Li'aii,   :iOU.— .Mt  LicAN,  J.;    Ohio, 

.'11.  Till'  intiMitioii  with  whii-h  ex- 
tracts from  a  work  an-  math-,  has  no 
hi-ariiif;  upon  tlic  (picstioii  of  violation. 
Till'  impiiiy  is,  wlial  rlU'ct  must  tlii)  ex- 
tracts have  upon  tlie  original  work.  If 
they  render  it  less  valiialilu  by  super- 
setliii;^  its  use  in  any  (h'L,M-i'e,  the  right 
of  tlie  author  is  infringeil ;  ami  it  eaii 
be  of  no  iinportaiiee  to  know  with  what 
intent  this  was  «lone.     //>/<A,  ;<!(). 

;»'J.  A  liook  may  in  one  part  of  it  iii- 
friiiLTo  the  copyright  of  anotlier  book, 
and  in  other  parts  be  no  infringement ; 
in  such  n  case,  the  remedy  will  not  be 
extended  beyuiid  the  injury.  Ibid., 
315. 


ri:i.  In  <pii'iitloMii  of  lnlVlMj,'i'im'iii  t.f' 
I'opyriglil,  the  iinjiiiry  is  not,  wluilur 
the  defendant  hiiN  UMt>d  tlio  tli<)ii^|||« 
t'oueeplioiiM,  inforiMiition,  or  dineovMr. 
i<M  proiiiiilgale<l  by  the  original,  hm 
tvlit'ther  his  conipor.itioii  may  he  int,. 
siileri'd  II  inin  irttrk  nqiiiring  iiiMinion 
learning  and  Jiidgiiieiit,  or  only  a  mcri) 
IninHcript  of  the  whole  or  partN  of  tin, 
t)riginal,  with  imrely  eoloralile  vaiin. 
tioiis.  Stiiwf  V.  T/inttum,  'i  ,\iin'r.  I.my 
Keg.,  '."JO.— (lliiKli,  J.;  I'll.,  iHft.l. 

:U.  The  abritlgii  lit  of  a  work,  for 
wliieli  a  copyright  I  as  been  sreiiied,  ainl 
w  liieli  has  iircii  piibliely  iir»'iilalct|,  j^ 
IK  t  an  infringement  of  the  Htaliitorv 
privilege;  but  siu-h  an  abr  dgiiifiit  woiiM 
violate  the  right  of  llif  literary  proprie- 
tor of  a  book  of  which  the  circiilatiuii 
had  been  private  only.  Jurne  v.  Whtiit 
III/,  t)  .\mer.  Law  Ueg.,  82.— C',\iiWAL. 
i.ADKu,  .1. ;  I'a.,  1800. 

Bi  Ok  pATK.rm. 

1.   General  }>ri/ic!j>len  aa  to. 

See  also  Aci        <,  II.;  iNvicvrioN,  E. 

1.  The  general  law  deelari's  that  tlio 
ligli*.  to  a  patent  belongs  to  him  who  is 
till  -st  inventor,  even  before  a  pMlcnt 
is  giantctl;  therefore,  any  per>oii,  wlio, 
knowing  that  another  is  the  first  invent- 
or, yet  doubting  whether  that  person 
will  ever  apply  for  a  patent,  piocccilH 
to  construct  a  mnchine  so  invi'iilcil  liy 
another,  .nets  at  his  peril,  and  with  the 
full  knowledge  of  the  law,  that  a  suliso- 
quent  patent  may  cut  him  out  of  tlio 
use  of  the  machine  thus  erected;  a 
priori,  where  the  party  constructing 
knew  that  the  inventor  had  obtained  a 
patent,  though  afterw.ard  declared  ir 
valid,  but  under  a  subsequent  act  ; 


i:;^! 


*•  m\. 


I\I'UIN<JKMKNT,  n.  1. 


noi 


or  rATMT.    aMIOUL  FMiomM  M  to. 


('itti|(r«'i4H  n  Miliil  |)iili<nl  wrk  Mcciircil. 
Uritn*  V,  U  #■//•<«,-»  Wii»h.,  .'UA. — \V.\»«ll- 
,^„roN,  J.;  I'u.,  IH0». 

'.'.  'I'll'  coikHtitiilo  (III  iiiriiii^t'iiifiit,  tlic 
tn.'ikin;;  iiiiiHt  ho  willi  iiii  iiit*'iit  to  in- 
friiif;*!  tili«>  t>  >t*'i>l  ri'^lit,  iiikI  il<'|)riv«*  tli*' 
dVUH'i'  of  iIh'  liiwfiil  rrw.'inh  of  Itin  tils- 
ciivi'iv.     tSiiwin   V.  (iiiUily  I    <iii|l.,  IS7, 

-  SiMKY,  J.;  MtiNM.,  INia. 

0.  In  »n  action  for  an  inlVinumnMil 
\h(c,  tii'Nl  <|ni'Hii<in  for  I'lmHiiliiiitiMn  i:^, 
itlii'lluT  till'  niiirliint"*  nNi'ij  liy  Ihr  <li'- 
r.Miiiiiit  in'«»  Hulisliuiliiillv,  in  tfnir prin- 
riii/it  iiikI  tHoili-  of  oftfrnfinn^  liko  tlio 
|i|:iiiitiir<f.  It' so  it  is  an  inrrin^cnicnt  to 
u«i'  iliein.  ()di<>rne\.  WinAit  i/,'d  <Jall., 
,);i,  j."(.    Sionv,  J.;  M.'Hs,,  |h||. 

1.  yivrvi  <Milnral»i»»  (lilVfrrricfH,  tw  mii^lil 
liiiproviMnrntM,  <>iiini<it  nliako  tint  ri^lit 
(if  m  «>fii,'iii:il  inventor,  or  proti'ft  an  in- 
tVinf^rr.     Ihtd.,  ty\, 

6.  It  in  not  tlu^  duty  of  tlm  nttoriH<y- 
^'I'lieral,  us  the  'aw  ailvis«'r  of  tin-  (>oni- 
tiiiKsiiiiiiT  of  I'alcnls,  oroftlio  Scrn'laiy 
of  Stale  (now  Iiilriior)  to  (Iclt'rinini' 
\vli;it  ri;4lits  ai-«i  conffiTt'd  l»y  pati-nts 
j,'niiitt'tl,  or  wliat  will  amount  to  a  vio- 
lation of  those  ri^^ht^  "lifsc  an'  <|uon- 
tJDiiH  to  lio  srfth'il  ^  the  courts  anil 
jiiii  H.  Xui/rnr'n  tjiine,  I  Opin.,  570. — 
WiKT,  Alty.  (Jun. ;  iwi'i. 

0.  Whoever  oreets  or  uscwa  |tatcntc(l 
iimcliitu',  (Iocs  it  at  his  pffil.  He  takes 
ii|MiM  hinisrif  all  the  chancH'S  of  the 
]iiitt'iit  heiiii;  ori<xinally  valid  ;  or  beinj; 
:ittt'r\vai<l  iinidc  ho  by  a  surrender  and 
the  i,'iiuit  of  u  new  one.  Ames  v.  Jfow- 
nnl,  I  Siiinn.,  488. — Stouy,  J.;  MawH., 
im. 

V.  The  maker  and  seller  of  u  patented 
article  intended  l»y  the  act  (17l):J,  §  5) 
is  the  j)riiieipal,  the  person  for  whom, 
liy  whose  direction,  and  on  whoso  ac- 
iiMiiit  the  articles  are  made  and  sold — 
the  person  who  receives  the  profitH  of 


ihi'  kdie.     TliP  Workmen  empht^ed  )»y 
him  for  xtipnlated  wa^e<i  have  nothin){ 
to   do  wilii  his  rij^hlM,  rtr   with  hif«  in-i 
vu.»ion  of  the  ri;{hl  of  aiiothrr.     Ihtiino 

V.   tSr'o//,  <ti|pill,    'tOH.       llofKINHOM,    J,; 

I 'a.,  iN.-tl. 

H.  'I'he  ri^ht  neciired  to  tlie  inventor 
iri  liMitided  on  cotiHiilrrationH  of  pnlijici 
policy,  and  iM  not  to  hu  dextroved  hy 
open  infraction,  or  mere  enlot..  -w  iiii- 
provements.  Sniifh  V.  /V(i;v/',  '2  Mc- 
Lean, I7h.     .M<Lkan,.I.;  Ohio,  IhIO. 

It.  It  is  not  necessary  that  two  ihin^H 
whonhl  lie  identical  in  order  to  nntkn  one 
an  infrin;^eiiicMl  of  the  other.  The  tnio 
i|iu'Stion  is,  aie  they  Nuhslantially  the 
same,  thonjrh  not  in  every  minnte  par- 
licnlar.  Alihn  v.  Ih.witj^  I  ,St(»ry,  M.'IO. 
^Sioitv, .!.;  Mass.,  lH|o. 

10.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement, 
it  is  no  ^r<nm<l  for  a  rei-overy  that  the 
proccMH  used  hy  tiii!  defendant  is  not  ho 
^'ood  as  that  |)ntetite<l  to  the  plaintitV. 
The  ipiestion  is,  not  which  is  hest  or 
most  pert'cet  ;  liiit  whether  the  one  mode 
or  eomhinalion  is  an  infringement  of 
I  he  rif^htH  M<'cnn'cl  l)y  the  other  mode 
(M*  coinliination.  lloxnc  v.  A/>f»)tt,  U 
Story,  11)4.— Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1H4'2. 

11.  A  mere  colorahle  or  sli^^ht  alter- 
ation of  a  ma(;hine,  or  a  change  in  itd 
proportionH,  gives  no  groimd  for  a  pat- 
ent, nor  can  it  slu'lter  from  the  conse- 
(piences  of  at>  infringement.  The  i.i- 
(piiry  always  is,  whether  the  principle 
of  the  two  ma(;hines  is  th(!  same. 
lii'ooks  V.  liiikmll,  '.\  McLean,  202.— 
MoLdan,  J.;  Ohio,  1843. 

12.  Where  witnesses  differ  as  to  tho 
fact  of  infringement,  the  (piostion  shoiihl 
he  Htibmitted  to  ft  jury,  either  by  an 
action  at  law,  or  an  issue  directed  by 
the  court.     Ibid.,  202. 

13.  If  the  defendant  cotistrnct  and 
use  a  machine  before  the  pliiintiflf  ob- 


(#' 


I 


i«^W< 


n^.*'^! 


^>«.^UU^ 


,.    H'Vj 


■■m\ 


<m\ 


;Mji^( 


•^M*-- 

^^k^. 


'7< ) 


■•v*'v^ 


iW: 


^'W 


E!>.. 


Wt'^' 


ki.  I 


»-^^, 


^cm.^ 


j^h. 


302 


INFRINGEMENT,  B.  1. 


or  I'ArEyr.    qkneual  pkincihi.ks  as  to. 


!1   t 


tixin  liis  patent,  such  construction  or  use 
will  not  be  protect ed,  if  tlie  niacliine 
was  copied  llfoni  that  of  the  }il.iintiir, 
unless  he  cn'scutecl  to  such  construction 
or  use.  llov(\)  V.  Stevens,  1  "Wood,  tt 
Wu).,  ;i01 . — WooDiiiUY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1 8 10. 

14.  The  (piestion  of  inlVingement  is 
one  irrespective  of  motive.  The  «lc- 
fendanf  may  have  infriniifed  without  in- 
tendinix,  uv  even  knowing  it  ;  hut  he  is 
not  on  that  account  the  less  tiie  infringi'r. 
J'arkir  v.  J/nlnn',  1  "West.  Law  Jour., 
420. — Kani:,  .1.  ;  Pa.,  1849. 

I,').  If  a  machine,  constructed  as  de- 
pcribed  in  the  patent,  will  accomplish 
the  end  practically  and  usefully  in  the 
■\vay  pointed  out,  the  inventor  is  entitled 
to  the  ])r(itection  gr.antcd  hy  the  gov- 
ernment, and  any  one  using  the  principle 
thus  embodied  is  guilty  of  an  infringe- 
ment, however  he  nuiy  have  perfected 
the  machine  by  superior  skill  in  the  me- 
chanical arrangement  and  construction 
of  the  parts.  J\irkhurst  v.  Kinsman,  1 
Blatchf.,497.— Nelsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

16.  The  inipiiry  as  to  infringement  is 
whetlier  the  defendant  has  appropriated 
to  his  own  use  and  for  Iiis  own  beneiit 
the  machine  constructed  and  put  in  op- 
eration, or  the  thing  invented  by  the 
patentees.  This  question  is  to  be  de- 
termined by  reference  to  what  was  in 
existence  at  the  time  of  the  invention 
by  the  patentees.  Wilbur  v.  Beecher,  2 
Blatchf.,  139.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

17.  As  to  the  (picstion  of  infringe- 
ment the  inquiry  is,  whether  the  de- 
fendants' machine  involves  some  new 
idea  in  its  construction  not  to  be  found 
in  the  plaintiff's,  or  whether  the  plan 
used  by  the  defendants  is  in  substance 
the  same  as  the  plaintiff's,  the  differen- 
ces introduced  being  merely  differences 
in  things  not  material  or  important ;  in 
other  words,  whether  the  defendants' 


plan  is  in  substance  and  effect  a  ci)l(ir. 
able  evasioM  of  the  ))laintiff's  rij,'lits  ur 
is  new  and  hubstantially  a  dirt'ereiu 
thing.  McCiyrmick  v.  Scynivur,  •: 
r.Iatchf.,  245,  240.— -Nelson,  J.;  x' 
Y.,  1851. 

1 8.  If  the  defendants  liave  taken  the 
same  i)lan  and  applied  it  to  the  same 
purjiose,  it  is  in  substance  the  same  tliiiiL' 
although  they  may  have  varied  Uic 
mode  of  construction.  It  is  then  only 
a  mechanical  ecpiivalent,  which,  however 
meritorious  and  creditable  to  the  me- 
chanic, is  not  invention.     //>/(/.,  248. 

19.  In  examining  a  machine  to  ascer- 
tain whether  or  not  it  is  an  inlVingenienl 
of  another,  the  similarity  or  dissiniiluri- 
ty  of  ihc  mechanical  constructii)ii  isiua 
necessarily  conclusive  or  connullitia, 
The  structure  may  be  very  similar,  hut 
the  i>rincii)le,  operation,  and  result,  be 
very  dirt'erent ;  or  the  structure  and  np- 
pearance  may  be  very  differ"nt,  and  yti 
the  principle  be  iu  reality  the  .same, 
Blanchard  v.  Beers,  2  Blatchf.,  410, 
418.— Nelson,  J. ;  Ct.,  1852. 

20.  No  person  can  appropriate  llio 
benefit  of  the  new  ideas  Avhich  another 
has  originated  and  put  into  practical 
use,  because  he  may  have  been  enablotl, 
by  sui^crior  mechanical  skill,  to  enihody 
them  in  a  form  diff«'rent  in  appearance, 
or  different  in  reality.  Although  he 
may  not  have  preserved  the  exterior 
appearance  of  the  previous  machine,  he 
may  have  appropriated  the  ideas  which 
give  to  it  all  its  value.     Ibid.,  418. 

21.  Whenever  a  defendant  sets  u}) 
that  he  has  substantially  departed  from 
an  existing  machine,  so  as  to  avoid 
the  consequence  of  an  infringement,  he 
must  show  that  his  departure  has  been 
sucli  as  involves  invention,  and  not  mere 
mechanical  skill.  There  nmst  be  miml 
and  inventive  genius  involved  iu  it,  and 


'r*t 


INFKINdEMENT,  IJ.  1. 


803 


or   I'ATKNT.      OKNKRAL  ri(l.NCIl>I.l!:8   A8  TO. 


not  the   mere   skill   of  the    workman. 
Jbid.,  J 20. 

U'J.  Ih  cxamiiiiiifif  questions  of  iden- 
tity :ii»'l  infringement,  it  ia  to  bo  first 
ascertiiinecl  wherein  consists  the  sub- 
ptantial  peculiarity  which  distinguishes 
the  art  or  invention  patented.  Who- 
ever adopts  or  appropriates  such  dis- 
tinctive jteculiarity  or  principle  without 
license  of  the  patentee,  ai)propriates  the 
invention,  and  infrinujes  the  j)atent,  if 
the  speeilication  l)e  correctly  «lra\vn. 
Goodyi'itr  v.  Day,  MlL    -(.Juiku,  J. ;  N. 

J.,  IHJii. 

2;t.  It  is  no  juntiiication  of  the  in- 
fihij;o"ient  of  a  renewed  patent,  that 
the  infringer  had  stolen  and  used  the 
invention  Avith  impunity  before  the  i)at- 
ent  was  amended.  §  7  of  the  act  of 
1839,  gives  no  j)rotection  to  those  who 
may  have  seized  upon  an  invention  or 
discovery  disclosed  in  a  i)atont,  whose 
Bpecilieation  may  happen  to  be  defect- 
ive or  insiiflicient.     Ihid. 

24.  On  a  bill  tiled  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent,  and  for  an  injunction,  if  the 
defendants  refuse  to  allow  the  plaintiffs 
to  examine  the  machines  used  by  them, 
the  court  will  ori^cr  the  defendants  to 
run  such  macliiiu"*  in  the  presence  of 
some  expert,  and  that  the  ex])ert  be  al- 
lowed to  bring  into  court  specimens  of 
the  work  jtroduced  by  such  machines. 
Sloat  v.  Patten,  24  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  3d 
Scr.,  2;].— Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1852. 

25.  No  person  can  take  the  benefit 
of  a  patentee's  discovery  for  the  pro- 
duction of  a  new  manufacture,  and  by 
varying  or  improving  the  mode  or  pro- 
cess of  its  production,  rob  the  patentee 
of  bis  franchise.  Goodyear  v.  27ie  Rail- 
roads, 2  Wall.,  Jr.,  361.— Griek,  J. ;  N. 
J.,  185;$. 

2G.  AVhether  the  defendant  lias  con- 
Btructed,  used,  or  sold  the  thing  pat- 


ented to  tlu!  plaintitVs,  is  a  question  of 
fact  for  the  Jury.  Winaitt*  v.  Denmead, 
ir>  How.,  :k<8. — CuitTis,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
IS.')  3. 

27.  It  is  a  familiar  rule  that  to  copy 
the  principle  or  mode  of  operation  de- 
scrilied  in  a  patent,  is  an  infringement, 
.'dl hough  such  cojiy  shoidd  be  totally 
unlike  the  original  hi  form  or  propor- 
tions.    Ihid.,  312. 

28.  A  (pu'stion  of  infringement  is  one 
of  fact,  which  it  is  the  province  of  a 
jury  to  decide.  liich  v.  Jjippincott, 
20  .Tour.  Kr.  Inst.,  3d  Ser.,  14. — (iitiKU, 
J.;  I'a.,  18.53. 

2!).  The  substitution  and  use  of  one 
power,  us  electricity,  in  the  place  of  an- 
other, as  hand  power,  docs  not  make 
the  m.'U'hine  ditteront,  or  |»revent  its 
being  an  infringement.  Cr<hore  v.  Nor- 
ton, MS.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1853. 

30.  If  a  defendant,  for  a  good  consid- 
er.ation,  covenants  not  to  infringe  a  pat- 
ent, he  will  be  enjoined,  by  a  court  of 
e(piity,  fro  .i  further  infringing,  uidess 
he  shows  some  equitable  reason  why 
the  pcribrmance  of  sucli  agreement 
sliould  not  be  enforced.  Sargoit  v. 
Lamed,  ^2  Curt.,  344. — CuiiTis,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1855. 

31.  The  question  of  infringement  has 
reference  to  what  the  patentee  has 
('lairned  in  his  patent,  and  not  to  what 
he  mUjIit  have  claimed,  if  his  specifica- 
tion liad  been  more  skilfully  prepared. 
Sickles  V.  Gloit.  Manvf.  Co.,  MS. — 
Gkiek,  J.;  N.  J.,  1856. 

32.  As  to  the  question  of  infringe 
ment,  it  is  a  standing  principle  of  law, 
that  every  person  is  entitled  to  the  free 
use  of  whatever  was  known  and  used 
prior  to  the  patent  which  attempts  to 
appropriate  it  as  a  new  discovery  :  and 
it  is  unimportant  whether  the  character 
and  capacities  of  machinery   open   to 


■'»**'w;^i4fc4te»i|J 


i'^',;itii(Sf 


1  LXLiia 


y,V' 


\k..^ 


-->. 

r^., 


■i    I 


L*-  I . 


"'t'- 


' «»" 


^P- 


'*»ii 


^SC?i>> 


304 


infiiixgemp:xt,  b.  i. 


OF   PATENT.      (IKXEKAI.   PIIINCIPLES   AH  TO 


gc'iioral  use  are  uiKlerstootl  or  not  by  tlie 
publio  at  lar^fo,  or  had  been  used  by 
many ;  it  is  suttleient  to  show  the  public 
liad  free  means  of  access  to  it,  and  to 
employ  it,  and  the  law  then  presumes 
it  was  well  known  and  in  public  use. 
Smith  V.  IligginSy  MS. — Jiiorrs,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  \mi. 

2'A.  If  the  thing  used  by  a  defend- 
ant corresponds  substantially  with  that 
known  and  in  use  before  the  discovery 
of  the  patentee,  or  described  in  printed 
Avorks,  then  his  acts  are  no  infringement 
of  any  right  of  a  patentee ;  and  if  the 
thing  used  liy  the  defendants  and  lliat 
patented  to  the  plaintiff,  are  sub;  t'n- 
tially  alike,  the  question  of  infringement 
will  still  depend  tipon  tlie  further  in- 
quiry whether  the  patentee  was  the  first 
and  origin-il  discoverer  of  the  patented 
invention.     Ibid. 

34.  If  the  patentee  be  an  original  in- 
ventor of  a  machine  or  th'Uf- ;,  no  has  the 
ritrhf  to  treat  as  iiilrincrers  all  who  make 
a  like  invention,  operati;-  ,  on  the  same 
l)rinciples,  and  performing  the  same 
ftmctions  by  analogous  means  or  equiv- 
alent combinations,  ';ven  though  the  in- 
fringing machine  may  be  an  improve- 
ment on  the  o/iginal  .aid  patented  one. 
JfcConnick  v.  Talcotf,  20  How.,  405.— 
GiiiKR,  J.;  Sni).  Ct.,  1857. 

35.  But  if  his  invention  be  but  an 
improvement  on  a  known  machine,  he 
cannot  treat  another  as  an  infringer  Avho 
lias  improved  the  original  macliine  by 
using  a  diflferent  form  or  combination, 
performing  the  same  function.  Tlie  in- 
ventor of  a  first  improvement  cannot 
invoke  the  doctrine  of  mechanical  cquiv- 
.alents  to  suppress  all  other  improve- 
ments which  are  not  mere  colorable  in- 
vasions.    Ibid.,  405. 

30.  The  question  of  infringement  is 
one  for  the  jury.     The   true  point  is, 


have  the  defendants  used  (he  invention 
of  the  plaiiitiif,  or  something  siil)st!iii- 
tially  like  it?  Do  the  two  structiU'es  opir. 
ate  ui»on  the  same  principle  ?  Are  thev 
substantially  the  same  ?  Hell  v.  l),i/c 
iels,  MS. — Lkavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1858. 

37.  An  unpatented  invention  is  not 
property,  nor  the  subject  of  exclusive 
ownership,  but  is  free  to  the  use  of  all 
persons,  in  whatever  way  they  may 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  it.  Shrceve  v. 
Utiited  /StaieSf  MS. — Loiung,  J.;  Ct. 
Claims,  1859. 

38.  In  determining  questions  of  in- 
friiigement,  the  jury  are  not  to  judgu 
about  t*iniilarities  or  difiereiic  's  by  the 
names  of  things ;  but  are  to  look  to  the 
machines,  or  their  several  devices  or 
elements,  in  tiie  light  of  what  they  do, 
or  what  office  or  function  they  porilniii, 
and  liow  they  perform  it ;  and  to  fiml 
that  a  thing  is  substantially  the  same 
as  another,  if  it  perform  substantially 
the  same  function  or  office,  in  the  same 
way,  to  attain  the  same  result  ;  and  that 
things  are  substantially  diffiirent  when 
they  j>erform  different  duties,  or  in  a 
dilferent  Avay,  or  produce  a  different  re- 
sult. Cahoon  v.  liing,  MS. — Cliffoed, 
J.;  Me.,  1859. 

39.  For  the  same  reason,  they  are  not 
to  judg(  about  similarities  or  differ- 
ences merely  because  things  .are  appar- 
ently the  same,  or  a  different  shape  or 
form  ;  but  the  true  test  of  similarity  or 
difference  is  the  same  in  regard  to  sli.ape 
or  form  as  in  regard  to  names ;  in  both 
cases  they  are  to  look  at  the  mode  of 
operation,  or  the  way  the  parts  work, 
and  at  the  result  as  well  as  the  means 
by  which  the  result  is  attained.    Ibid. 

40.  Tlie  question  of  infringement  of 
a  patent  is  exclusively  a  question  for 
the  jury.  Judsony.  Cc>/;c,  MS. — Lkav- 
itt J.;  Ohio,  1800. 


!!»'■ 


'f!;.,. 


'^^StU, 


INFKINGEMENT,  B.  2. 


.165 


■wC, 


OF  PATENT.      WHAT  UAB  BEKK   IIKI.I)  TO  AMOUNT  TO. 


2.  What  has  been  held  to  amount  to. 

See  also  CoMniNAiiox,  I?. ;  CoJiro- 
8ITI0N  uF  Matiku,  C. ;  Dksiuv. 

1.  The  mmrf  of  a  tiling  invented  by 
aniitlicr,  !UhI  secured  by  patent,  is  an 
dilViict.',  and  it  m.-ikcs  no  dilU'rcncc  that 
the  tl.ini?  or  nmchino  was  made  or  orcct- 
iiil  prior  to  the  issuing  of  the  ])atent. 
Evan»\.  Weiss,  2  Wash.,;i44,— Wasii- 
LVUTON,  J.;  Pa.,  1800. 

2.  The  making  ot*  a  machine  fit  for 
use,  and  with  a  design  to  use  it  for  prof- 
it, is  an  infringement  of  a  patent-right, 
for  which  an  action  Avill  lie,  even  if  there 
is  no  user  iind  no  actual  dam.ige.  Whit- 
temore  \.  Cutter,  1  Gall,  432,  433.— Sro- 
uy,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

3.  Thougli  as  a  general  rule  a  p.itont 
covers  only  the  improvement  i)rccisely 
described,  and  is  not  violated  unless  the 
dcfcnilant  make  use  of  the  precise  thing 
(It'scribcil  in  the  patent,  yet  if  the  imi- 
tation be  so  nearly  exact  as  to  satisfy 
tilt'  jury  (hat  the  imitator  attempted  to 
copy  the  model,  and  to  make  some  al- 
most imperceptible  variation,  for  the 
imrjiosc  of  evading  the  right  of  the  pat- 
entee, this  will  be  considered  a  fraiid 
upon  the  law,  and  such  sligh'  variation 
be  disregarded.  Davis  v.  Palmer,  2 
Brock.,  309. — Marshall,  Ch.  J. ;  Ya., 
1827. 

4.  If  the  machine  used  by  the  de- 
fendants, in  its  structure  and  operation, 
is  substantially  the  same  with  the  plain- 
tiff's invention  as  patented,  though  dif- 
ferent somewhat  in  form  and  arrange- 
ment, it  is  an  infringement  of  his  patent. 
Wyeth  v.  Intone,  1  Story,  280. — Story, 
J. ;  Mass.,  1840. 

5.  And  where  a  patent  embraces  di- 
vers distinct  and  independent  inventions 


or  machines,  but  each  auxiliary  or  con- 
ducive to  the  accomplislnncnt  of  the 
same  conunon  or  general  end,  if  one  of 
such  invcniions  or  miu'Iiines  is  wrimg- 
fu!iyused,it  is  a  violation  of  the  patent. 
Ihiil,  291,  202. 

(J.  .Making,  using,  or  selling  a  patent- 
ed niaehinc,  is  an  infringement .  Jlrcoka 
v.  lUcknell,  3  McLean,  202.— McLkan, 
J.;  Ohio,  1843. 

7.  No  prior  use  of  a  defective  patent 
can  authorize  the  use  of  the  invention 
after  the  emanation  of  an  amended  pat- 
ent, mider  §  3  of  the  act  of  1832,  or  g 
13  of  the  act  of  1830,  which  made  no 
materi.'d  change  in  the  law.  Sfi»ij>son 
v.  West  Ches.  It.  R.  Co.,  4  How.,  40 J— 
McLean,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

8.  Any  person  iisuig  an  invention 
protected  b}  a  renewed  patent,  subse- 
(\\nn\t  to  the  date  of  the  .'ict  of  1830 
(July  4),  is  guilty  of  an  hifrhigement, 
however  long  he  may  have  used  the 
same  after  the  date  of  the  defective  and 
surrendered  patent.     Ibid.,40d. 

9.  It  is  an  infringement  of  a  patent- 
right  to  make  the  thing  patented,  even 
though  the  j)erson  actnally  making  was 
employed  by  others  to  do  the  work. 
Jiryce  v.  Bair,  3  McLean,  583. — Mc- 
Lean, J.;  Mich.,  1845. 

10.  "Where  a  patent  embraces  several 
machines,  the  Avrongful  use  of  either 
separate  machine  is  a  violation  of  the 
patent,  pro  tanto.  Emerson  v.  Hogg, 
2  Blatehf.,  8.— Betts,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

11.  If  a  machine,  as  made  by  a  de- 
fendant, was  not  an  infraction  of  the 
plaintiff's  patent,  the  alteration  of  it  by 
a  third  party  Avill  not  make  the  defend- 
ant liable.  But  if  the  machine  as  made 
by  the  defendant  was  intended  by  hira 
to  operate  in  such  a  way  as  to  violate 
the  plaintiff's  patent,  and  has  in  fact  so 
operated,  he  is  guilty  of  an  infringement, 


"^C 


'  -i:^'^a 


■*»^t 


>i.  I 


^  ! 


866 


lNKI{I\(iKMKNT,  B.  2. 


or  I'ATicsT.    wiur  has  dkk.v  iikld  to  auoum'  to. 


iiotwitlistaniliii;^  iho  iii^'iiuity  willi 
Avliii'li  111'  may  liavc  Hoii^ht  to  (list^iiisc 
his  wruii^.  Kiiiij/it  v.  G'nrit,  Mir.  I'at. 
Oft'.,  l;)3.— Kank,  J. ;  I'a.,  IHiii. 

12.  To  iiifriiif^o  a  patcnt-rij^ht,  it  is 
liot  lU'Ci'ssary  tliat  the  tiling  patciitcd 
bIiokM  be  acUnili'tl  in  every  particMilar; 
if  the  patent  is  adopted  substantially 
by  the  defendants,  they  are  guilty  of  an 
infringement.  Jioot  v.  Jlall,  4  MeLean, 
IHO.— JNIcLkan,  J. ;  Ohio,   1H4(5. 

13.  If  a  defendant  lias  arranged  his 
maehinery  on  the  «ame  prineiple  as 
claimed  by  the  plaintitf,  he  is  guilty  of 
infringement.  It  is  not  essential  that 
it  shoidd  be  exactly  similar  in  form,  but 
it  must  work  on  the  Siune  prineiple. 
Parker  \.  Ilitworth^  4  3IeLeaii,  373. — 
McLkax,  J.;  111.,  1K48. 

14.  The  plaintiff''s  invention  and  pat- 
ent was  for  a  scpieezer,  .so  called,  for 
converting  puddlers'  balls  into  blooms, 
and  rolled  the  balls  between  reciprocat- 
ing tables  or  plates,  or  between  a  re- 
volving cylinder  and  a  stationary  curv- 
ed segmental  trough  with  stationary 
flanges.  The  defendant's  machine  com- 
])ressed  the  b.ill  between  a  rotating  cam 
and  two  small  rotating  cylinders  be- 
neath it;  Held,  that  plaintilf's  patent 
was  for  a  new  process,  mode,  or  method 
of  converting  puddlers'  balls  into  blooms 
by  continuous  ]>rcssure  and  rotation 
between  convergitig  surfaces,  and  that 
the  defendant's  machine  was  an  infringe- 
ment upon  it,  if  it  converted  such  balls 
into  blooms  by  continuous  i)ressure  and 
rotation  between  converging  surfaces, 
although  its  mechanical  construction  and 
action  might  be  different.  Burden  v. 
Corninff,  MS. — Conkung,  J. ;  N,  Y., 
1850. 

15.  If  a  person  uses  the  invention  of 
a  patentee,  he  infringes  whatever  he 
may  add  to  it,  or  with  whatever  ro  ' 


invent iou  h(!  connects  it.  liriokn  v. 
Flslxc,  MS. — Sn:A(ii  K,  J.;  Mass.,  iy.-]_ 
l(i.  Where  a  patentee  of  iin  improve- 
•nent  in  eidti»i;*orH,  claimed  "the  ar- 
rangement of  the  teeth  in  two  rows,  in 
combination  with  a  jiair  of  wheels  hav- 
ing their  treads  in  a  line  midway  be- 
tween the  jioints  of  the  two  rows  of 
teeth,  substantially  as  described,"  aiwl 
the  speeificatit)!!  described  the  teeth  as 
seven  in  number,  arranged  in  two 
straight  rows,  three  in  one  row  and 
four  in  another,  the  points  of  the  three 
being  in  front  <>f  the  line  of  the  wheels, 
and  the  points  wf  the  four  behind  siuli 
line,  and  the  tread  of  the  wheels  hein" 
placed  midway  between  the  rows  of 
the  teeth  to  resist  any  tendeney  of 
either  row  of  teeth  to  cut  too  deoj), 
and  the  tread  of  the  wheels  between 
them  acting  as  a  fulcrum,  so  as  to  re- 
lieve the  team  of  any  strain  arising; 
from  either  row  of  the  teeth  runniiii,' 
Loo  low  or  too  shallow,  and  by  wliich 
arrangement  also  the  use  of  guidinij 
handles,  or  of  four  wheels,  could  be  dis- 
pensed Avith ;  and  the  defendant's  ma- 
chine used  but  two  wheels,  and  no 
guiding  handles,  and  had  also  seven 
teeth,  three  in  front  of  the  wheels  and 
four  behind,  but  the  middle  tooth  of 
the  forward  three  was  moved  forward 
of  the  others,  and  the  two  middk'  toetli 
of  the  back  row  Avere  placed  behind  the 
others,  so  that  the  two  rows  Avere  not 
straight,  and  the  axle  of  the  Avbuels  M'as 
thrown  forward,  so  that  the  tread  of 
the  Avhecls  was  not  midway  between 
the  rows  of  the  teeth,  by  Avhich  strain 
on  the  team  Avas  further  reduced ;  IMd, 
that  the  defendant's  machine  Avas  an  iii- 
fringeru-i't  wvion  the  plaintiff's,  as  it 
\v :/\  the  i[)ii;'U:,ii  and  substance  of 
p;;ur.cir'«  io venison.  And  Avas  not  even 
au  iiiivri  \  oiiU'iitj  u.  j'  was  only  the  re- 


f 


I  be  (lis- 
ml's  ma- 

and  no 
so  Ht'veii 
loi'ls  ami 
tooth  of 

forward 
dL>  tofth 
H'liind  tl>e 
were  not 
;i,:els  was 
troad  of 

between 
icli  strain 
cd ;  Ildd, 
was  au  in- 
tV's,  as  it 

tance  of 

not  even 
ly  the  re- 


inki{IX(;kmknt,  u.  2. 


no7 


or  PITKNT.      WHAT   IIAH  nKEN   IIKI.D  TO   AifOUST  TO. 


l,ilt  «»f  practieal  oxporit'iico  in  tlio  uho 
of  jtlaintitV'H  iiiacbiiio,  and  iiivolvotl  no 
iuventloii.  2hi<'i'!/\.  loirey,  2  IMatclif., 
•J77,  27H.— Nki.so.v,  J.;  N.  V.,  1h')1. 

17.  In  an  action  for  an  infringonient 
of  tho  Haino  patent,  rofcrred  to  lant 
above,  whore  the  dofondant's  inachiiic 
wa^  like  that  of  Torrey,  t-xoopt  tliat 
(he  midille  tooth  of  tho  forward  threo 
was  set  back,  ho  that  two  teeth  were 
forward  of  tho  whools  and  iivc.  were 
back,  /It'ldi  that  defendant's  machine 
was  an  infrinj^enient.  (JlhimhfHhi.  v. 
Gaimn,  2  IJbitohf.,  270  (nolo.)— Nut.- 
8ox,J.;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

18.  If  !i  niaehino  is  oapabbf  of  por- 
formiiig  several  fnnel  ions,  as  1  llancliard's 
maiiiine  for  turnint;  irrof^ubir  forms,  and 
II  person  (lonstrnct  a  nnndiino  to  perform 
but  one  of  sudi  funetions,  as  tho  turn- 
ini,' of  waj^on  spokes,  it  is  an  infriiiire- 
ment.  JiUinchard  v.  licers,  2  Bhitehf., 
415.— Nklson,  J, ;  C't.,  1H52. 

19.  Tho  siu'o  test,  and  tlio  one  tlio 
jury  should  bo  gnided  by  in  all  cases, 
is,  whether  or  not  tho  defendant's  ma- 
oliino  (whatever  may  bo  its  form  or  me- 
LJianieal  construction),  has  incorporated 
within  it  the  principle,  or  the  combina- 
tion, or  the  novel  ideas  which  constitute 
tlie  imiirovonu'nt  to  bo  foimd  in  tho 
jiluiiitilV's  machine.  If  it  does,  tlien, 
no  matter  what  may  be  its  mechanical 
construction,  or  its  form,  it  is  an  in- 
fringement.    Tbkl.^  '110. 

20.  Tlie  plaintilV's  i)atent  was  for  the 
curing  of  caoutchouc  or  india-rubber  by 
subjecting  it  to  the  action  of  a  high  de- 
gree of  artificial  heat.  The  defendants 
set  up  the  defence  that  tlie  rubber  made 
liy  them  was  made  by  a  process  in 
wliich  steam  and  not  heat  was  tlie  chief 
ngciit ;  //(;,'(/,  that  the  plaintitl"  claimed 
the  vuU-ani/.ation  of  rubber  and  sulphur 
by  uriilicial  heat,  however  produced, 


and  th.'it  the  use  of  stoam  in  the  placo 
of  boated  air  was  an  infringement  ol 
bis  patent,  (laoift/inr  \.  Tlif  /i'lilntaif, 
2  Wall.,  Jr.,  ;i.')8,  ;101,  .'t02. — (JitiiiU,  J.; 
N.  J.,  1H5:J. 

21.  In  an  action  for  infringoment  up- 
on Wells'  |iatoiit  fur  making  hat  lH»dies, 
th(!  defendants  in  their  machine;  divided 
the  tunmd  or  chand)er  into  which  tho 
fibres  of  the  fur  were  thrown,  ami 
used  a  perforated  cone  of  wire  gauze, 
of  larger  o|)eiiings  than  Wells',  and  put 
!i  liner  one  of  grass  cloth  over  it,  and 
used  a  motallio  picker  instead  of  tho 
hair  brush  to  throw  the  fibres  of  tho  fur 
into  the  (di.ainber,  and  also,  instead  of 
innnersing  tho  bat  formed  on  tho  cono 
into  warm  water  to  harden  it  so  th.'it 
it  co\ild  be  removed,  dischargofl  jets  of 
steam  upon  tho  bat  during  tho  process 
of  formation ;  Ifelif,  on  an  applic.'itioii 
for  an  injinu'tion,  that  tho  machine  of 
the  defendants,  .md  their  jjrocess  of 
making  tho  hat  body,  was  substantially 
like  that  of  the  complainants,  the  :is- 
.signees  of  Wells,  and  that  they  were  en- 
titled to  an  injunction.  St.  Jofm  \ .  P ren- 
tlss,  IMS.— Nklkox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  18.')3. 

22.  To  constitute  an  infrinuiinent, 
tho  thing  used  liy  tho  defendant  must 
be  such  as  substantially  to  end)ody  the 
patentee's  mode  of  operation,  and  there- 
by attain  the  same  kind  of  result  as  was 
reached  by  his  invention.  It  is  not  ne- 
cessary that  tho  defendant  should  em- 
ploy tho  plaint ilf's  invention  to  as  good 
advant.age  as  he  employed  it,  or  that 
tho  result  should  bo  precisely  the  same 
in  degree ;  but  it  must  be  the  same  in 
kind.  Winans  v.  JJcNmead,  15  How., 
344.— Cl'RTIS,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct,  1853. 

23.  Where  a  ])atcnt  Avas  granted  for 
constructing  the  body  f)f  a  railroad  car 
in  the  form  of  the  frustum  of  a  cone, 
and  the  claim  was  fur  makinij  it  in  such 


S 

•     ft    'pf^* 


u.  ^wwl"^^ 


*"   Vjfa^i 


w  iw  v"'***'."* 


^%^WwV^^^ 


■■-"'*a'^X.V^^i 


m 

\m 

'   1 - 

1  ii'i 


.  i  ,i  i  i  ill i 


/•  ■"■•7 


^yi^Wk^^ 


.     4'    /      ■ 


I         i 


1  l't5('^,  ^t^*""  >t«'V^.-3 


^^'^. 


rfts ) 


4  U*  **- 


141' 


III 


§ 


\i'- 


308 


1NKUIN(JKMKNT,  11.  2. 


or  PATENT.    WHAT  HAS  BEEN 


D  TO  AMOUNT  TO. 


form  wlu'i't'hy  cortain  spt'ciruMl  advan- 
tair<'«  were  sccmtMl,  ;iii(l  a  new  ami  ii>;(' 
fill  ri'siilt  |)i«i(Jiic('(|,  ami  tlii'  ik-li-iidaiits 
coiistnictt'd  tlu!  body  of  tlicir  car  ortitf/- 
onaf,  tlic!  I'lfect  of  which  was,  how- 
ever, flic  saiiu'  as  wlii'ii  iii.'idc  circular, 
as  dt'sciiltcd  in  the  jtlaiiiliirs  jiatcnt; 
J/chf,  that  it  was  an  iidriiij^cnu'iit  upon 
]ilaiiiliirs  patt'ut,  and  that  tlu;  plaintirt"s 
]»atcnt,  thouj^hdcscrihiiii:;  only  the  form 
of  a  frusiiiin  of  a  cone,  einhraced  every 
Kuch  variation  of  fjrin  as  substinitially 
embodied  his  modo  of  operation,  and 
thereby  attained  tlie  same  result.  I/)i(l., 
341-;i44. 

24.  Where  a  particular  geometrical 
form  is  nlone  capable  of  embodying  a 
patentee's  inveirion,  if  the  form  is  not 
used  the  invention  is  not  ( opied,  and 
there  is  no  infringeincnt ;  otiurwise. 
•where  that  form  may  be  the  l)est,  but 
other  forms  may  and  do  embody  the 
invention.     I/>id.,  343. 

25.  An  infringement  takes  place  when- 
ever a  i)arty  avails  himself  of  the  inven- 
tion of  a  patentee,  without  such  a  va- 
riation as  will  constitute  a  new  discov- 
ery, liich  V.  Lippincott^  20  Jctur.  Fr. 
Inst.,  3d  Ser.,  4.— Grikr,  J.;  Ta.,  1853, 

26.  An  infringement  consists  hi  con- 
structing a  machine,  or  making  a  com- 
l)ound  substantially  in  the  same  mode  as 
that  for  which  the  patent  has  been  ol)- 
tained.  Allen  v.  Hunter,  G  McLean, 
311.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

27.  An  unsubstantial  or  colorable  al- 
teration in  a  machine  or  a  compound,  as 
where  they  are  formed  on  the  same  prin- 
ciple, though  varied  in  form;  or  where 
the  ingredients  are  the  same,  but  com- 
bined in  a  different  mode,  or  there  is 
a  substitute  of  one  ingredient,  having  the 
same  qualities  and  producing  the  same 
result,  is  an  infringement.     Il>id.,31S 


mcchanJfRl  Btruclure,  which  pro.lucuH 
no  lu'w  or  nial«'rially  improved  result 
is  not  the  subject  of  a  patent,  and  i* 
an  itifringement  of  a  patent.  S<ir<jf„t 
v.  L<trne(l,  2  Curt.,  349.— Ciuris,  J.' 
>rass.,  IH55. 

29.  Mere  tornuii  changes  will  imt  evai. 
ft  patent.  Sickles  v.  Jiordin,  3  Ulatcht'. 
641. — Nklson,  J.;  N.Y.,  1850. 

30.  According  to  the  |)atent  law  if 
the  machine  complained  of  involves  ,miI,. 
stantial  identity  with  the  one  jtatcntcd 
it  cannot  bo  upheld.     Ihid.^  541. 

31.  If  the  invention  of  a  i)ateiitec  V 
a  machine,  it   will   be  infringed   !»• 
machine  which  incorporates  in  its  strn 
ture  and  operation  the  substance  of  (lie 
invention ;  that  is,  by  an  arrangemont 
which  performs  the  same  service  or  pro- 
duces the  same  effect  in  the  same  way,  or 
suhstautially  so.     Ibid.,  541. 

32.  The  identify  that  is  to  be  looked 
to,  in  an  action  of  ifjfringemont,  respern 
that  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  the 
invention,  namely,  the  appli' utiuii  of 
the  principle.  If  the  mode  adojited  by 
the  defendant  shows  that  the  principle 
admits  of  the  same  application  in  a  va- 
riety of  forms,  or  by  a  variety  of  appa- 
ratus, -icli  mode  is  a  piracy  of  the  in- 
vention. Whitemiute  v.  lieddingtvn, 
MS.— Wir-sox,  J.;  Oliio,  1856. 

33.  But  if  the  defendant  has  adopted 
variations  which  show  that  the  apjili- 
cation  of  the  principle  is  varied,  that 
some  other  law,  or  rule  of  practice  or 
science,  is  made  to  take  the  jilaefe  if 
that  which  the  patentee  claims  as  the 
essence  of  his  invention,  then  there  is 
no  infringement.    Ibid. 

34.  If  a  machine  is  constructed  so  as 
to  conform  in  all  respects  to  the  de- 
scription in  a  patent,  except  as  to  one 
particular,  or  as  to  one  motion  and  ef- 


28.  A  cliange  of  form  merely,  or  of  |  feet,  yet  ie  so  constructed  and  Ixtemkcl 


I^w* 


INFKINCJKMKNT,  H.  2. 


300 


or  PATRNT.      WHAT  IIA>  BKKN  IIKMI  TO  AMOUNT  TU. 


C.._^ 


aJoptfil 

ieJ,  that 
actice  or 
\)h\c(>  of 
lis  as  the 
there  13 

tod  so  as 
the  de- 
ls to  one 
and  ef- 
intended 


as  t(»  ol'tain  that  motion  or  cfli-ct  in  tho 
\\y,\iH'  'if  tlic  iiiachini',  by  tht;  action  or 
wcariii.i,'  <'t  t''t'  I'l'its,  and  it  ia  ho  oIi- 
taiiicd,  it  is  ii  vi<)hili<tn  of  tlic  pati-iit,  a 
iiiracy  of  tho  jji-iticiiik'.  If  thi>  prhu'i- 
«,/,■  is  worth  any  thiiit',  no  tn«'rc  evasion 
sliutild  ho  countenanced.  Perfect  iden- 
tity is  not  required  to  deinonsfrafe  an 
ii,tViiii,'cnicnt  of  principle.  /'<'i/"  v. 
Jurry,  M'"*- — Wimvinh,  J. ;  Mich.,  1857. 

;i"».  If  a  licensee  iiso  the  ihinuf  pat- 
ented lieyond  the  limits  of  the  license 
or  grant,  or  in  a  way  not  authorized 
thereby,  then  there  is  a  violation  of  the 
iii.'li(s  sccinx'il  to  the  patentee.  JinlHitii 
(f-  Ho'iiiijiur  V.  Union  Rub.  Co.,  \  IJIiitohf. 
Inckusoi.i.,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

,'jtj.  It  is  an  infrinyement,  if  the  dc- 
fondiiits  use  tlie  means  secured  by  the 
|il:iiiitiiV's  patent,  althongh  they  may 
Iiave  uscil  anotlu'r  di'vice,  not  ])atented 
to  the  plaintitV.  WaUrhxry  lint»a  do. 
\\N.  r.«£-  //.  Jirasn  Co.,  MS.— IxiiKU- 
soix,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1H58. 

37.  To  constitute  an  infrinj^cment,  it 
is  not  necessary  that  the  defendant's 
macliino  should  be  exactly  like  the 
plaintiff's,  Itut  it  is  an  infringement  if 
his  til  vice  is  substantially  like  that  of  the 
jjiauitifTs.    Ibid. 

38.  It  is  none  the  less  an  infringement 
of  a  patent,  because  something  is  added 
tu  the  means  patented,  even  though  the 
nhject  or  result  to  l)e  secured  by  such 
other  means  in  connection,  is  better  ac- 
complished. Twlay  V.  iVbr.  <£'  Wore. 
R.  R.  Co.,  MS. — Inokrsoll,  J. ;  Ct., 
1858. 

39.  Where  a  patent  for  improvements 
in  the  manner  of  supporting  the  bodies 
of  railroad  cars,  <fec.,  was  for  the  use 
and  application  of  two  cylinder  plates, 
one  male  and  the  other  female,  one  within 
the  other,  the  upper  one  slightly  convex 

in  its  lower  surface,  so  that  it  rested 

24 


only  on  tho  centre  of  the  bed-plato, 
which  could  thus  turn  and  xilMate  un- 
der the  top  plate,  and  (Mu-  of  such  plates 
attached  to  the  truck  and  the  «)lher  to 
tliM  car,  whereby  the  truck  nn<l  earriago 
were  combined  ;  :ii,d  tlie  «lcfcndants 
used  to  connect  their  c.'irriages  the  or- 
dinary king  bolt,  and  side  bearings, 
tu'.ir  the  side  of  tlie  carriage,  and  also 
two  cylindrical  plates,  male  and  female, 
one  within  the  other,  an<l  which  were 
i"A\U'<\  yiiiird  collnrit  for  the  king  l>olt  ; 
yA7</,  that  the  use  an<l  application  of 
the  two  cylinder  plates  one  within  the 
other,  as  used  and  applied  by  the  de- 
fendants, was  in  violation  of  the  rights 
secured  by  the  patent,  and  even  though 
tho  inner  one  should  not  actually  press 
upon  the  outer  one.     Jhlil. 

40.  In  order  to  constitute  an  infringe- 
ment, it  is  not  necessary  that  the  ar- 
rangement and  combination  of  the  par- 
ty charged  with  the  infringx>ment  should 
be  the  same  to  the  eye,  or  in  point  of 
fact.  If  they  embody  tlie  ideas  of  the 
jiatentee,  and  the  machhiery  of  the  de- 
fendant operates  by  sueli  adojition  and 
appropriation,  then,  though  the  arrange- 
ment may  be  apparontly  difTi  rent,  in 
reality  and  in  judgment  of  law,  an  in- 
fringement exists.  Smith  v.  Iligyins., 
MS.~Nei.son,  J.;  N.  Y.  185G. 

41.  If  a  defendant  uses  th.at  Avliich 
belongs  to  another,  he  is  resjionsible, 
although  he  may  have  added  something 
of  his  own.  It  is  an  infringement, 
whatever  else  he  msty  use.  Johnson  v. 
Root,  MS. — Spragik,  J.;  Mass.,  1858. 

42.  In  the  absence  of  any  explana- 
tion or  suggestion  t)  the  contrary,  it 
will  be  inferred  that  the  use  of  machin- 
ery constructed  according  to  the  sjieci- 
fication  of  a  patent  is  without  the  li- 
cense or  consent  of  the  patentee  ;  and 
such  use  will  make  a  imma  facie  case 


lU' 


;r^ 


h:^, 


"*"' vy^ 


._^-^—  ^^M 


'^^m^- 


7 


^,^- 


ft.i 


n      ''»t,. 


\^1  «i»'^ 


^•.  i* 


Vk"^. 


'^•^ 


370 


TNM'IfFXfJKMKXT,  K  9. 


or  PATKNT.      WHAT   HAN  IIKKM   lll'XI)  NOT  TO  AMOUNT  TO. 


of  infriii^^cmctif.  C/ift^i-f  v.  Png.  Jldt, 
Co.,  '2'1  How.,  'J22. — CMtKoUh,  J.; 
Slip.  Ct.,  1830. 

4.").  It  Ih  nti  ijifriiij;«'in<>iit  if  n  ihthou 
hiiH  UNcil  :i  |i;it»'iit('(''s  iiii|irov('iiu'nts  or 
(lt>vi<'i>s  8iilist.'Uili:ill}'  the  same,  in  wliicli 
tho  Hninu  })i'iiici|ilos  arc  l>r<)Uj^lit  into 
requisition,  or  in  other  words,  wliicli 
arc  Jililvc  ill  tlitir  principle  of  oper.'itioii. 
ColiUKf)!  V.  J^iisor,  M.S. — J.KAvriT,  J.; 
Oliio,  1H50. 

44.  To  constitute  an  iiifrintjetnent, 
the  thin;.'  used  must  lie  so  near  that  set 
forth  in  tlie  patent  as  Kuhstantially  to 
einhody  the  patentee's  niude  of  oper.'i- 
tion,  niul  thereby  attain  the  Haiiio  kind 
of  result  as  was  reached  Ity  liis  inven- 
tion. W/iipplt!  V.  Mhlillisix  Co.,  MS. 
— Si'RA(iLK,  J.;  .Alass.,  \Hr,f). 

48.  An  improvement  on  a  m.-ichine 
gives  no  right  to  use  the  original,  but 
tho  use  of  such  original  ni:icliiiie  is  an 
infriiigenu'iit,  although  with  tho  iin- 
pro\  enu'iits  the  niai^'hiiie  maybe  much 
more  useful  than  it  would  be  without 
them,  //owe  \.  Morfo/i  ,'  l;{  Mo.  Law 
I{op.,7l-7:i.— Si'UA(;rK,.T.;Mass.,  1800. 

3.   W/iat  /laa  been  Jield  not  to  amount  to. 

1.  The  maliiiig  of  a  ])atented  machine 
merely  for  philosophical  experiments,  or 
f(tr  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  suf- 
ficiency of  the  machine  to  produce  its 
described  effects,  is  not  an  infringement 
on  the  patentee's  rights.  Whiftemorc 
V.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  432.— Story,  J.; 
lyfass.,  1813. 

2.  The  levy  and  sale,  under  an  exe- 
cution, of  the  ninteriuh  of  patented  ar- 
ticles, as  the  materials  of  machines  for 
cutting  brad-nails,  is  not  such  it  sale 
under  the  patent  acts  as  makes  tlie  sher- 
riff  liable  to  an  infringement  of  the 
patent -right.     To  constitute  such  an  in- 


fringement, the  sale  must  be  not  (.f  i!,,. 
materials  of  a  maihiiH',  either  M-paiui,. 
or  combined,  butof  ii  complete  inacliiiH. 
with  the  right,  express  or  implied,  dt" 
using  the  same  in  the  manner  wenircd 
by  the  p.atent.  It  must  be  a  toriiniis 
sale,  not  for  tlie  purpose!  ctf  nierelv  dt  ■ 
priviiig  llie  owner  of  the  materials,  Imt 
of  the  use  and  lu'iiefit  of  his  patent. 
Snirin  v.  (inilif,  1  (Jail.,  487.— Srouv, 
.1.;  Mass.,  1HI3. 

3,  If  an  invention  is  an  improveincnt 
in  \\\c  pri)triple  of  a  machine  for  wliich 
a  patent  has  been  granted,  it  is  not  a 
vioIati.)ii  of  the  p.'itent.  /'arlc  v.  //itti 
3  Wash.,  108.— Wahiiinovon,  J.;  I';,., 
1813. 

4.  A  contract  to  purchase  ariidcs 
maiiufacturofl  in  viol.-itionof  a  patent  is 
not  of  itself  an  infringement  of  s«iic|i  |i;it. 
out.  Ju'plhiger  v.  J)e  Vouny,  10  Wheat., 
305. — WASiiivciTON,  J.;  Sup,  C"t.,  iS25. 

6.  The  e.vclusive  grant  in  a  patent  is 
the  construction  and  use  of  the  tliin;,' 
patented.  Tho  patent  law  protects  the 
thing  p.atented,  and  not  tho  j)ro(lu('t. 
The  right  of  an  assignee  of  a  pati'iil 
right  for  a  particular  district,  is  not  in- 
fringetl  upon  by  the  s.ale  within  siicli 
distri(^t  of  tho  products  of  the  same 
patent-right,  manufactured  by  a  parly 
holding  an  interest  in  the  same  patent 
in  another  district.  lioyd\.  Jlrowii,?, 
McLean,  296,  297.-  McLean,  J.;  Ohio, 
1843. 

0.  Whether  if  the  manufacturer  in 
the  second  district  was  actuailv  c  iga/ed 
in  selling  such  articles  within  the  dii!- 
trict  held  by  the  other,  it  would  not  be 
a  violation  of  the  right  of  siicli  Mtlur 
person  ;  query.     Ibid.,  206. 

7.  The  Side  of  the  thing  mamifactured, 
or  the  product  of  a  patented  machine, 
is  not  a  violation  of  the  exclusive  right 
to  use,  construct,  or  sell  the  macliine. 


INFUIXOEMKNT,  R.  8. 


an 


or  PATKNT.      WHAT   HAH   UKKN  IIRt.t)   NOT  TO   AMOUNT  Ta 


III 


/;„y,/  V.  MrAl/'iiif^  a  ^rcLean,  4Uf). — 
M.I<i:an,  .'.;  Ohio,  [Hit. 

H.  A  purt'lmsor,  for  ]\\h  t»\vii  luroiiiit, 
of  artiflt's  iiiamifacluri'd  l»y  ti  |t!it('i»ttMl 
tiiiu'liiiit',  tlioii<^li  |Hircliii>^tM|  with  a  full 
kiiiiwii'ilm'  that  they  wore  iiiaimfartiirt'd 

violation  of  tlic  patent,  cannot  \w  vu- 
liiifil,  or  held  lialilii  in  any  other  way. 
Anon.,'^  Wi'st.  Law  Jour.,  HI.— N. 
v.,  1H4:.. 

9.  A  pinchaso  from  tlic  ilcfciKhints  of 
!i  pati'nttMl  article  by  an  ii;,'i'"t  of  the 
icitcntfc,  anil  for  the  (tiir[K».sc  of  cntrap- 
iiiri;,'  the  (lefiiidant,  is  not  snch  a  Hale 
as  will  rentier  tliein  liable.     iSj,t(rktiuni 

V.  iliinii»if, '-'  iMatciif,  ;to,  ;ii.— jJii-iTH, 

J.;  N.'y.,  1840. 

10.  If  a  machine,  iih  made  l»y  the 
lUleiidaiit,  was  jiot  an  iiiCiaction  of  the 
Iilaiiilitf's  patent,  tlie  alteration  of  it  by 
a  third  party  will  not  niako  the  defeiid- 
niif  liable.  Ibit  if  the  niaehine,  as  made 
by  the  defendant,  a\  a.s  intended  by  him 
tit  operate  in  snch  a  wii}  as  to  violate 
tlio  pliiintiirH  patent,  and  lias  in  fact  so 
(i|M'rftt('d,  ho  is  a  party  to  the  infringe- 
ment, iiotwifhsfandinu  (he  ingemiity 
with  which  ho  may  have  sought  to  dis- 
;,'iiise  his  wronj^.  Knitjht  \,  (rVawV,  Mir. 
Pat.  Off.,  1.13.— Kank,  J. ;  Pa,,  1840. 

11.  If  the  machine  used  by  the 
ik'feiidant  dilfers  materially  from  that 
ik'seiihed  in  the  patent,  there  is  iK)t 
;iii  infringement.  Aiken  v.  Jiemis,  3 
Wood.  &  Min.,  353. — Woodhury,  J. ; 
Ma<s.,  1847. 

\i.  Wherea  jiatentee  claimed  a  liam- 
nicriii  !i  saw-set,  of  wrought  iron  faced 
with  steel,  alleging  that  ho  found  upon 
oxiieriiueiit  that  all  steel  hammers  were 
much  more  liable  to  break,  and  wrouglit- 
iron  ones  more  durable,  and  therefore 
"iiliiied  his  speeificatioa  to  -wrought- 
inn  ones  with  steel  points,  Jleld^  in  an 
action  for  infringement  against  a  jiersou 


using  a  liammer  wholly  of  steel,  that  it 
was  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  nsu 
of  an  inferior  material  for  the  hammer, 
wlu'U  tho  patent  covered  only  a  superior 
Olio,  w;is  a  violation  of  the  pat<iit.  If 
th(!  pateiitt'e  covers  the  material  of 
which  a  part  of  his  machine  is  made, 
he  endangers  his  right  to  proseeuto 
when  a  diirereiil  and  inferior  materi.al  is 
employed,  and  «'spccially  one  rejected 
by  himself  Had  nothing  been  said 
about  materials  it  woidd  have  been  dif- 
ferent.      //>/'/.,  3.50,  \\r>\. 

l:t.  Will  I  ,\  and  I  {agreed  williCto 
purchase  of  the  latter  all  of  acerViiii  ar- 
ticle, leatl  ]>ipe,  which  he  Hhoiild  make, 
A  and  15  agreeing  to  furnish  the  lead 
and  pay  C  agivi-n  pric((  for  manufactur- 
ing, and  ('  used  in  such  maniii'actnre  a 
machine  patented  to  pl.iiiitiirs  assignor, 
JIdil,  in  an  action  for  inlViiigemeiit 
against  A,  H,  and  C,  that  if  A  ami  I) 
had  no  connection  with  the  maiiiitU<;tine, 
except  to  furnish  the  lead  and  pay  iK 
given  i)rico,  that  they  were  not  liable 
for  iidVingement.  Tiithinn  v.  Le  lioy^ 
MS.-^  N|.;!,so\,  .T. ;  8o.  N.  Y.,  1849. 

14.  Hut  if  the  agreement  was  oidy 
colorable,  and  entered  into  for  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  the  profits  of  the  bus- 
iness without  assuming  tho  responsibil- 
ity for  the  use  of  tho  invention,  then 
they  would  be  liable.  Aiding  and  as- 
sisting a  person  in  carrying  on  such  a 
business  and  in  operating  the  machiiu'ry 
will  implicate  tho  parties  so  engaged. 
Ibid. 

15.  One  machine  or  manufacture  i-j 
not  a  vitdation  of  another,  within  tho 
purview  of  tlio  patent  system,  unless  it 
is  subst.antially  tho  same.  It  need  not 
bo  identical,  but  it  must  bo  similar  in 
tho  principle,  or  mode  of  o{)er.atioii. 
Smith  V.  Doicning,  MS. — "WoonnuKY, 
J.;  Mass.,  1850. 


# 

t 


J' 


•  '  ia<  wf 


.* 


-^^^ce 


,,,■  l^-' 


>p^'' 


•7t 


INFUINCiEMKNT,  IK  3. 


I'j'^iir'^i^'. 


'^^ 


I 


V »«.. . , 


i(^ 


f\i 


:«si 


or  IMTR5T.      WHAT   IttM 


niui  ttm  TO  Auouirr  to. 


10.  Whuii  tiu'ii*  rvHiiltH  liilt'cr  luvor- 
ably  unit  (•oti^iit«'i-al)ly,  it  in  I'oiiMith'ri'il 
tliiit  tlirn*  lllu^<t  In*  an  iiii|iri>\t<iiu'iil,  or 
tliiM  oitiilil  Hot  liit|i|i('ii.  So  whfii  till- 
liio<l(i  of'  (i^icnitioii  iH  iiiiliki!  ill  iiifitfrial 
rt>!<|K>cts,  tilt)  uiithur  in  not  guilty  ut'uny 
iiu'clianical  piriicy.     Jhhl. 

17.  A  nail'  of  II  patentee!  aitielt",  to 
an  ii^eiit  of  the  |iateiile«',  eiii|iloye(l  to 
in.'iku  tlu)  pnreliaNi',  by  liiiii  nml  on 
1  w  uecoiuit,  IH  not,  /wr  at,  an  iiil'iiii^^C' 
nn>nt  of  li'iH  patent.  Jli/nni  v,  /litllnnf, 
1  Curt.,  \ii'2. — C'tim-.,  J.;  AIiihx.,  lhr)2. 

i"^.  Siich  u  Hale,  however,  accunipii 
uicd  Ly  other  circuiiistunees,  may  wur- 
riiiit  a  jury  ill  finding  an  infringeiiient. 
Ifml.    I(»'J, 

10.  The  nic'iUH  Hpecifieil  in  a  patent 
to  produce  u  rertult  or  elfet-t,  and  noth- 
ini;  niDie,  arc  pateiileil,  or  seeureil,  and 
llirre  if«  no  infriii|fenu'nt,  unless  the  <le- 
feiidant  uses  suhslaiitially  tho  same 
means  as  (hose  deseribed  by  the  paten- 
tee. Auicr  Pin  (fo-  V.  OulauUe  Co., 
a  IJIatchf.,  192;  3  A.  L.  11.,  1H7.— In- 
(jKiisoi.i,,  J.  ;  Ct.,  1864  ;  Nklhon,  J.,  con- 
cuiiiii;,'. 

20.  Where  a  vessel  was  built  and 
riu'^^ed  in  France,  and  had  in  use  gall's 
whieh  had  bo«'n  patented  in  the  Uiii't  d 
States,  JIdd,  as  the  flails  were  placed 
on  tho  vessel  when  she  was  built,  and 
as  part  of  lier  original  ecpiipment,  in  a 
foreign  country,  by  persons  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  our  ])atent  laws,  that 
such  use  was  not  within  the  aj»plication 
of  our  patent  laws,  but  wan  excepted 
therefrom.  Jirown  v.  Ducheanc,  2  Curt., 
375-377.— CuKTis,  J.;  Mass.,  1855.  [Af- 
firmed post  22.] 

2 1 .  The  right  of  property  and  cxclu- 
■ive  use  which  a  patentee  has  in  his  in- 
vention, is  deriv  cd  from  tlie  acts  of  Con- 
gress, and  cannot  extend  beyond  the 
limits  to  which  the  law  itself  is  confined. 


Tht  UHu  of  his  invmitioo  outMide  uf  ii|,, 
juriMdietioM  of  th«)  iriiileil  State!.,  i, «„( 
an  itifriiigeiiK  nt  of  his  rights,  and  lui  I,  ,^ 
no  elaiiii  to  any  eoni|>enHalion  fi,f  ii„ 
profit  of  atlvaulage  I  lie  jiarty  mas  i|i 
rive  from  JtH  use.  llroinn  v.  Jtuil„»ni 
1!»  How.,  lOfl.— Tamcv,  Ch.  J,;.S„|,' 
Cl.,  IH.-iO. 

22.  'J'he  exilusive  use  graiile.l  tn  u 
patentee  does  not  extend  to  a  fnitiirii 
vessel  lawfully  entering  our  ports;  un,] 
the  use  (jn  such  vessel  of  an  iinpiOM- 
meiit  patented  in  this  eniiiitry,is  not  wu 
infringement  of  the  rights  of  tlie.\iii,i 
iean  patentee,  provided  it  was  planil 
upon  such  vesst'l  in  a  for»ign  port,  !iii4 
authorized  by  tho  laws  of  the  cduiiIiv 
to  which  she  belongs.      Ihltl,,  Idb, 

23.  An  infringement  will  not  havt 
taken  place,  unless  the  invention  can  itu 
practisetl  completely  by  following  tin 
speciiications.  An  infringeiiieiit  is  u 
copy  made  (ifter,  ami  agreeing  wiili 
the  principle  laid  down  in  the  patent ; 
and  if  tho  patent  does  not  fully  de- 
scribe every  thimj  essential  to  \W  niuk 
ing  of  the  thing  jiatented,  there  will  \k 
no  iniVingement  by  tho  fresh  invention 
of  processes  which  the  patentee  has 
withheld  from  the  public.  A/«/«  v. 
i-t'/vy,  iNIS. — Wii.KiNS,  .1. ;  Midi.,  1857. 

21.  If  tho  defendant's  macliiiio,  in  its 
original  Btnicture,  was  in  fact  and  in 
truth  no  infringement,  no  piracy  on  tin.' 
[ilaintitr's  machine,  and  was  not  inluni 
ed  to  be  .so,  neither  accident  nor  usage, 
as  the  natural  wear  of  the  ni;iterial  of 
which  composed,  could  make  it  ko. 
Mind  must  be  associated  with  niattci, 
in  tho  comnii.ssion  of  tho  tiesjmss.  1; 
is  tho  intention  which  gives  the  guilty 
hue  to  tho  act.     Ibid.        -.;_  . 

25.  Where,  therefore,  in  a  p.atent  fur 
improvements  in  portable  circular-sii«' 
mills,  tho  patent  covered  merely  a  cow- 


INI  IU\r.KAIi:\T,  C 


.173 


ARKH.      WIIAI'    IM,    AMI    Ntrt/MOV. 


Mnution  «>f  ihc-  h«i'  of  rtilltTX,  or  (heir 
,.,jiiiv.'il'.'ill»t,torRi4iil  ti^  tlHMJrciihir  huw, 
witli  I  *tiW  wWU'h  htv\ /rei'.  en  I  /  /liny,  mo 
nil  not  in  nny  cmo  to  linvo  an  on<l  1n«t»r- 
iri^  n^>lillNt  n  xhoiiMcr  in  itN  onliimry 
r(>v»)liiti«>ii«,  /AM  tliiit    if  till'  (Iffi'ihl- 

t'n  Mi;U'lnii»'  W(i«  ori;»iii!ill)-  roiiHtrii'  ' 
ed  nii'i  (le»i<J>ie<l  wifli  the  »'i»/»  thjhr  t'> 
fha  shafts  IM>  HH  to  oj-mTntP  without  vml 
fd.iy,  asi'l  hy  itn  uhajt*',  ■'»"*1  hv  lh«'  wrM- 
(if  the  in«'t;il  of  wln<h  tlic  sh;ifV  w 
m:ul«',  Kttt'h  fn'%'^^  fK'tlon,  »ir  cihI  pluy,  **  u?- 
iiM  |(»i)jTU'(lly  pro«lru't»(I,  that  «\ich  free 
(•ml  piny  would  not  miiount  t«»  .ui  in- 
fii!i<j;(  tiu'iit  (if  the  pluintilV'M  |i;i(('iil.  Flthl. 

'.Ml,  'rh»T«>  is  no  violiti'Mi  of  ilii>  ris^lits 
of  a  patentee,  under  llu'  lawn  of  th*- 
Fnit  "d  StatpH,  c^ivinjj  to  him  an  PXfliisi\  o 
ri'/lit  to  UM'  tin-  lliinuj  patented,  provid 
I'd  llio  use  of  tlie  tliinjj:  patented  l»y  a 
tliird  pi'i-son  w  tnidor  a  license  or  j^rant 
from  the  patentee,  and  sueli  pcM'Hon  oov- 
cniitMnt*  to  do  certain  things  on  liis 
jinn,  ill  consideration  of  siioli  license. 
Juil»'>n  <('  (iiKiilfixtr  V.  Union  I,  R, 
Co.,  4  niatfhf.— In(ikk9oi.i,,  J.;  X.  Y., 
1857. 

■j7.  If  an  invention  he  hut  an  imftrove- 
mont  on  a  linowii  niaehiiie,  tlif  inventor 
cannot  treat  another  a^  nn  infrinj^er,  who 
bas  iniprovi'd  the  original  machine  l»y 
iisinj;  a  ditTercnt  form  or  coinhination, 
jicrforminjj  the  same  fiuict ion.  Met'or- 
mick  V.  Titloott^  20  How.,  405. — Gkikk, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

m.  The  inventor  of  a  first  iinprovo- 
mont,  cannot  invoke  tlie  doctrine  of 
imvhiuiical  equivalents  to  suppress  all 
other  iniprovemcnts,  which  are  not  mere 
colonible  invasions  of  the  first.  Ibid., 
•105. 

'29.  The  use  of  a  patented  invention, 
nsa  Viiatter  of  business,  .and  the  product 
nf  which  is  thrown  into  maiivct  for  the 
imrpose  of  being  sold,  caimot  be  called 


( vperirMiMital,  but  U  %\\A\  u  iiso  nn  will 
niiiketiK!  party  liable.  l*opjienheu»en 
«.  ''  V.  O,  /'.  Comb  Co.,  4  llUtihf.— 
IfK.KHHoti,,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IK»8. 

.'10.  Where  two  nwiohinert  produce  th« 
same  result,  but  the  moans  used  b^eaeli 
lo  elli  cf  or  produce  hu<  h  result  ar»'  dlf. 
ferunt,  the  two  maihincs  ure  not  aliko 
in  principle,  nnd  the  one  in  not  an  in- 
fringement ui' )ti  the  <»tlK«r,  Jinrrv. 
{'  iwi»iihwniU',\  nintilif. — iNiitmui.!,.  J., 
Ct.,  i85H. 

JU.  A  p  tent  fi>r  makinj^ Inmiu't  frames* 
is  not  infringed  h;  making  simply  the 
crown  of  a  bonri<t  without  the  lip.  A 
lionncl  frame  iu.ludes  both  the  crown 
and  tip.  Kuld  V.  Spencc^  M.S. — In- 
*!i:ksoi.i,,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1850, 

4.  Actions /'tr,  <rnd Do/enuea  in. 

See  Actions,  H.  1,  :» ;  Etjurry,  H.  1  ; 
Defknckh. 

(> .  Evidence  as  to^  and  hij  whom  deter- 
rt  lined. 

Sec  KviDENCF,  II.  ;5. 

<\    Ok  Tkade-Maiiks. 

tSee  also  EiiLiTV,  C. 

1.  The  making  and  s.-ilo  of  medicines, 
under  (lio  name  of  medicines  prepared 
;md  soltl  by  the  plaintilf,  and  selling  them 
as  and  for  those  of  the  plain! iff,  is  .1 
fraud  upon  the  jdaintilf,  and  an  injury 
to  his  rights,  ft)r  which  the  law  will 
presume  damage.  Thotnson  v.  Win- 
rhcKter,  19  Tick.,  210.— Siiaw,  C'li.,  J.; 
Mass.,  1H37. 

2.  And  the  plaintifl*,  such  a  case  being 
proved,  will  be  entitled  to  recover  nom- 
inal dam:igo,  at  least,  and  more,  if  ho 
shows  he  has  sustained  it.     Ibid.,  210. 

3.  The  fact  th.it  others  have  imit.ited 
the  trade-mark  and  Labels  of  the  plain- 


4 
f 

ll 
i 


i 


""^^ki; 


^H*  ir*^W^^,^i, 


-■i^^i^m^^W, 


^"^4^ 


^■imi 


^^^"^i 


_,^;UL._«44i 


^ 

-f^^.^ 


.\^^\"^  '<^^ 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT.3) 


1.0 


ill  I.I 


1.25 


tlitZl    125 


lit 


2.2 


m 

\1£  llib 


Photographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


^. 


f\ 


k 


^<b 


V 


«C\  '^\ 


». 


.  ^.1* 


t"  ^  "^ 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER, N.Y.  I4S8C 

(716)  872-4S;f3 


f^Z^^ 


.<^^ 


fjut  . 


■*^ 


€ 


lUt' 


? 


374 


IXFItlXGEMKNT,  C. 


(;K   TllADK-MAUKH.      WHAT    H,    AM)   NAILUK  Of. 


tin: 


liff,  rut  her  iiggravntcs  than  excuses  a 
violiiiion,  uiik'ss  'U)IK'  with  the  consent 
or  :ic(|iiiesccnco  of  the  jilaintlff.  Taylor 
V.  dn'pontcr,  3  Story,  404. — Stoky,  J.; 
Mass.,  1844. 

4.  A  person  lias  no  right,  and  Avill 
not  be  allowed  to  use  the  names,  let- 
te»"s,  marks,  or  symbols,  of  another,  to 
palm  otf  npon  buyers  the  article  he  is 
hoHing  as  the  manufactures  of  such  oth- 
er person.  Coats  v.  Ilolhrook.,  2  Sand., 
Ch.,  594.— Sandkord,  V.  Chan.,  N.  Y., 
1845, 

5.  It  makes  no  matter  that  the  imita- 
ted article  is  as  good  as  the  original. 
Ih'uL,  595. 

0.  The  court  will  hold  any  imitation 
of  a  trade-mark  colorable,  wiiich  re- 
(piircs  a  careful  inspection  to  distinguish 
its  marks  and  appearance  from  those  of 
the  manufacture  imitated.  PartrlJge 
V.  3rmrlc,  2  Sand.  Ch.,  025.— Sand- 
FOKi),  V.  Chan.,  N.  Y.,  1840. 

1.  But  it  will  not  interfere,  where  or- 
dinary attention  will  enable  a  purchaser 
to  discriminate.  It  does  not  suflice  to 
show  that  persons  incapable  of  reading 
the  labels  might  be  deceived.  It  must 
aj)pear  that  the  ordinary  mass  of  pur- 
chasers, paying  that  .attention  Avhich 
such  persons  usually  do,  would  probably 
be  deceived.     Ihid.^  025. 

8.  There  can  be  no  harm  done  to  the 
owner  of  a  trade-mark,  of  which  he  has 
a  right  to  conipl.ai'i,  unless  his  label 
or  trade-mark  be  appropriated  without 
change,  or  unless  it  is  simulated  in  such 
a  manner  as  probably  to  mislead  his 
customers  or  patrons,  inducing  them  to 
suppose  that  in  purchasing  the  article 
marked  they  are  purchasing  that  manu- 
factured or  sold  by  such  oAvner.  Par- 
tridge v.  3fenck,llo'\y.  App.  Cas.  659, 
600.— Weight,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

9.  One  who  affixes  to  his  own  goods 


an  imitation  of  an  original  trade-iniirt 
by  which  those  of  another  are  disiin- 
guished  and  known,  connnits  a  fniud 
upon  the  ptiblic,  and  upon  the  true 
owiu'r  of  the  trade-mark.  Amoskfihf 
Manuf.  Co.  V.  I^pear,  2  S.-irid.,  S.  C, 
005,  000.— DuKU,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

10.  In  the  case  of  the  owner  there  is  a 
fraud  couple<l  with  damage,  wliicii  mav 
be  sucli  as  not  to  admit  of  coinponsa- 
tion  in  damages,  and  which  may  l)e  ir- 
rei)arable.     IbkL,  000. 

n.  In  all  cases  where  a  trade-iiiark 
is  imitated,  the  essence  of  the  wrontr 
consists  in  the  sale  of  the  goods  of  oin' 
manufacturer  or  vender,  as  those  of  an- 
other, and  it  is  only  Avhen  this  falsi; 
representation  is  directly  or  indiroctlv 
made,  and  only  to  the  extent  in  i-^hii-h  it 
is  made,  that  a  party  can  have  a  title  to 
relief.     Itjid.,  007. 

12.  The  imitation  of  an  original  trade- 
mark need  not  be  ex.act  or  jjcrfect.  It 
may  be  limited  or  partial.  It  may  piu- 
brace  vai-iations  that  a  comparison  would 
instantly  disclose,  yet  a  leseinhlauco 
may  exist  that  was  designed  to  niislcnd 
the  public,  and  the  effect  may  have  been 
produced.     Ibid.,  007. 

l-'i  It  is  not  necessary,  to  render  the 
imitation  of  a  trade-mark  culjiahlc,  that 
it  should  contain  atiy  forgery  of  the 
name  of  the  owner  of  the  original  mark. 
Though  the  name  of  the  proprietor  is 
omitted,  and  th.at  of  the  imitator  sub- 
stituted, if  the  peculiar  device  ir  copied, 
ajid  so  copied  as  to  manifest  a  dcsinii  of 
misleading  the  public,  the  omission  or 
variation  will  be  disregarded  and  an  in 
junction  issue.     Ibid.,  008. 

14.  Under  §  2  of  the  act  of  1845, 
(New  York)  making  it  penal  to  sell  any 
merchandise  having  on  it  any  forged  or 
counterfeited  label  or  trade-mark,  the 
vender  cannot  recover  the  price  of  the 


INlKIXCiKMENT,  C. 


3V: 


or  TUADK-MAKKS.      WHAT   IM,    AND   NATLUE  OF. 


(roods  sold,  provided  he  knew  tli.'it  the 
labels  or  trade-marks  were  forj^ed  or 
count orti'ited.  lludderow  v.  Jfuhthnj- 
ton, !»  Siuid.,  S.  C.  250. — Sandfoku,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1849. 

1.5.  I5iit  wliere  tlio  vender  liad  no 
knowledge  tluit  the  labels  or  trade-marks 
were  longed  or  fraudulent,  ami  there 
was  no  warranty  by  him,  nor  any  repre- 
Bentation  to  such  etFect,  l»e  is  entitled  to 
recover.     Ihkl,  '2."(i. 

10.  The  original  crime  or  lVau«l  in  the 
|irci)arati()n  of  the  counterfeit  trade- 
marks does  not  attach  itself  to  the  goods 
in  tlu'  hands  of  an  owner  ignorant  of 
the  oifence,  and  fasten  upon  him  the 
penalty  of  a  wrong  of  which  he  is  imio- 
cent.     nnd.y  '23Q. 

17.  Where  goods  were  sold  by  an 
auctioneer,  as  being  a  i)articular  article, 
Imt  they  proved  to  be  sjturious,  aiul  the 
I;ibel  to  be  counterfeit,  but  there  was 
no  j)roof  that  the  auctioneer  knew  them 
to  be  counterfeit,  and  there  were  no 
representations  as  to  their  genuineness, 
nor  any  warranty,  Held,  that  it  was  no 
(Icfuuce  to  an  action  on  a  note  given  for 
such  ])urchase  that  such  gootis  were 
counterfeits.     Ibid.,  256. 

18.  If  a  person  has  adopted  the  same 
mark  which  is  well  known  and  approved 
of,  and  which  will  cause  liis  article  to  be 
taken  for  anotlior  in  the  market,  it  is  an 
injury  which  the  law  will  redress.  Cof- 
feen  \.  Bninton,  4  McLean,  519. — Mc- 
Le.u\,  J.;  Ind.,  1849. 

19.  In  commercial  dealings  the  utmost 
good  faith  should  be  observed,  and  no 
one  is  permitted  to  go  into  the  market 
with  a  deception  of  this  character,  so  as 
to  profit  by  the  ingenuity,  good  faith, 
or  established  reputation  of  another. 
lUd.,  519. 

20.  Where  a  right  is  invaded  by  a 
fraudulent  act,  as  by  the  wrongful  use 


of  another's  trade-mark,  nominal  dama- 
ges are  recoverable,  though  lu)  specific 
injury  is  jiroved.     find.,  Ti-JO. 

21.  The  adoption  of  the  same  traih'- 
mark  as  the  plaintiirs,  or  of  one  so  like 
it  as  to  deceive  the  public,  is  actionable. 
INrere  colorable  alterations  will  not  )>ro- 
tect  the  defendant.  iJaris  v.  K<')id<dl, 
2  II.  I.,  509.— GiiiiENii,  Ch.  J. ;    l\.  I., 

185H. 

22.  I5ut  if  the  defendant  Mate  on  his 
label  or  trade-nuirk  that  the  article  whicdi 
he  sells  is  nuide  by  himself,  although  he 
calls  it  by  the  same  name  as  the  ))lain- 
tilf,  he  will  not  be  liable.     Ibid,,  509. 

2;}.  And  though  the  defendant  with- 
out fraud  use  the  trade-mark  of  the 
plaintiff,  ho  is  still  liable  ;  if  the  riglit 
be  vi<dated,  it  matters  not  whether  it 
be  by  fraud  or  mistake.     Ibid.,  570. 

2 1.  The  (piestion  is,  whether  the  de- 
fendant's label  is  liable  to  deceive  the 
public  and  to  lead  them  to  su]>pose  they 
are  purchasing  an  .article  manufactured 
by  the  plaintiff,  instead  of  the  defend- 
ant.   Ibid.,  579. 

25.  The  wrong  for  which  remedies  for 
violation  of  trade-marks  are  given,  con- 
sists in  misrepresenting  to  the  public, 
by  the  use  of  that  trade-mark,  goods  or 
wares  of  another  person  as  having  been 
manufactured  by  the  true  proprietor  of 
that  mark,  and  thereby  depriving  liim, 
to  a  creater  or  less  extent,  of  the  benefit 
of  the  good-will  of  his  establishment, 
and  the  reputation  of  his  articles,  l^tokes 
V.  Landgraff,- 17  Barb.,  S.  C,  009.— 
Strong,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  18^.3. 

20.  If  the  article  sold  under  the  for- 
gery of  a  trade-mark  is  inferior  to  th.at 
made  by  the  true  owner,  he  is  injured 
in  reputation  ;  md  if  it  be  of  a  similar 
quality  and  kind,  its  sale  goe:;  so  far  to 
diminish  the  sale  or  his  own  article,  and 
thus  works  a  pecuniary  damage.    Le- 


I 


'Tii'WWif'' 


'  W' WL 


.'^i 


,:> 


til"**! 


Ui^OH^ 


t*.  f\ 


^^^\^ 


kkr^^^w 


lLI  I 


*<W^w.  „ 


i  / 


\'4 

Jlu 

I 


• ,  W' 


I'K 


1 

!4 


876 


INFinNdK.MENT,  C. 


OK  TUAIIK-MAIIKH.      WHAT   IH,    AND  NATliUC  OF. 


tnoine  v.  Gantoti,  2  E.  I).  Srnitli,  tUH.— 
])vi,v,  J.;  N.  v.,  1854. 

'J 7.  Tlu'  MToiij^  iiiul  injury  conwists  in 
the  siilc  of  till!  iirticlo  falsely  jMirportin;; 
and  (k'clarcil  to  bo  liis  niiinntaeturc; 
and  it  makes  no  diftbrenee  whether  that 
ol>j«!ot  was  ertWted  l»y  counterfeiting  (he 
trade-mark  whieh  lie  uses  iit  j»resi'nt, 
or  one  that  he  formerly  used.  J/>i(f.,  .'J4H. 

2H.  Where  a  party  Avas  a  manufac- 
turer of  steel  pens,  whieh  he  put  up  in 
bo.ves  for  sale,  such  boxen  bearini;  par- 
ticular numbers  or  labels  which  indica- 
ted the  character  ol'  the  iiiticle,  and 
another  removed  from  the  inferior  pen* 
the  number  api>ropriati'  to  them,  ;ind 
placed  upon  them  the  label  of  a  sup(!- 
rior  kind,  such  acts  are  a  fraud  ujmn 
the  public  !ind  the  true  owner,  for  which 
lie  may  have  an  action.  (t'Ulott  v.  Ket- 
tle, :}  Duor,  020,  627. — Uoswuktii,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1854. 

29.  In  the  imitation  of  trade-marks, 
the  essence  of  the  Avrong  consists  in 
the  sale  of  the  goods  of  the  manufac- 
turer or  vender  as  those  of  anothei  ; 
and  it  i.'  only  to  the  extent  in  which 
8ue!i  a  false  representation  is  made  that 
a  party  can  have  a  title  to  relief.  Sitm- 
uel  V.  Jierger,  24  Barb.,  S.  C,  104.— 
Davies,  J.;  N.  y.,  1850. 

30.  The  mere  fact  that  names  used 
on  a  trade-mark  are  fictitious  will  not 
authorize  the  use  of  it  by  strangers. 
Stewart  v.  Smithson-,  1  Hilton,  121. — 
Bkady,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

31.  The  question  to  be  determined  is, 
whether  the  mark  used  by  the  paity 
claiming  tlie  protection  of  the  court  is 
owned  by  him,  without  regard  to  its 
form,  which  such  party  lias  a  right  to 
design  according  to  his  judgment  or 
his  fancy.     Ibid.,  121. 

32.  To  render  a  person  liable  for  false 
representations  by  the  use  of  false  signs 


or  trade-m.'irks,  the  i.ign  or  m.ark  iniist 
be  laise  ill  fact,  and  be  so  kiiouu  l,j  the 
party  using  it,  and  have  been  used  with 
the  intention,  to  dvreivc,  and  be  ol'  mkIi 
a  character  as  would  mislead  a  perMin 
using  ordinary  caution.  Peterson,  y, 
l[iinii>hrey,  4  Abb.  I'r.,  31)5,  liOCi.— 
MiTciiKM,,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

.'13.  An  imitation  of  a  trade-mark, 
with  partial  ditVerencea  sucii  as  the  pub 
li<^  would  not  observe,  does  the  parly 
entitled  thereto  the  same  harm  as  an 
entire  counterfeit.  Clark  v.  Clark,  iS 
Barb.,  S.  C,  79.— MmiiEU.,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1857. 

34.  Though  the  wholesale  buyer  who 
is  most  familiar  witli  the  marks  mav 
not  be  misled,  if  the  small  retailer  nr 
consumer  is,  the  injury  is  the  same  in 
law,  and  differs  only  in  degree.  IhiO.,  7!i. 

35.  If  a  defendant  has  adoi»ted  a  dc- 
vice  or  name  so  diflSering  from  that 
adopted  by  the  plaintiflT  as  in  nowiso 
to  deceive  the  public  or  do  iiijurv  to 
the  plaintiff",  then  lie  is  not  liable.  Jim-- 
nett  V.  Phalon,  12  Mo.  Law  Kcp.,  221. 
— I'iKRUEI'ONT,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

30.  When  one  intentionally  closely 
imitates  the  trade-mark  of  another,  as 
using  the  word  "oocoine"  instead  of 
"  cocoaine,"  the  law  presumes  it  to 
have  been  done  for  tlie  purpose  of  in- 
ducing the  public  to  believe  that  tlio 
article  is  that  of  him  whose  tiade-inark 
is  imitated,  and  for  the  purpose  of  sup- 
planting him  in  the  good-will  of  his 
trade  and  business.     Ibid.,  223. 

37.  In  an  action  for  the  infringement 
of  a  trade-mark,  the  plaintiff'  is  not  en- 
titled to  recover,  as  a  part  of  his  dam- 
ages caused  by  the  infringement,  the 
costs  of  obtaining  an  injunction  in  the 
case.  Burnett  v.  Phalon,  12  Abb.  Pr., 
180;  21  How.,  Pr.,  102.— Moncrief, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1801. 


INJUJ^CTIONS,  A. 


377 


AH  TO  COl'TII.OIITS.      WHEN  WTLt,  IHMUB   AND   KXTKXT  Of, 


INJrXCTlONS. 

\,    Tv  llKsi"';<!T  TO  Coi'YUKiurs 377 

B.  Ix  Uksi'kct  to  I'atkxth. 

1.  Gini'Tttl  I'rinci]ilcfi  tijypUcnlile  to 

aUkinilii  of 379 

2.  Prdiininary  or  I'rovisiouiil 

(J,  Alloniuiri- iir  licfiiMil  (if ilHI 

b.  Jtlirlil  to,  fniin  ixcliislvc  I'dSm'sitlcm 
or  iMriniT  Ui'covcrif!*  ;  CImriiftur 

(pf  HlK'll  I'xdllhlvc  I'dSXCIinloll  ....  388 

C  Scciiilly  in  iilacr  uf,  (ir  (111  (,'niiillfiK  ''^'i 

d,  I'rac'llw  on  MiptldiiB  fur !*!)8 

«.  Continuuiice  or  Dlii.'iolutiun  of 101 

3.  Final  or  Vtrpduul 101 

4.  Violation  ,•/. 407 

C.  In  Rkhi'ect  to  Tuade-maiiks 409 

A.      In   UkSI'KCT   to   Coi'YUKillTS. 

As  to  wlion  injunctions  will  i.ssuo  to 
prevent  j)ubliciition  ot"  letters  iuul  nnin- 
iisciipts,  sec  Lkttkus  and  Manuscku'ts. 

See  also,  Equity,  A. 

1.  If  the  author  of  a  book  has  not  a 
copyright  secured  according  to  law,  he 
is  not  entitled  to  an  injunction  to  re- 
strain the  publishinij  and  vending  of  the 
work  by  another.  He  can  have  no  rem- 
edy of  any  kind.  Kioer  v.  Coxe.,  4 
"Wash.,  490,  491. — Wasiiingtox,  J.; 
Pa.,  1H24. 

2.  If  it  is  doubtful  whether  or  not 
there  has  been  an  infringement,  an  in- 
jimction  will  not  be  granted  in  the  fu'st 
iii.'*tanc'o  ;  but  the  parties  M'ill  be  sent  to 
a  trial  at  hiw.  lUunt  v.  Patten,,  2  Paine, 
403,  404.— Tiio.Mi'sox,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1828. 

3.  If  there  apj/ears  a  reasonable  doubt 
a.s  to  the  plaintiff's  right,  or  the  validity 
oi"  his  title,  an  injunction  will  be  refus- 
ed, and  he  will  be  required  ♦o  try  his 
title  at  law.  Miller  v.  McElroy^  1 
Amer.  Law  lleg.,  205. — IIopkinson,  J.; 
Pa.,  1839. 

4.  It  is  no  objection  to  an  injunction 
to  restrain  the  infringement  of  a  copy- 


riglit,  that  if  it  goes  to  part  of  the  work 
it  may  render  the  otner  part,  Mhich  in 
original,  wholly  without  value,  or  inju-t 
rioiisly  diminish  its  v;ilue.  Emwt^on  v. 
/JiiokSf'A  Story,  7l)(J. — Siouv,  J.;  Mass., 
1845. 

5.  If  a  person  chooses,  in  any  work, 
to  mix  with  his  own  literary  matter 
which  belongs  to  another,  he  will  be 
restrained  from  publishing  that  which 
does  not  belong  to  him  ;  and  if  tlie  parts 
cannot  be  separated,  and  by  that  means 
the  injtmction  prevents  the  j)nblic!ition 
of  his  own  matter,  he  has  only  himself 
to  blame.     If)id.,  796. 

0.  Before  granting  an  injunction  on  a 
charge  of  an  infringement  of  a  <*opy- 
right,  the  court  will  generally  refer  the 
matter  to  a  niaste",  with  instructions  to 
report  the  extent  of  the  infringement, 
if  any,  that  tlie  court  may  act  in  tlio 
<!ase.  Stori/''s  J'Jxrs.  v  JJerl>i/,  4  McLean, 
100,  101.— CuKlAM,  Ohio,  1840. 

7.  A  court  of  equity  can  restrain  a 
future  vi(dation  of  a  copyright,  as  well 
as  require  an  account  for  a  past  one ; 
and  such  remedy  is  often  better  than 
damages,  Avhich  alone  can  be  had  at  law. 
Pierjwntx.  Fowle,  2  Wood.  &  3Iin.,  35. 
— WoooHUUY,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

8.  In  res2)ect  to  co])yrights,  the  course 
has  been  so  liberal  as  to  enjoin,  if  an 
ecpiitable  or  clear  title  exists ;  and  if 
the  title  be  free  from  doubt,  the  court 
will  always  enjoin.     Ibid.,,  39. 

9.  Though  small  in  value,  an  imita- 
tion or  .appropriation  of  another's  in- 
vention or  copyright  may  be  actionable, 
and  the  subject  of  an  injunction,  per- 
haps, if  easily  separated  from  the  rest. 
But  where  the  appropriation  is  small, 
and  pervades  the  whole  work,  and  no 
permanent  injunction  can  issue  without 
destroying  the  whole,  such  a  remedy 
would  be  disproportionate,  unsuitecl  to 


II 


'^rWk;^ 


(«l«'l^L 


■-    -i-irf 


Il^ 


878 


1  N.I  r NOTIONS,  A. 


ill 


"Mli3^'' 


^i       ,:.'«^'lffi 


■^^.\. 


m 


.11 


-',;^«:* 


)>i 


AH  TO  COl'VKIilllTH.      MIIKX   WILL  ISHUK  AM)   KXTKXT  OK. 


till'  CaSi',  ainl     fluTflolV    lllljllst,         Wiflf) 

V.  Poicrs,  '2  W.mmI.  it   IMiii.,  r)LM,  5^:1. 
— Vt'ot»i)iiL'KV,  J. ;  Maf's.,  1^47. 

10.  The  ilafiiatfi's  HUHlaiiicil  may  hv 
o))taiiit>il  ill  a  suit  at  law,  without  (lo- 
st roving  till'  wlioK'  work,  and  sudi 
wotiM  bo  till)  inoNt  i'(juital)lc  rclirl". 
Jf>ul.,  '>'2a. 

1 1 .  Itut  wlioro  a  violation  is  clear,  and 
the  part  copied  can  readily  he  separated, 
nil  iiijiiiictioii  issues  against  siieh  part. 
"Where  a  parly  wilfully  mixes  the  proji- 
erty  of  another  with  liis  own  with  a  l»a<l 
motive,  he  may  bo  re<piired  at  times  to 
lose  the  wholi-.     Ihid.,  .')!.' I,  S'J'J. 

12.  An  iiijuiietion  in  copyrii;ht  eases 
chietly  runs  against  the  spiicilic  parts 
copiud.  It  is  usu.ally  issued  to  work 
Bidistaiilial  justice  between  the  partii's, 
rather  than  destroy  the  whole  book  of 
the  deti'iidaiit  for  a  small  infringement, 
if  otherwise  it  is  novel  and  unexception- 
able, and  useful  to  the  community. 
Ibid.,  52;]. 

l;{.  Whether  the  purchase  and  sale 
by  the  plaiiititls  of  the  defendant's  book, 
and  the  delay  of  plaintills  to  prosecute, 
should  bar  .in  apjilication  for  an  injunc- 
tion ;  query.     Ibid.,  523. 

14.  Where,  on  a  motion  for  an  injunc- 
tion to  restrain  the  alleged  violation  of 
a  copyright,  the  evidence  is  conflicting, 
and  not  full  enough  to  enable  the  court 
to  determiu'^  on  which  side  the  truth 
lies,  a  decision  on  the  injunction  will  be 
suspended,  and  an  issue  at  law  directed, 
and  the  defendi  .its  ordered  to  keep  an 
account  of  their  sales,  and  report  to  the 
court.  Jollie  v.  laqiies,  1  Blatohf.,  62G. 
—Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

15.  There  may  be  cases  in  which  an 
equitable  title  in  a  copyright  is  sufficient 
to  entitle  its  possessor  to  protection  by 
injunction.  little  v.  Gould,  2  Blatohf., 
181.~CojfKLiNG,  J.;  N.Y.,  1851. 


Iti.  Where,  under  an  agreement  lie- 
twecii  the  phiiiitilVs  and  certain  uiru.,.|, 
of  ihi'  .stall'  designated  by  law  for  lli;a 
purpose,  and  the  reporter  of  the  ('dihi 
of  Appeals,  it  was  stipulated  that,  iumih 
the  ti^rnis  mentioned  therein,  the  plainti;!' 
shoiilu  liavt-  the  exclusive  right  tn  iL, 
publication  of  the  decisions  of  the  ^lid 
Court  of  Appeals  prepared  by  said  iv. 
porter,  for  a  period  of  five  years,  and  the 
defendants  during  that  time  piil)li>ln;,l 
and  sold  such  decisions,  //(A/,  that  ihr 
plaintills,  though  not  the  assignees  of  tho 
entire  privilege  oi'coi>yright,  had  a  jnr. 
feet  title  to  the  beiielieial  inti'rest  tlu'ic- 
in  during  the  stijiulated  term  of  llvr 
years,  and  tliut  it  was  such  a  title  as  tliu 
court  was  bound  to  take  cognizaiu'c  of. 
Ibid.,  181,  1811. 

17.  AVhere,  however,  such  re))ortcr, 
after  his  removal  from  the  said  position 
of  reporter,  jirepared  a  volume  of  the 
decisions  of  said  court,  on  his  own  ac- 
count,  and  in  his  individual  or  piivati 
cajiacity,  such  volume  containing,  how- 
ever, some  decisions  that  came  iiilo 
his  hands  while  he  held  the  official  po- 
sition of  reporter — and  sold  the  siiiiie 
to  the  defendants,  who  published  tlif 
same.  Held,  on  a  bill  liled  by  the  plain- 
tift's  for  an  injunction,  and  claiming  title 
to  such  volume,  by  virtue  of  the  agiee- 
ment  referred  to  in  the  case  last  .above 
named,  that  the  plaintiffs  could  not  be 
considered  as  the  legal  owners  of  the 
volume,  for  the  ])urposcs  of  the  contract 
under  the  copyright  laws,  and  that  they 
were  not  entitled  to  an  injunction  to 
prevent  its  publication  and  sale.  What- 
ever obligation  may  arise  under  such 
contract  as  to  such  volume,  is  fouudctl 
on  the  failure  of  the  reporter  to  furnish 
the  manuscripts  to  the  plaintifl".  Little 
V.  Hall,  18  How.,  172.— McLeax,  J.; 
Sup.    Ct.,  1855. 


L^^ 


in.ii:nc;tu>ns,  n.  i. 


n.u 


AH  TO   PATKNTH.      tlKSKRAI.   I'ltlSCII'I.KH    AN  Tt). 


IS.  Wlii'i'o,  Oil  II  motion  for  an  iiijmic- 
tiiiii  to  H'straiii  till'  !illt'i;i'il  vmlMtioii  of 
ji  (uiiyri-jlit,  it  apln-ari'd  that  licit lirr  the 
jill,..i,aj^o  no*-  a  voluiiu'  of  the  jiriiilcd 
liook  Inul  bcon  (Icpositod  until  iiioro 
|ii:iii  two  yi'ai'^  afttT  tlio  wmk  liatl  l»t'iMi 
Iiiiti!i-<lit'<l,  lltlil,  tliat  tilt!  iilaiiitilV  was 
11(1  (Mititli><l  to  an  irijiiiii'liMii,  as  ho  lin<i 
ii()  viili'l  copyriijlit.  Slriiiw  v.  Sc/iii'cd- 
/,;•,  4  IHatclif. — Nki.ho.v,  J.;  N.  V., 
IS -.7. 

11).  Where  n  person  claiiiu'd  to  h.'ivc 
fii'CUiT(l  his  copyrii^ht  in  June,  185(J,  but 
before  that  time  had  assisted  in  the 
|in'|iaratioii  for  puMisliiiiij  of  a  volume, 
and  ill  (he  select  on  of  m.atter  tiierefor, 
wliieh  lie  afterward  insisted  was  includ- 
ed in  his  eopyrifjiht,  but  at  such  time 
made  no  claim  to  co])yrij^lit  on  his  i)arl, 
and  siihsef|ueiitly  was  also  employed  by 
till"  publisher  of  the  lirst  work,  at  :i 
stipulated  price,  to  rcluco  for  another 
work  the  drawings  Avhich  were  the  siib- 
joot  of  the  assumed  co)>yrij^lit,  Jfehf, 
that  such  person  would  not  be  permitted 
to  stop  the  sale  of  tlie  -work,  even  if  lie 
had  a  valid  copyright  therein,  lly  aid- 
ing ill  the  publication,  lie  agreed  to  it, 
and  by  assenting  tliat  the  work  might 
be  published,  ho  agreed  tliat  it  might 
be  sold.  Heine  v.  Appleton^  4  Blatclif. — 
Iniikusoi.l,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

20.  On  a  motion  for  an  injunction  for 
the  infringement  of  a  coj)yriglit,  a  ref- 
erence will  not  be  made  to  a  master  to 
examine  the  map  or  book  of  the  com- 
plainant, and  also  that  of  tlie  defend- 
ant, and  report  the  facts,  with  liis  opin- 
ion on  the  question  of  the  infringement 
'  of  right.  Such  motions  must  be  dis- 
posed of  on  the  moving  papers  of  the 
complainants  and  the  affidavits  on  *he 
part  of  the  defendants  in  opposition 
thereto.  /Smith  v.  Juhnsrm,  4  Blatclif. — 
IscEKsoLL,  J. ;  N.  y.,  1858. 


n.    Tv  UKsi'Etrr  to  Patksth. 

I.  (teneral  J*rinn'/tlcs  ajtplieuhla  to  uU 
kinds  of, 

1.  A  judge  of  the  court  in  vacation 
can  allow  a  writ  of  iiijiiiiction  in  ihoso 
cases  only  where  it  may  bi!  granted  by 
the  Supreme  or  a  Circuit  Court.  TAv- 
hiijstdn  V.  Villi  ftiijcti,  1  I'aine,  4  7. — 
liiviviisroN,  .r. ;  X.  V..  lull. 

2.  Where,  therefore,  a  suit  was  com- 
menced on  the  e(juity  side  of  the  ('ir- 
eiiit  Court  for  the  infringement  of  a 
patent,  and  praying  for  an  injunction, 
.'ind  the  parties  were  residents  of  the 
same  state,  Jfeld,  that  the  court  had  no 
jurisdiction  of  the  case,  as  under  the 
judiciary  act  the  court  could  take  juris- 
diction only  as  between  citizens  of  dif- 
ferent states,  and  the  act  of  IHOO  con- 
ferred jurisdiction  in  patent  cases  only 
in  actions  at  law,  and  that  the  injunc- 
tion must  be  refused.     Ihid.^  4H,  .^t. 

3.  In  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction, 
in  all  cases  of  granting  injunctions  to 
prevent  the  violation  of  patent-rights, 
the  court  is  to  proceed  according  to  the 
course  and  principles  of  courts  of  e(piity 
in  such  cases.  Sidl'nian  v.  liedjield,  1 
Paine,    448.— Tiiompsov,   J.;    N.    Y., 

4.  The  jurisdiction  exercised  by  a 
court  of  ecjuity  in  granting  an  injunc- 
tion is  in  aid  of  the  common  law,  and 
shoidd  not  be  asserted  Avhen  the  right 
is  doubtfuh  The  court  in  gr.'inting  the 
injunction  acts  ujion  the  assumption  that 
the  righ>  has  been  infringed,  or  tliat  lit- 
tle or  no  doubt  exists  on  that  point. 
77ionias  v.  Weeks,  2  Paine,  97. — Thomp- 
son, J. ;  ir.  Y.,  1827. 

5.  A  bill  will  lie  for  an  injunction,  if 
the  patent-right  has  been  established,  or 


t 


f  W 


-/wW^ 


.^^.^ 


/ 


7^, 


'Jit; 


■  w  W^fc-^W 


flpl 


i 


i,i!'sw 


-■'  Pi 


t-'4.. 


llit! 


'     ^       ^^^'Wl' 


t:->.  ;***'' 


t*4i,;i 


8«0 


IN'jrNCTIoVfl.  R  1. 


AH  TO  PATKNTH,      (l>:N»:UAr.  I'KINntl'I.KM  AN  TO. 


i^  nJfuiffcil,  upon  well  [^roiUKlcil  proof 

of  ill!  a|ipl'('llt'll(li'<|  iliti'iilioii   of  the   lie 

t'l'iiilaiil  to  violiito  tlu;  patciii-ri^lit.  A 
Itill,  qnUt  tiiHi'iy  Ih  nil  ortliiiiiry  r«>iiii<i|i;il 
procosH  ill  iM|uit y.  ]\'<><><firiirf/i  v.  Sfom , 
y  Story,  7')'-*.-  SroUY,  J.  ;  .Mush.,  lsir>. 
(t.  Ilills  tor  iiijiiiiftions  nrv  usually 
broiiLjIit  all|«'r  tin*  title  to  a  patent  lias 
Im'cii  ('stalilislicil,  ami  tlic  cxpfctalion  is 
(liat  the  only  ipiestions  ai^ilatnl  will  l>i> 
(lie  anioiint  to  lie  uccoiinteil  tor,  and  tlit> 
rest rictioiiH  for  the  future.  Orr  v.  Mer- 
rlll,  1  \Vo(mI.  it  Mill.,  ;»78.— W<MH>. 
m  Kv,  .1.;  .Me.,  \HU\. 

7.  Injiinetions  lieint;  proliiliited  in  the 
oouits  of  the  United  States  (hy  5$  r* 
oh.  22,  of  the  net  of  17n;t,  1  Stal.  at 
Tjar<;e),  without  notice  first  to  the  op- 
posiiiLT  l''i'"'y,  it  follows  that  all  of  them 
must  1)0  reganled  as  speci.al,  rather  than 
Honiu  of  them  as  common  o<'  matter  of 
course,  and  therefore  when  resist eil  un- 
der such  notice,  whether  the  hearing 
conies  on  hefore  or  after  :iii  answer,  no 
iiijunetion  can  be  granted  unless  special 
and  sullicient  cause  is  clearly  shown, 
Pirnj  V.  I'<n'/:,r,  1  Wood.  &  Miii.,  '281. 
— WooniUKY,  ,1. ;  .Mass.,  IHU\. 

8.  An  injuiution  cannot  properly  is- 
sue in  !V  patent  case,  except  on  a  bill 
of  complaint  regularly  filed.  Mor.v:  v. 
O'Jiiilhj,  MS.— Catkon',  J.,  at  Cham- 
bers; D.  C,  1849. 

9.  An  injunction  cannot  issue  out  of 
a  state  court  to  restrain  a  defeiuhmt 
from  infringing  a  patent;  such  courts 
have  no  jurisdiction  over  the  se'ject 
matter.  Dudley  v.  Mitylmc.,  3  Coins., 
19.— Strong,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

10.  Proceedings  to  restrain  the  un- 
lawful use  of  a  machine  are  instituted 
aijainst  the  owner  or  party  concerned 
in  the  infringement,  who  is  personally 
I'uble  for  the  violation,  and  may  be 
brought  in  the  district  where  he  lives, 


or  Is  found  nf  the  time  of  servlnp  tho 
writ,  even  though  the  machine  \*.  in 
.'iiiother  district.  Hut  where  it  iiitj,|,( 
heeome  nect'ssary  to  proceed  ilincilv 
against  the  machine  ilsclf,  as  in  (.;|,,,', 
of  controversy,  or  fraudulent  (diitri- 
vanco  to  evade  an  injunction,  the  imi. 
ceedings  should  he  instituted  in  di,, 
district  in  which  the  machi'ie  is  W^. 
ted.  W'iUon  v.  Slunintii,  I  llliitclit", 
r)4l.— Nklson,  J.  ;  N.  v.,  lH.-,o. 

II.  The  stringent  directions  in  the 
act  of  I8;t(l  as  to  injunctions,  coimMl 
from  the  act  of  1819,  Heeni  to  he  d,.. 
signed  to  remove  all  douhls  as  to  tlio 
authority  of  the  courts  of  the  rnitril 
States  to  employ  that  process  in  p.itciii 
cases  to  the  saims  extent  it  is  w-ivA  in 
courts  of  gener.'d  jurisdiction.  Nivins 
V.  Johnxim,  W  illatclif.,  HI.  —  Ukits,  ,|.; 
N\  v.,  18.-):i. 

I'J.  If  a  defendant  for  a  good  con. 
sideration  covenants  not  to  iiilVintjc  ;i 
patent,  he  will  be  enjoined  by  a  cdint 
of  eipiity  from  further  infringing,  un- 
less ho  shows  some  e(iuitable  reasdn 
why  the  performanco  of  such  a^rtc- 
nu'iit  should  not  be  enforceil.  >S'(//'. 
(font  v.  Larne.d.,  2  Curt.,  344. — Cuu- 
Tis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1855. 

13.  A  bill  for  an  injunction  should 
be  filed  in  the  state  where  the  defend- 
ant resides.  An  injunc^tion  will  not  is- 
sue out  of  a  court  in  a  state  difl'eient 
from  that  where  such  defendant  resides 
and  carries  on  his  business,  on  the 
ground  that  they  would  be  beyond  the 
process  of  the  injunction,  and  the  issuing 
of  it  would  be  inoperative  and  useless. 
Goodi/ear  v.  Chaffte,  3  Blatchf.,  270.— 
Nkf.son,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

14.  A  writ  of  injunction  ought  to 
contain  a  concise  description  of  the  par- 
ticular acts  or  things  in  respect  to  which 
the  party  is  enjoined,  so  that  there  \m) 


INJUNCTIONS,  15.  2,  a. 


8J1 


PRKr.iuisAnr.    aluowkhc*  or  RivimAL  or. 


1)1' iii>  iitiHii|t|in'lifii>iiiii  oil  till'  hiiltjfct, 
iiioi'ti'i' '"  ^^'"i''*""'    ■'"  iitl''ii'li>iii-iil  for 
Im    \in|iilii>ii.        Wluitjih     V,     llntihin 
,„n,  \    l»liiU;lil". — Nki.h(»n,    J.;     N.    \ ., 

1H.)H. 

I,").  WliiTo  tlio  writ  of  iiijiiiKtliiiii  re 
fi'iii'il  l'>  <li«'  f<tiii|il.rnit  |i>r  ilic  <|t'M  ri|i- 
tiiiii  iif  llif  tliiiij;  nijoincil,  siirli  (!fscii|i- 
tidii  iiiii)  '**'  Mitliciciit,  HO  till-  as  tin- 
(li'li'iKliiiil,  wlio  liiiM  Itecii  iilfiaily  Horviul 
with  iIk'  coiiiiiliiint,  'ih  (roiiccriuid,  hut  as 
to  all  olli'i"  |»i'r.soiis  it  would  not  lie  siif- 
iKii'iil.     //'<■(/. 

10.  Tlu'  writ  of  injunction  is  a  n-inc- 
(liiil  writ,  in  tlii!  nutiirc  of  u  proliiltiiion 
—to  iircvcnt  till'  coininissioii  of  iiijuiics 
ill  I'll! lire,  not  to  redress  injuries  that 
arc  |ia^t.  It  U(5ts  as  a  rt'inctly  a<^ainst  a 
lineal t'la'd  wroii;^  l»y  jireviMitini^  tliu 
coiiunission  of  sneh  wron^.  Ptipjun- 
lnu.i,H  V.  A.  )'.  G.  P.  Comb  Co., 
\  liLilelif. — Iniikusoi.i,,  J.;  M.  Y., 
1858. 

17.  It  is  not  ni>c(fssary  luifore  such  a 
writ  to  prevent  a  wronj;,  issue,  that  the 
wroiij;  should  iiavo  heen  actually  com- 
mitted. When  the  rights  of  a  party 
have  hccn  cstablislied,  and  an  infringo- 
mcnt  of  sucli  rights  is  throat((ned,  or 
where  they  liave  been  infringed,  and 
the  party  lias  good  reason  to  believe 
they  will  continue  to  bo  infringed,  an 
injunction  will  issue.     Ibid. 

18.  The  remedy  by  injunction,  tliougli 
necessary  in  certain  cases  to  do  com- 
liletc  justice,  is  nevtrtheles.s  one  which 
sliould  always  be  cautiously  granted, 
especially  where  demanded  before  de- 
cree on  final  hearing  on  the  nu-rits. 
Goodyear  v.  Dunhar,  3  Wall,  Jr. — 
Geikk,  J.;  N.  J.,  18G1. 

19.  If  the  defendant  Bhows  a  belief 
that  he  has  a  just  defence,  .ind  is  not  a 
wilful  pirate  of  the  plaintiff's  invention, 
it  should  be  a  case  of  evident  mistake 


of  law  or  fact,  or  both,  in  iii^  <l4'fence, 
which  will  justify  the  e  lurt  in  tising 
t heir yJ «///*»<//*  nnitiUmn       Ih'nl, 

'J.     /Wlimifiiiri/  III'  I'l'uuiMiiHiiil, 

a.  Allowiiiini  ami  KuriiHiil  of. 
See  also  In.ii!.N(;tio.>s,  I  J.  '-'.  d, 

1.  Wliert^  it  appeared  that  the  thing 
pMleiileil  was  the  result  of  the  sugges- 
tion of  alio! her,  /A A/,  that  il  threw  mo 
much  doubt  upon  the  patenteti^H  riglit 
as  the  HrHt  and  solo  uiventor,  as  to  ren- 
tier it  improper  to  grant  an  injunction 
until  liis  right  has  been  tried  at  law. 
Tliomi'.H  v.  WtvkH,  2  I'aine,  102. — 
Thomson,  . I. ;  N.  Y.,  1K27. 

2.  A  court  of  erpiity  will  not  interfere 
in  behalf  of  a  patentee,  either  to  grant 
an  iiijunelioii,  or  to  give  him  any  relief 
in  respect  to  an  alleged  violation  of  Iiin 
patent,  if,  after  liaving  obtained  his  [lat- 
ent, \w  has  surrendered  or  dedic;itei|  it 
to  the  public,  or  acipiiesced,  for  u  long 
period,  in  the  public  uso  thereof  with- 
out objection,  as  his  own  conduct  may 
be  considered  as  having  led  to  such  uso 
or  application,  or  acts  of  ihe  defendants. 

Wytifh  V.  Stone,  1  Story,  2H2,  284.— 
Stokv,  .T.  ;  Mass.,  1840. 

.'J.  The  granting  of  an  injunction  is  a 
matter  resting  in  the  sound  discretion 
of  the  Court.     Ibid.,  2S.5. 

4.  In  awarding  an  injunction,  a  very 
delicate  and  liighly  responsible  power  is 
used,  which  ought  not  to  be  exerted 
where  there  is  re.isonable  doubt  as  to 
the  existence  of  any  fact  on  which  the 
application  is  founded.  Cooper  v.  Mat- 
theios,  8  Law  Rep.,  415. — Baldwin,  J. ; 
Pa.,  1842. 

5.  In  asking  an  injunction,  the  plain- 
tiff seeks  either  to  interrupt  the  course 


■\  '^^^ 


s^.w: 


3SI| 


^UuJU:J^t^ 


II 

I, 


-■■its,' 


:.S.  < 


iu 


^-^iS^'; 


li 


80S 


INMINC  TION'S.  n.  J.  ri. 


I'KRMMIXARY.     ALLOWANCH  UH  UKtlMAk  ur. 


of  llic  t'oiiitiKMi  law,  or  to  ask  fur  hoiiio 
n-Iiff  lu'  caiiiiol  \^^^\^'  at  law;  lie  iiiiiHt 
(■oiis('i|iiriitlv  Htalt*  aixl  inakt'  out  a  t'asi> 
for  i'i|ui(al)li'  ri-lit'f  iiri  siicli  factK  as  liriii^ 
hin  vmo  within  the  jtiriHilictioii  ')f  tin- 
coiirtrt  of  equity,  and  proper  fur  ilH  cx- 
frci^c.     Iftnf.,  4ltl. 

0.  TluTt'  hlioiil.l  lie  u  ciTtaiiity  M  to 
nil  tlic  material  facts,  for  doubt  and  uii- 
ccrt:tinty  are  fatal  to  n  motion  to  ^nuit 
an  iiijiinclioM,  tliouj^h  it  is  j^ood  cause 
for  CDnliiiuiuLr  it  on  a  motion  to  dissolve, 
the  burden  of  proof  Iteiniron  the  jilnin- 
titf  in  one  case,  and  on  the  defendant  in 
the  other.     Ihid,  ■\\i\. 

7.  An  injunction  will  be  ^^ranted  nnly 
when  the  plainlitV  has  u>ed  dut^  diii- 
jfenee  in  asserting  his  rij^hts.  If  he  iie- 
quiesees,  or  is  imuMivo  whili'  the  dan;;»'r 
exists,  <ir  the  mischii'f  is  done,  it.  nej^a- 
tives  the  necessity  of  action  in  equily, 
unless  the  inaction  is  uucuunled  for. 
Ibid.  \  1 7. 

8.  The  in<piiry  is  not  whether  the 
jilaintitV  had  notice  of  the  violation  of 
liis  rij^ht  by  the  defendant,  but  whetlur 
liis  imprctvement  lias  come  into  public 
use  durinijf  his  inaction,  or  a  state  of 
thin<;s  of  which  he  mii^ht  have  had  no- 
tice by  the  use  of  due  dilijjfcnce,  or 
•where  the  law  of  equity  deems  nefj;li- 
genco  to  be  the  same  as  notice.  Ibid.., 
418. 

9.  A  court  of  equity  frecjuently  re- 
fuses an  injunction  where  it  acknowl- 
edges a  right,  Avhen  the  conduct  of  the 
party  had  led  to  a  state  of  things  whicli 
occasions  the  application,  and  therefore 
will  refuse  or  dissolve  an  injunction, 
without  saying  in  -whom  the  right  is. 
Ibid.,  419. 

10.  An  injtmction  will  not  he  granted 
to  restrain  a  party  Avho  has  been  in  pos- 
session any  length  of  time  claiming  by 
a  title  adverse,  till  the  right  is  first  sct- 


tleil  by  law.  An  injunction  is  a  ,)r(i|i.  !■ 
remedy  to  protect  a  posHcsxinu  until  ii 
appears  to  be  agaiuNt  right,  but  i^  nrvcf 
u>ed  to  {'  stUlb  a  possession  lUhK  r  ihuin 
and  color  of  right.     //»/«/.,  \\\). 

1 1.  The  rule  on  which  cninisofciiiiity 
act  by  an  injunction  in  the  fu'st  in>tiuii'i> 
is  ti»  leave  the  parlies  in  the  same  |M),i. 
tioii  it  finds  them  wlu>n  the  appliculiuii 
for  relief  is  nuide,  by  protecting  iho 
plainlitf  in  llu>  same  possession  wliicli 
he  had  before  enjoyed,  and  when  tlio 
possession  of  the  tiefiiidant  had  Ikci) 
unmolested,  leaving  the  •••ght  of  pitssos. 
sion  to  be  settled  at  law.      //>/»/.,  J 10. 

I 'J.  No  cases  come  before  a  cmirf  nf 
t'quily  in  which  a  great'  i  degree  of  dil. 
igenee  is  retpiired  th:m  applicatinns  fur 
injunctions;  their  nature  and  ell'uct  nro 
\  siu'h  as  to  produce  the  most  iirepuru- 
ble  injury  when  improvideiitly  graiilud. 
Ibid.,  419. 

ly.  Kqnity  acts  on  dilfereut  princi- 
ples in  protecting  the  possessiuii  of  tliu 
plalntilf,  or  deerming  to  disturb  the  de- 
femlant ;  it  leaves  the  right  of  the  imi'- 
ties  as  they  stsind  at  law.     //>/(/.,  4J0, 

14.  The  refusal  of  an  injunction  to  ;» 
plaintiff  does  not  inqiair  his  right  (ir 
remedy  at  law.  Nor  does  the  gr.iiitiii;,' 
of  an  injuiuuion  interfere  with  the  di- 
fendant  contesting,  at  law,  the  right  of 
the  plaintiff  to  the  same  extent  as  if 
eipiity  had  not  interfered.     Ilni!.,  4:!i). 

15.  Courts  of  equity  exercise  this  [lart 
of  their  jurisdiction,  granting  injiiiic- 
tious  with  great  caution,  always  declin- 
ing it  ia  a  doubtful  case,  and  one  not 
brought  forward  by  a  party  who  was 
vigilant,  and  not  clearly  within  tlio 
established  rules  and  principles  of  equity 
jurisprudence.     Ibid.,  421. 

10.  In  most  cases  a  court  will  not  en- 
join, until  the  complainant  has  estab- 
lished his  right  at  law.    But  where  the 


IH'  III'- 

10  liar- 

|>ll  to  W 
[lit  or 
aiitiui,' 
lie  (Ic 
;Iit  of 
as  if 
,  4'Ji). 
lis  \yM 
miiiiu'- 
ik'diii- 
he  not 
lo  was 
111    tlio 
letiiiity 

liot  en- 
I  estab- 
ire  the 


INJINCTIONS,  n.  2.  rt. 


383 


MKUNINARr,      ACLOWAMfN  UK   KKri'llAL  Or. 


injury  woiiM  l>«  irr«|tiin»l»l»',  i»ii  iiijiin*-- 
tliiii  will  li^tuc.  Jlroiiln  V.  Hiiltnlf, ;» 
M.I.(Mii.'J<»-'.— M<Ij.:.\N,.I.;<Hii..,  lHl;|. 
17.  Kor  :k  ivtViviic*'  to  :uhI  I'.vamiiiii 
lion  of  miuiy  nf  tlu*  ciihoh  in  rrffn-nff 
to  j?niiiliiiK  iiijiiiu'tioiiH,  Hi't'  Ot'rw  lAt- 
tt.f'lif,  1  Woo.l.  it  Mill.,  i:i.— Wooi»- 
lauv.J.;  N.n.,  iHt.V 

IS.  It  is  within  tlu>  huuikI  diM-rftioii 
(if  the  cuiiit  wlietluM"  to  iKsiU'  an  injiiiic- 
tion  or  n'fiiHi!  it ;  or  if  issunl,  to  dis- 
.olvo  iir  ri't.'iin  it.     //>/»/.,  Ii>. 

11).  Till!  nil«'  is  well  Hcttli'd,  that  in 
cimos  of  iMtViii<;(>int>iit  iiivolviii<;  pointH 
to  bo  ik'ciilc'd  by  I  ho  ti'stiinony  of  i-x- 
pcrts,  ami  t's  to  which  llicrc  is  a  f,'ri  at 
ilivoi>ity  of  o|iinioii,  an  itijiiii*-tioii  will 
not  he  tleeriH'<|  unless  the  ri^ht  is  «'lear, 
(ir  has  been  estahlisheil  by  an  aetion  lit 
l;i\v.  lii'iuth-A  V.  /{if/ifii/l,  i  MeFieaii, 
::'.— Md-ioAN,  .r. ;  Ohio,  \H\ru 

•10.  A  |i.'iteiitee  will  not  be  deeiiU'tl  to 
have  ae([iiiesee(l  in  the  use  <»f  his  inven- 
tion, bo  as  to  <le|trive  hiiii  of  the  ri^^ht 
to  an  injiinetion,  Ac.,  because  lu'  first 
|iiiicee«ie(l  a^jjainsl,  only  the  more  palp.a- 
lik'  ami  ol)vious  violations  of  his  ptitent, 
(ir  because  he  has  not  brought  huit 
:is;ai!ist  all  inlVinging  upon  it.  Van 
llimk  y.  PoKllifoii,  1  niatehf.,  191.— 
Nklsov,  IIk'its,  JJ.  ;  N.  Y.,  lH4(i. 

'Jl.  >^einbl<;  that  a  workman  on  a  ma- 
■liino,  though  not  interesteil  in  it,  is  lia- 
l)le  to  be  restraiiHMl  in  order  to  prevent 
ivasioiis.  Wou<hror(hv.  /fall,  I  Wood, 
ife  Mill.,  252. — WooDBUUV,  J. ;  3Iass., 
1^46. 

22.  So  if  a  person  does  not  liimself 
perforin  the  work,  but  procures  another 
to  do  it  for  his  advantage,  on  a  macliine 
owned  by  himself,  he  can  still  be  ro- 
i>tniine(l,  and  is  estopped  from  denying 
quifiU'it  per  alium,  facitperse  ;  or  if 
be  hire  one  to  work  on  such  a  machiuo. 
7/'m/.,  252. 


2:i.  .\n  injunetiiiii  will  not  be  granted 
iigain>t  I.  persiiii  re<«lr.iiirnig  him  from 
doing  a  inai'hitie,  unl<  s  it  is  mIiow  n  'hat 
he  actually  used  it,  or  received  prolit 
from  it.  //»/</.,  2AJI. 
I  2t.  Slight  and  iiiiiiiiport-uit  alleratiotiH 
in  a  inachint' — .'dtt'ratioiis  which  the  <le- 
scriptioii  of  the  invcntiou  would  iialii* 
rail),  if  no!  nceesHarily,  suggest  without 
the  aid  of  tniieli  ingenuity  or  skill,  will 
not  be  sutllcieiit  to  prevent  the  ij*Huin<^ 
of  .an  injuiiction  to  restrain  the  u^e  of 
such  a  niachiiie,  (HIihuu  v.  //iH'n'/<,  I 
niatchf.,  170,  17'J.— Nei.hox,.I.;  N.  V., 
IHIO. 

2.'>.  An  injuncfioti  will  1m>  granted  as 
well  against  an  agent,  who  merely  nells 
the  article  which  infringes  ji  p.ateiit,  as 
.against  the  nianufacturei,  as  Itoth  are 
joint  trespassers,  and  they  may  be  .sued 
jointly.  Hiir/c  v.  Cohh  it  I/i  ntidnci', 
It  Law  Uep.,  547.--C'oNKi.lNti,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  18  to. 

2tl.  Where  an  inventcu-  had  nianufae- 
tured  and  put  on  s:ile  his  invention  for 
some  time  before  his  applicatioii  tor  a 
patent,  imtl  hail  also  sold  large  (pianti- 
ties  of  the  article  invented,  an  ornamen- 
tal button,  in  packages  marked  as  im- 
portecl  from  Paris,  thereby  .atVording  an 
implieation  that  he  was  not  the  original 
inventor,  JIcl(l,\ix  an  action  for  infriiige- 
uu'iit,  and  the  novelty  of  the  invention 
being  denied,  that  he  was  lutt  entitled 
to  a  ]>rovisi oiial  injunction,  until  his 
right  should  have  been  established  at 
law.  liuothw  Garelly,  1  IJlatchf.,  250. 
— Ni:i.sov,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1847. 

27.  Where  one  person  runs  a  m.v 
eliine  which  others  own,  ami  which  iiia- 
cliiiie  is  a  violation  of  a  patent,  an  in- 
junction will  issue  against  all  for  the 
violation.  Woodicorth  v.  EdinnrJs,  3 
Wood.  &  IMui.,  133. — WouDUUuy,  j.j 
Mass.,  1847. 


I 


LI 


^•fcw. 


■^4m- 


^=^\. 


^-^ 


^ 


'^ 


"  .•Ww, 
J 


,'    T 


■A- 


■w 


WW! 


lit^Wi 


^■.■-■\;.9^W^m 


'rliil 


n 


i.  ..iff 


^^i 


n^ 


IXJrNcTloNH,  II.  t.  a. 


''     '■«"*#' 


;i: 


■1. 


»1Ntt 


:v. 


i!  ■^'^•:> 


M!i. 


rURMNtRAIIT.     AIJ^tWANl'M  DR  NKriNAI.  or. 


2i).  If  nil  iiijiiiii'liuii  I1114  b<><>n  Infiuiut 
n^!iiii<*i  11  iiiTHon,  rcMtriiiiiiii;;  liiiii  IVmhi 
tliv  llHii  of  nil  iillf^i'il  iiivrillinli,  u  liicli 
liijiiiiclioii  ri-iiiaiiM  ill  full  i<)ri'«>,  iiiitl  tlii> 
^riiiiti<i'4  of  w  liii'ti  iiri'  in  in*  wiiy  «»\t'r 
tiiriii')!,  tlit>  iiMt>  of  hui'li  til!i'p'<|  iiiv«>ii> 
timi  will  not  Ih>  pci-initti-il  \>y  tiiird  |M>r- 
ion*,  cliiiniiiit;  from  NUfli  porNoii,  l>iii 
tliry  will  iiNo  !»»•  fiijoini'tl.      //»/«/.,  I.'l.l. 

'.M».  An  injiinftion  is  m-xt-r  i»«iK'tl  in 
liDHtilit)  to  \vli;it  Hct'iu  to  ))(>  tint  It-^al 
rijijIitH  of  |>firtii*M,  tint  in  aid  ami  protiM'- 
tioti  of  tlu'in.  i\nil  wlifiicvor  »  trial  in 
Iiail,  .-ln.wiiii;  that  tin-  rij^lits  at  law  an- 
with  the  party  mjoiniil,  tlu'  injunction, 
(iM  itiiiatt«'r  of  coin'MO,  will  !•«>  tli'^Holvcil. 
Wooifwoft/i  V.  /iiit/irn,  ■■!  Wool,  tt  Min., 
160. — Wooiiiii  KV,  J.;   .MaNX.,  |h|7. 

!»0.  Wln'ii' a  hill  was  filnl  for  an  Mi- 
junction,  to  rc^train  the  running  of  a 
inachiiio  in  violation  of  the  plainlitrH 
rights,  and  the  defendants  justified  un- 
der a  license,  which  li.e  coin|ilainant  ;il- 
lej;ed  Iwul  heen  ahanduiied,  hut  there 
'wati  no  isNiio  of  ahandoninunt  niadt>  in 
the  plea<liii}^»,  //</</,  that  no  evidi'iice 
of  ahandonnu'iit  could  ho  reci-ived,  and 
thercfort!  an  injunction  could  not  issue, 
Wiln^ii..  V,  f<tt>lley,  4  McLean,  270.— 
McLkav,  J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

31.  The  grant  of  a  patent  by  the  p.nt- 
ont  office,  is  not  of  itself,  or  in  virtue  of 
§  7  of  the  act  of  1  H;t((,  a  har  to  an  In- 
terlocutory injunction,  in  favor  of  a  per- 
son claiming  to  be  a  prior  patentee  of 
the  same  thing;  and  particularly  as 
such  person  had  no  notice  to  appear 
and  be  heard  at  the  patent  office,  and 
the  court  being  satisKed  on  a  hearing 
before  it  that  the  last  granted  patent 
M'.as  an  interference  with  the  one  previ- 
ously grjmted.  Wilsonx.  liiir/iuni,  I 
Wall,  Jr.,  340,  350.— Kaxe,  J. ;  l*u., 
1849. 

82.  Wlicre  the  court  is  itself  satis- 


I  Hod  rhrit  tlip  ilefendnnti  are  infl  Iti^i),,. 
the  plain*iirM  riuhl,  although  the  iiiiijor 
Ity  of  i'\p«>rtM,  called  an  wiinoMM-H,  ynvrv 
of  the  opinion  that  there  waM  no  in. 
fringcineiif,  it  i-«  itn  duly  to  grant  an  in 
junction  to  rcNtrain  miicIi  iiilVin^rnittit. 
/A/7.,  Mftl.M.Mi. 

:i:i.  .\n  injunctioii  will  be  granitl 
agaiiiHl  a  licensee  to  restrain  hini  fnun 
the  UMc  of  a  machine,  in  violation  nt'iln' 
conditioiiH  of  his  license,  if  appliiil  tiir 
during  the  time  of  niicIi  violation,  V.'H. 
i*on  V.  S/nnmni,  1  Illalehf,  540.— Xk',. 
SON,  .1.;   N.  v.,  IH.'.O. 

.'II.  Hut  where  it  appears  that  thi'  m. 
olatioii  haH  been  under  a  misappnliin- 
HiiMi  of  liiH  rightH,  ami  he  has  di>c(j) 
tinued  the  viohitioii,  an  iiijun<-lii>n  w, 
not  be  granted.      //</((.,  .MO. 

35.  An  injunction  will  hi*  graiitcij  in 
favor  of  th"  hohh'r  of  the  legal  title  of 
a  puteiit,  against  the  holder  of  an  lujiii- 
lal)h'  interest  tlu'rein,  if  it  appear  llmt 
the  holder  of  the  legal  title  was  a  |iiii- 
chaser  for  n  valuable  consiibMatiitn,  miu! 
without  notice  of  the  i'(|uitable  illtert•^t; 
ami  the  burden  of  proof  lies  on  liiin  im- 
peaching the  legal  title.  (I'ifiiion  V.  ('oiil>', 
'2  lUatchf.,  14."),  151.— Nklhon,  J.;  X. 
Y.,  1H50. 

30.  The  chief  object  of  issuing  writs 
of  injunction  before  the  final  heariii;,' df 
a  cau:<e,  is  to  prevent  irreparalile  mis- 
chief; not  to  give  the  eoniplainaiit  tho 
meaiiH  of  coercing  a  eom|tromi,se  iVom 
the  injury  the  defendants  may  mD'vr 
from  being  restrained.  J^tirker  v.  .S'w«, 
MS.— (JiiiKK,  .1. ;  Pa.,  IH.io. 

37.  The  issuing  of  an  interlocutory  in- 
junction is  always  a  matter  of  distTt- 
tion  with  the  court,  and  depends  uimii 
the  peculiar  circv  mstanccs  of  each  ciise. 
Ibid. 

38.  No  interlocutory  injunction  should 
issue,  unless  the  complainant's  title,  and 


,1  "<«i»7k.^**»*,7'- 


r" 


IKJrvCTTONS,  IV  •>.  a. 


8t5 


•  liB.'ri 


|iii;i  wills 
■ai'iiifi  'it' 
[ililf  mis- 
liKiiit  tlie 

I'lM-     IVlllll 

|iy  siitlVr 
V.  >'(;t(rt, 

Mitnry  in- 

pI"  ilixri- 

lids  ujioii 

|>ach  case. 

Ion  should 
Itillo.anJ 


rN»I.INIMAHY.      AI.M>WAKt'||  DM  Hrri'HAl,  itr. 


\ht   iVfiMulniit'H     ilitVili;{rllli'iil    lire    iit|- 

n^Mi'il)  ••I*  iK'i'  *"  |''kl|iiil>l(>  itinl  I  li'iir  tliiil 

tl)i>  '.'Ulll't  t'llll  ••IlllTlllill  llitiloiilll  III!  lllt> 

»iiliji'(i.  I*<irhr  V.  Stort^  MS. — (iuiKii, 
J  ;  IV.  I «.'•<>. 

an.  Wlii'iT,  liowi'vcr,  llio  r«i>twt'r»»  or 
lirtlilu^il"  »•■*'  iM|iiivoniI  iiikI  ('vrtMivf,  nr 
,||iicloH«t  w  xititi*  tit'  tiit'lM  which  )«how 
thiit  till'  ('iiiii'liiMionH  ilriiwii  iVuiti  tln'iii 
nri'  rUaily  rrroiiroiiH,  uiul  toiiiulf)!  oil  u 
mUtikkt'  lit'  htw ;  at  whfti  mi  intViii^'f- 
mciit  it  •IuiiUmI  tiii<I  II  iiioih'l  aihiiitlcil, 
wliii'li  r<li<MVH  II  ral|i:tlilt>  iiil'i  iiim'fiii'>til, 
audit  in  I'vidi'Ml  thiit  tht>  dmiul  is  inad«> 
iiinli'T  a  ;;rtmH  luiHliikc  of  the  Inu'  «'i»ii- 
iitrui'lioii  <if  thi«  jHitt'iit;  or  whon'  ihi' 
uri','i>i'ilit.v  oftht'  iiivonlioM  in  dciiicil  in 
}.niii'i;d  Icriiis,  and  iiifViii;,'('ini'iit  in  ad- 
iiiiltid,  and  till'  pati'iit  ha^  ln'cii  fully 
(!«<.tlili^lit'd  at  law,  ami  it  Ih  evident 
tli;it  till'  di-nial  of  its  validity  in  but  n 
miittur  iif  oliHtinati!  o]iiiii<Mi  or  mistakf 
of  law,  an  iiijiinrtit'  will  is.xiii',  as  Hindi 
(MM's  aro  exri'iitioiiv  lo  llii-  gi'Mt-ral  rulo. 
lhi,l. 

10.  Tho  ohji'pt  of  jjrniitinj:;  a  prolim- 
innry  injiinftion  Ih  Hiiii|(ly  to  keep  tho 
|iartii'S  'II  >itiitu  quo  until  tlii'  Icpil  rij^htn 
can  be  ast'ortaiiii'd.  Ono  ••lafcrial  qucH- 
tiou  always  iH,  whi'tliiT  ihu  uefondants 
arc  n'x|Kinsil»lo.  Dni/  v.  Hoitton  lidt- 
ing  Co.,  0  Mo.  Law  Ki-p.,  ;j:tO,  MilL- 
SriiAiii  K,  J.;  ]\IasH.,  iH.'i.'j. 

41.  Tho  diroftors  of  a  luaiiufacturinj; 
t'(ii|p(irati(Hi,  who  iiiaiiai;i'  ami  supcriii- 
U'lid  its  liusiiR'ss,  anil  under  wlmsi'  di- 
rcolioii  artick's  are  inanufai-turrd  which 
aro  an  iiifriiif^onu'nt  of  a  patotit,  and  the 
iij.'1'tits  who  oomliirt  tho  businoss  of 
silliiij{  nuch  artii'los,  aro  rosponsiblo  for 
such  iiitVingoinent,  and  may  bo  restrain- 
ed by  injunction.  Goodyear  tb  Union 
Mkr  Co.  V.  Phelps,  a  Hlutchf ,  93.— 
Nelsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1853. 

42.  0:  e  tenant  iu  common  has  as  good 


riijlit  to  u«i*  and  tici  i!«i'  oiImtn  to  iim  n 
tiling  pati'iiti'd,  iiM  anoiher  Itiiant  ill 
I'oniiiiori.  Nflthor  cnii  eoiiio  into  u 
I'ourl  of  i'i|uity  and  a^Hort  ii  Hiiporior 
t'ljiiily,  iiiiU'>t>«  it  Iki>«  liii-n  croaied  by 
Honii-  «'otitrii<-l  lii'twi-cn  tlutii.  N>>iii< 
Minh  oxiotint;,  one  leiiiiiit  in  rogmioii 
I'liniiot  I'lijoiii  ilio  other  tVoni  niieli  luo 
or  Hiilo.  f'liiht  V.  /triirn;  'J  Curt.,  A'i  (. 
—  ('lliriiH,  J.;  Ma.«»!>  ;    Iw.*.."). 

4:i.  A  eoiirt  of  o<|uity  upon  aliill  filed 
Ity  a  h'ual  owner  of  a  patent  eaniiot 
cnjoii,  the  e<|uital)le  owner  from  u«ing 
it.     //'/'/.,  rt'.'H,  .'•)•.•». 

44.  In  actiii;.;  on  applications  for 
temporary  injiinetioii«  to  restrain  the 
infiinj,'einent  of  letters  patent,  there  in 
iniieh  latitude  of  discretion.  The  :ip- 
plication  may  be  ^'r.-intcd  or  rct'iixd  uii" 
eoinlitionally,  or  tertiiM  may  be  iinpoNod 
on  eitlior  of  the  fiarties  as  conditions 
for  iiiakiny  or  refusing;  the  order.  J'or- 
hush  \ .  lirmt/iii'd,  '  I  >b».  Law  l.'.-p.,  IT  I. 
— Ciinis,  J.;  Mass.,  iH.'dJ. 

4fl.  Tlie  Htato  of  tho  liiiju'atlon,  whoro 
the  plaint iff'.s  title  is  dcnte'!,  the  natiiio 
of  the  iiiiprovenicnt,  the  ehara.ter  and 
I'xient  of  the  iiifrin;^enient  complained 
of,  anil  tho  comparative  ineonvonieiuo 
w  hich  will  \te  oec.xsionod  to  tho  respect- 
ive parties,  by  allowiiiLj  or  disallow  iiiji; 
the  motion,  must  all  bo  coiiNidercd  in 
determining  wheth'T  it  s!iould  be  al- 
lowed or  refused  ;  and  if  at  all,  whether 
absolutely  or  upon  some  and  what  eon- 
ditioiis.     Ibid,,  471. 

4(1.  Where  tho  defendants  wcro  only 
iisini;  in  thoir  own  business  a  ooftaiu 
num})er  of  the  jtatonted  invention, 
looms  for  weavinjj;,  and  were  not  makinf» 
and  selling,  tho  court  ordered  an  in- 
junction, unless  tho  defendants  should 
within  a  certain  number  of  days  give  a 
bond  to  keep  n  account  of  tho  cloth 
made  on  each  of  the  looms,  and  fide  tho 


^H^»i*^wULC^ 


:^t'l 


'TT 


]^A. 


m^ 


'  C«iW, 


«4 


I  nil; 

V 


•><««l»; 


'.*^.'':'^( 


*?S^, 


5*5 


lill 


4 


380 


INJUNCTIONS,  B.  2.  a. 


I'llEUMIN'AllT.     AM,OVrAN0H  OR  RKFUB^I.  OF". 


Bamc  uikUt  oath  fflicc  ii»  tlirco  nioiith'", 
aiul  to  pay  tlio  aiiiciiiit,  of  any  final  do- 
creo  in  the  caiisi'.      I  hid.,  47'J,  il'A. 

47.  If  a  (Iffondant  lias  "i>een  making 
and  rii'lling  a  thing  jiati'Mtcd  for  more 
than  two  years  before  the  ajiplication 
for  a  patent  by  (he  patentee,  an  injunc- 
tion will  not  issue  to  restrain  him  from 
do'ng  that  whieh  lie  was  accustomed 
to  do  at  the  lime  of  the  granting  of 
the  patent,  ({•bhcnl  v.  P(i;/of,  4  Blatchf. 
— Inoeksoli,,  J.;  \.  V.,  1857. 

48.  Where  by  granting  an  injunction 
there  is  more  danger  of  producing  an 
irreparable  injury  to  (he  defendant  than 
pre\en(ing  it  on  (he  part  of  the  com- 
plainant, it  should  not  begrante<^  Iftid. 

49.  Every  man  who  stand'  (on  a 
patent  has  a  prima  facie  title,  whicli 
upon  a  preliminary  question  will  not  be 
pronounced  good  for  nothing.  (Jo)i<j. 
Jluh.  Co.  \.  Amer.  Elas.  Cloth  Co., 
MS.— GuiEU,  J. ;  Pa.,  1857. 

50.  AVherc  on  a  motion  for  a  prelim- 
inary injuiu^tiou,  the  defendant')  claimed 
to  act  under  a  patent  regu'arly  issued 
from  the  Patent  Office,  Held.,  that  the 
court  would  not  on  such  .'i  motion  de- 
cide against  such  !i  patent,  ."xud  grant 
the  injimction  prayed  for.     Ibid. 

51.  It  is  not  a  sufllicient  reason  against 
granting  an  injunction  that  its  issue 
will  put  the  defendant  to  considerable 
expense,  that  he  ih  not  making  any 
profits  by  its  use,  that  he  is  willing  to 
pay  for  its  use  when  it  shall  have  been 
legally  established,  and  that  he  is  able 
to  respond  in  any  damages  which  may- 
be recovered  against  him.  Sickles  v. 
Mitchell, ;]  JJlatchf.,  552. — Ingkrsoll,  J.; 
N.  y.,  1857. 

52.  A  defendant  cannot  insist  upon 
having  the  privilege  of  using  a  patented 
invention  for  the  reason  that  he  is  able 
10  pay  any  damages  which  may  be 


awarded   against  him  .'it  the  vn<\  of  a 
prn(rae(ed  li(iga(ion.     Ihid,,  tirrl, 

5;(.  Where  the  plaintiff's  invcndon 
wail  in  use  upon  one  of  a  Hue  of  ocuaii 
sti'amers,  and  it  was  claimed  that  tlio 
issuing  of  an  injunction  to  restrain  i(s 
fuiiher  use  would  bo  a  great  piiMio 
calamity,  and  that  it  wouhl  bo  inipossi. 
ble  to  remove  the  invention  withdiit  an 
enormous  expense  and  a  consniiiptinn 
of  several  niouths  of  time,  /A7(/,  ilmt 
these  were  not  sufficient  reasf)iis  fcir 
refusing  an  injunction,  aiul  that  for 
such  results  the  defend.'int  had  no  ono 
to  blame  b\it  himself.     Ibid.,  551--2, 

54.  Where  the  defendants  set  up  that 
they  were  mamifacturing  the  (liinc 
claimed  to  be  an  irfringeniei.t  of  the 
plaintiff's  patent,  under  and  by  virdio 
of  another  patent,  and  it  appeared  that 
they  had  been  so  manufacturing  such 
article  for  a  number  of  veprs  with  the 
knowledge  of  theplaitititfs,  and  without 
suits  or  molestation  from  them,  lldd, 
that  tno  right  to  an  injunction  was  not 
so  clear  of  reasonable  doubt  as  to  war- 
rant its  issue.  North  v.  Jones,  4  Blatchf. 
— Ingersoll,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

55,  Where  on  a  motion  for  an  injunc- 
tion the  only  question  raised  was  as  to 
the  fact  of  infringement,  as  to  which 
the  affidavits  were  contradictory,  and 
the  defendants  denied  that  their  machine 
was  intended  to,  or  did  perl'orni,  the 
functions  of  the  plahitiff's,  .and  lor 
which  a  patent  had  been  ol)tuinc(l, 
though  a  slight  change  would  give  to 
the  defendants'  machine  the  benefit  of 
the  patentee's  arrangement,  the  court 
denied  the  motion,  but  with  liberty  to 
renew  it  upon  further  evidence.  Singtr 
r.  Wooster,  4  Blatchf. — Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1857. 

50.  An  injuncti-^n  will  not  be  gr.inted 
to  restrain  the  use  of  a  paionted  inven- 


lion  after 
hiy  v.  No 


n 


IX.TT'XCTrOXS,  r,.  2.  a. 


Ml 


't\l 


PUEMMINAUV.      AI.MIW  ANCK  (111    UKKU8AI.  Or. 


tioh  lifter  the  piitcnt  liiis  (>.\|)lr('«l.  Tin- 
l,„j  V.  Xor.  <0  War.  Ji.  Ji.,  ^IS.— In- 
t,Ki!stM.r-,  J.;  t't.,  1858. 

T)".  All  interlocutory  injuiu'tlon  will 
not  be  "'r:iiite«l  when  the  (lefendjint  lias 
letters  puti'iit  for  the  siiine  iiiveiitioii, 
;m  tlie  pliiiiitilV's,  wliicli  iWi}  jin'mafnru' 
valid.  SiV'ifevt  v.  Garter.,  1 1  JNIo.  Law 
Hop.,  052. — Curtis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1858. 

.W.  To  autliorizo  an  injunction  it  is 
\\n{  necessary  that  all  the  j^rauts  of 
pVht  in  the  plaiutift'*s  patent  should 
have  heen  infringed.  All  that  is  re- 
(iiiired  i<  that  sonic  of  them  should 
liuve  been.  Potter  v.  I/olla7id,  MS. — 
hr.Kiisoi.r,,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

59.  Under  the  practice  .and  decisions 
(if  the  seventh  circuit  an  injunction 
will  be  refused  in  a  patent  case,  if  upon 
the  facts  presented  there  is  a  fair  doubt 
wlietlier  the  defendant  has  infringed. 
Vo'hje  V.  Card,  MS. — Leavitt,  J. ; 
Ohio,  1800. 

CO.  Upon  a  motion  for  a  preliminary 
injunction,  the  defendant  justified  his 
acts  under  an  outstanding  adverse  pat- 
ent, which  however  was  alleged  to  have 
hoeu  irregularly  issued,  I/eld,  that  the 
roiirt  would  not  ignore  the  rights  of 
parties  lUider  such  instrument,  because 
there  may  have  been  eome  irregularity 
in  its  issue,  and  assume  it  to  be  a  nullity. 
Mitchell  V.  Barclay.,  MS. — Siiipman,  .T.; 
N.Y.,  18G0. 

01.  The  granting  or  refusal  of  an 
injunction  in  a  patent  case  rests  in  the 
sound  discretion  of  the  court.  A  rash 
01  indiscreet  exercise  of  such  power 
maybe  very  oppressive,  as  of  no  use 
tothe  conipl.ainant  and  ruinous  to  the 
ilefendant.  Sanders  v.  Logan,  3  Wall., 
Jr.-GRiER,  J.;  Pa.,  1801. 

C2.  As  a  remedy  it  should  be  admin- 
istered only  for  prevention  and  prolec- 
ItioQ.     Wb^rc  't  is  not  necessary  fo- 


these  purposes,  it  is  merely  vindictive, 
injuring  one  ji.irty  without  benefit  to 
the  other,     Ihid. 

Oil.  Tile  issue  of  an  injunction  to  stop 
a  mill  or  a  manufactory,  locomotive  or 
steam-engine,  because  in  their  construc- 
tion some  ))atented  device  or  machine 
has  been  used,  would  be  an  act  oftnore 
than  doubtful  discretion.     Ibid. 

04.  Stopping  the  mill  or  engine  miijbt 
ihflict  irrejxtrable  injury,  but  could  not 
benefit  the  inventor.     Ibid. 

C5.  Where  the  injury  done  to  the 
patentee,  by  the  use  of  his  invention, 
exists  not  in  using  his  invention,  but  in 
using  it  without  paying  compensation 
therefor,  it  being  his  interest  that  his 
invention  should  be  used  by  all,  provide<l 
he  is  paid  the  price  of  a  license ;  and  the 
measiu'c  of  "actual  damage"  in  a  sum 
certain — the  value  of  a  license — and 
neither  protection  nor  prevention  is 
sought  or  required,  but  only  compens.a- 
tioi .  the  jurisdiction  of  .1  chancellor  is 
not  required,  and  an  injunction  is  not 
the  proper  remedy;  the  issue  of  it 
would  be  an  abuse  of  power.     Ibid. 

60.  An  injunction  is  never  graiited 
vindictively,  but  only  when  it  is  neces- 
sary to  protect  the  rights  of  the  com- 
plainant. Ijivinffston  v.  Jones,  .1  Wall., 
Jr.— Oriek,  J.;  Pa.,  1861. 

67.  Where  a  patentee  has  fixed  a  li- 
cense fee  as  the  consideration  for  the 
use  of  his  invention,  and  suffers  no  other 
wrong  for  such  use  than  the  detention 
of  his  fee,  an  injunction  woi  Id  do  him 
no  good.     Ibid. 

68.  Where  a  defendant  is  acting  un- 
der apparent  legal  authority,  j^jr/wa^o- 
cie  good — as  under  a  patent  granted  l)y 
tlie  proper  authorities — a  preliminary 
injunction  will  not  issue  against  him  at 
the  suit  of  an  older  patentee,  claiming 
til  It  his  parent  covers  the  sane  p'  ocess. 


il 


■«'/*"rf' 


;l 


^^■^''-^'Sfefei^i;! 


■'■  \   ''■---Tf 


^wLXiUM 


a 


'f® 


M 


*  K    --'A^Iiir 


388 


INJUNCTIONS,  ]\.  2.  f>. 


rUL:i.lMINARY.      KlflHT  TO,    rilOM   KXCI-IHIVK   I'OHSKSrtlON,   KTC. 


(•ts! 


'' 


^.  I 


Tlie  tlfft'inlaiit,  l»y  virtue  of  his  patent, 
h:[n  n  j»-ii)i(i  J'tKu>]v'^:\i  ri<x\d  to  ma!m- 
I'actiiri'  iiiidiT  it.  O'oo(fi/i'<ir  v.  Jhinfxtr^ 
y  ^Vail,  Jr.  -(Jjui;k,  .1.;  N.  J.,  IHOl. 

09.  Wherever  a  lU'ti-iKhmt  prcHciits, 
by  answer  or  otherwise,  a  ease  whieh 
sliows  a  hona  fide  isstie  in  t'aet  or  law, 
or  a  prima  facie  rijj;ht  to  eontinue  his 
nianufaetiire,  t'onndetl  on  a  decree  of  the 
Patent  Ofhee,  and  a  conseqncnt  public 
jjrant,  the  court  will  rarely  give  a  pre- 
liminary injunction.  This  kind  of  jiro- 
cess  being,  in  fact,  an  execution  before 
jutlgnient,  is  to  be  used  cautiously. 
Ibid. 

70.  Where  an  alleged  infringement 
of  a  patented  uivention  consists  in  the 
use  of  some  improvement  in  expensive 
machinery,  which  has  been  adopted  in 
good  faith  by  a  defendant,  .and  where 
the  profit  of  the  j»atentee  consists,  not 
in  the  monopoly  of  selling  his  machine, 
but  in  the  price  of  licenses  given  to 
others  to  use  it,  it  being  the  interest  of 
the  i)atentee  that  all  persons  should  use 
his  improvement,  provided  they  j)ay  him 
for  a  license  ;  and  the  injury  being,  not 
in  their  using  his  invention,  but  in  their 
not  paying  him  for  using  it ;  this  court 
sitting  in  chancery,  though  it  does  not 
necessarily  in  such  capacity  act  as  aux- 
iliary to  a  court  of  law,  but  may  render 
a  final  decree  on  a  patent,  will  not,  be- 
fore a  right  is  established  at  law,  grant  a 
preliminary  injunction,  except  in  a  clear 
case,  since  it  might  ruin  the  defendant 
without  doing  any  corresponding  bene- 
fit to  the  patentee,  and  since  the  main 
object  of  an  injunction  can  be  obtained 
by  making  the  defendant  keep  an  ac- 
count until  the  right  is  decided  at  law. 
Batten  v.  Silliman,  3  Wall,  Jr. — Grieb, 
J.;  Pa.,  1861. 

71.  This  case,  distinguished  from  the 
case  of  a  medicine  where  the  patentee's 


profit  consistn  in  a  monopoly  of  sa|,. 
and  the  defendant  has  be«n  at  little  i.r 
no  expense,  while  his  competition  iiii',.'lit 
be  highly  injurious  to  the  eoi.ip|iiiii;in| 
An  injunction  Tuight  (the  medicini'  Hdt 
being  a  "  quack"  medicine)  be  grniitcil 
in  the  latter  ease,  when  it  would  In-  :,. 
fused  in  the  former.     Jfnd. 

72.  Tile  fact  that,  as  between  tluin 
selves,  ])arties  are  connected  togetlur 
as  the  stockholders,  managers,  sindsMV 
ants  of  an  mcorporated  company,  will 
not  exempt  them  from  being  enjoincn, 
or  being  liable  to  an  action  for  infritiirc. 
ment.  Poppeuhcunen  v.  I'ldke,  MS.— 
SiiiPMAN,  J.  ;  N.Y.,  18(31. 

b.  llight  to,  from  oxclusivo  Pos.S08sion  or  former 
lleL'ovorius;  Character  of  such  oxclusivo  I'os- 
session. 

1.  If  the  bill  states  an  exclusive  pos- 
session of  the  invention  or  discovcrv. 
for  which  the  plaintiff  has  obtaiiuMl  ;i 
patent,  an  injunction  is  granted,  tlioiigli 
the  court  may  feel  doubts  as  to  the  v:i. 
lidity  of  the  patent.  Isaacs  v.  Coopfr, 
i  Wash.,  260. — Washington,  J.;  Pa,, 
1821. 

2.  But  where  the  patent  is  modern, 
and  objections  are  made  to  the  specifi- 
cation, or  to  the  validity  of  the  patent, 
the  court  will  not,  from  its  own  notions 
of  the  matter  in  dispute,  act  on  the  pre- 
sumed validity  or  invalidity  of  the  pnt- 
ent,  and  will  not  grant  an  injunction 
until  the  plaintiff  has  established  the 
validity  of  his  patent  at  law.  Ibkl, 
260. 

3.  The  rule  in  the  English  Court  of 
Chancery,  as  to  granting  injunctioiis- 
and  there  are  no  American  decisions  at 
variance  therewith — is,  that  where  a 
patent  has  been  granted,  and  there  has 
been  an  exclusive  possession  of  some 


i\ji:nctions,  u.  2.  b. 


nso 


rREI.lMINAKY.      UlUIIT   TO,    I'KOM    KXCLL'HIVK    I'tlHHKSSION,    KTO. 


(lunition  umlrr  it,  tin-  court  will  intor- 
iiosc  its  iiijiiiiotion  without  pultiii<x  the 
purtv  itriiviously  to  ostablish  the  vali«li- 
tv  of  liis  Jiitteiit  at  law.  Sulliran  v. 
ii,iJfi,l<l,  I  Paiiu',  449. — Tuomi'SON,  J. ; 
N.Y.,  18-20. 

4,  Wiiere  tho  patent  is  recent,  and, 
upon  an  application  for  an  injunction,  it 
i<  oiulcavorcd  to  l»o  whown,  in  opposi- 
liiiu  llicrcto,  that  there  is  no  gooil  spcci- 
tication,  or,  otherwise,  that  tho  patent 
oiit,'ht  not  to  be  granted,  the  court  will 
r.ot,  from  its  own  notions  respectini;  the 
iiiiitti'r  ill  dispute,  act  upon  the  prcsunietl 
valiility  or  invalidity  of  the  patent,  with- 
out the  right  having  been  ascertained  by 
;i  iircvious  tr'ul,  hut  will  send  the  pat- 
t'litce  to  law,  and  oblige  him  to  establish 
the  validity  of  his  ])atont  in  a  court  of 
law,  before  it  will  give  him  the  benefit 
of  an  injunction.     Ibid.,  449. 

5.  In  Hill  V.  77ioitij>son  (.3  JVferiv. 
()'22),  in  which  Lord  Eldon  adopted  the 
rule  before  referred  to,  the  patentee  had 
liad  liis  patent-right  in  operation  for 
about  eighteen  months  ;  but  this  was 
considered  too  short  a  period  to  justify 
a  continuance  of  the  injunction.  J/'id., 
452. 

(5.  If  the  bill  states  a  clear  right  to 
the  thin"'  patented,  which,  together  with 
tlie  alleged  infringement,  is  verified  by 
affidavit,  and  if  the  plaintiff  has  been  in 
possession  of  it  by  having  used  it  or 
sold  it,  in  part  or  in  whole,  the  court 
will  grant  an  injunction,  and  continue 
it  till  the  hearing  or  further  order,  with- 
out sending  the  plaintift'  to  law  to  try 
his  right.  Ogle  v.  B(/e,  4  Wash.,  584. 
— Wasiiixgton,  J. ;  Pa.,  182G. 

1.  Where  a  patent  Avas  granted  in 
1818,  and  was  on  its  face  free  from  all 
exception,  and  six  years  thereafter  the 
patentee  sold  the  right  for  Pennsylva- 
nia for  $'700,  and  bill  was  filed  in  182G 


for  an  injiniction  to  restrain  an  iidVinge- 
ment,  JfeUf,  that  the  injunction  woidd 
be  retained  luitil  the  invaliility  of  the 
patent,  or  the  want  of  title  in  the  plain- 
titf,  should  bo  established  by  law.  f/iid, 
585. 

8.  Where  there  h.asbeon  an  exclusive 
possession  ftrsotne  considerable  time,  of 
a  patent-right,  the  court  will  sometimes, 
on  the  ground  of  possession,  grant  an 
injunction,  without  recpiiriug  the  party 
previously  to  establish  the  validity  of 
the  patent  at  law.  Thvmas  v.  Wivks, 
2  Paine,  97.— Thomi-son,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1827. 

9.  But  where  the  patent  is  recent,  and 
any  real  doubts  are  entertained  of  ita 
validity,  the  court  Avill  reqiure  that  it 
be  established  at  law  before  it  will  grant 
the  patentee  the  benefit  of  an  injunction. 
These  principles  are  well  settled  in  this 
country,  and  are  founded  on  the  sound- 
est rules  of  justice  aiul  equity.  lOiiL, 
97. 

10.  The  sale  of  an  invention,  and  its 
use  by  the  inventor  and  his  vendors,  is 
sufficient  evidence  of  an  exclusive  pos- 
session by  claim  and  color  of  title,  so 
that  equity  will  protect  in  the  continued 
enjoyment,  Avhatever  doubts  may  exist 
as  to  the  validity  of  the  patent.  Cooper 
V.  M'ltt/ieirs,  8  Law  Kep.,  O.  S.,  419.— 
Baldwin,  J.;  Pa.,  1842. 

11.  The  doctrine  laid  down  by  Lord 
Eldon  in  Hill  v.  2Vio)n2ison,3  Meriv.  R. 
022,  as  to  granting  injunctions  in  patent 
cases,  stated  in  Sullivan  v.  liedjield 
{ante,  3  and  4),  is  tlie  true  doctrine,  and 
ia  indispensable  to  the  repose  of  titles, 
iind  the  security  of  patentees.  Wash- 
burn V.  Gould,  3  Story,  170. — Stout, 
J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

12.  In  motions  for  an  injunction,  the 
fact  that  the  plaintiffs  have  for  some 
considerable  time  enjoyed  their  rights, 


I 
il 

Pi 

n 


321&^ 


III 


k^U. 


«»-'•■, 


-'v.. 


'tf'^ 


...^.^U^wmUw 


;a  !!''t(a: 


■i*-T,: 


WWv 


'^'^^^'^] 


800 


IN.ir\(TloNS,  I'..  'J.  />. 


-  «%* 


V 


^i>^: 


HI 


Hi 
(I 


rRKLtlflirAtT.      RKIIir  TO,    KUOM    KXCI.UMVK   |-iishi;mMi).V,    KW.. 


[I 


i.M  impurtaiit,  siml  cannot  lu'  dlsrcijfardt'tl. 
Jit'oo/iK  \.  liii-Aftill,  ;J  McLi'an,  201). — 
MiLicAN,  J.;  (Jhiu,  184;i. 

13.  WIUTU  tlllTL'  hiitl  l)t'cn  posKussloii 
for  Home  consiileruble  Icnj^th  of  tiniu 
under  a  piitont — the  patent  having  been 
extended — a!id  u  jiidj^nient  in  an  aetion 
at  law  had  been  recovered  against  anoth- 
er deten(hint  for  the  use  of  a  machine 
substantially  the  same  as  that  used  by 
the  di'fendant  in  the  action,  Held,  that 
after  the  lapse  of  so  much  time,  the 
affidavit  of  a  single  witness  that  the  pat- 
entee was  not  the  first  inventor,  would 
not  outweigh  the  oath  of  the  patentee, 
and  the  general  presumption  arising 
from  the  grant  of  the  letters  patent. 

Voof/wvrt/i  V.  Sherman,  3  Story,  171, 
172.— SroKY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1844. 

14.  The  obtaining  a  verdict  by  a  i)at- 
enlee  in  a  suit  at  law  against  a  person  in- 
fringing his  patent,  is  sufficient  cause  for 
granting  an  injunction  till  the  hearing, 
against  another  infringer.  Orr  v.  Ji<id- 
(/er,  7  Law  Hep.,  408. — Spuague,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1844. 

15.  It  is  not  enough  that  a  party  has 
taken  out  a  i)atent,  and  thus  obtained  a 
public  grant;  lie  must  furnish  ftuther 
evidence  of  a  probable  right,  something 
stronger  than  the  mere  issue,  as  an  exer- 
cise and  use  of  his  right.  Such  use  and 
exercise  for  some  years,  without  its  be- 
ing disturbed,  strengthens  the  probabil- 
ity that  his  patent  is  good,  and  renders 
it  so  likely,  as  alone  often  to  justify  the 
issue  of  an  injunction  in  aid  of  it.  Orr 
V.  Littlefield,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  15,  16. 

-WoODiJUKY,  J.;  N.  II,,  1845. 

16.  The  time  to  be  regarded  for  such 
use  is  Avhat  has  elapsed  since  the  origi- 
nal issue.     Ibid.,  10. 

17.  The  court  will  not  refuse  an  in- 
junction on  account  of  the  shortness  of 
time  after  the  grant,  however  brief,  if 


long  enough  to  permit  articles  or  nia- 
chines  to  be  constructed  by  the  palciitic 
and  \m  be  sold  publicly  and  r-'pcatidl^ 
and  they  liave  been  so  sold  .ind  used  nii. 
der  the  patent  without  dispute.  Jhiii 
17. 

18.  Another  kiiul  of  evideiwo,  bcvid,,, 
the  issue  of  the  patent  itself,  and  l-jiir 
use  and  possession  under  it,  so  as  tonn- 
der  it  i)robable  the  i)atent  is  good,  .iikI 
justify  an  injunction,  is  the  fact  tliat  ii 
the  patent  has  been  disputed,  liie  i,;,]. 
entee  has  prosecuted  for  a  violation  df 
his  rights,  and  has  recovered.  And  it 
makes  no  difference  that  the  judi,'inciiis 
have  been  given  on  verdicts  and  dc. 
faults  under  agreements,  if  reiidcivil 
without  collusion  or  fraud.  Ibid.,  1 7,  b, 

19.  Where  a  complainant  has  made 
out  not  merely  a  grant  of  the  patuiii, 
but  possession,  and  use,  and  sale  under 
it  for  some  time,  undisturbed,  and  also 
a  recovery,  the  courts  have  invarialilv 
held  that  such  a  strong  color  of  title 
shall  not  be  deprived  of  the  benefit  of 
an  injunction  till  a  full  trial  on  tlie  luoi- 
its  counteracts  or  annuls  it.  Ibid.,  19, 
20. 

20.  Long  possession  and  use  under 
one  patent,  and  recoveries  ui)()n  it,  vill 
not  inure  hi  favor  of  another  patent,  as 
to  which  an  injunction  is  asked,  even 
though  the  two  j)atents  are  very  use- 
ful and  necessary  for  esich  other,  uiilo» 
there  is  some  connection  in  law  bctwoon 
them,  or  one  is  auxiliary  to  or  a  part  of 
the  other.  Ilovey  v.  Stevens,  1  Wood, 
&  Min.,  295,  290.— WoonnuitY,  J.; 
Mass.,  1840. 

21.  An  injunction,  when  asked  be- 
fore the  trial  and  resisted,  is  never  to 
issue  as  a  matter  of  course  till  the  trial. 
There  must,  in  order  to  obtain  it  in  ml 
vance,  be  proof  not  only  of  a  patent 
but  also  of  some  length  of  use  under 


INJUNCTIONS,  B.  2.  b. 


3D1 


rilKUMINARY.      hlOIIT  TO,    mOM   KXC.'I.IHIVIII   I'ONHKSMIOS',   KTO. 


it  or  sonic  considoniMc  sales  umU'r  it, 
or  some  rocovery  ustahlishiug  tlio  vjilitl- 
itv  of  till'  piitont,  so  as  to  iiiiparl  to  it 
wiii'lit.  or  streiigtli, as  valid  buyoiul  tins 
mere  issiu'  of  it.     Iftid.,  303. 

22.  Whore  possessicni  for  some  years 
Iia8  existetl,  or  there  have  been  nuiiier- 
ous  sales  or  recoveries,  the  court  will 
not  refuse  an  injunction,  or  dissolve  it, 
on  a  denial  of  the  validity  of  the  patent 
l,y  a  defendant,  either  throu<j;h  afllda- 
vits,  or  an  answer,  or  oth(!r  pleadinj^s. 
Il,!il.,  :t04,  :»05. 

ij;t.  If  none  of  these  fortifying  oir- 
cuinstanees  exist,  courts  will  not  oidy 
refuse  an  injunction,  but  will  dissolve 
one  j)revi(tusly  allowed,  if  the  validity 
of  the  jtatent  is  denied  or  brought  into 
doubt.     If'ifl,  304. 

24.  Where  plaintiffs  have  endeavor- 
ed to  obtain  the  verdict  of  a  jury  as  to 
their  patent — there  having  l)een  two 
trials  at  law,  at  which  the  juries  hud 
disa<?reed — and  have  by  reason  of  such 
suits  lost  opportunity  of  selling  rights 
in  their  patent,  and  half  of  the  term  of 
the  patent  had  expired,  and  the  defend- 
ants were  undoubted  infringers,  Jleld, 
that  an  injunction  would  issue,  as  the 
patent  itself  must  be  held  jirima  facie 
evidence  of  all  the  ]daintiffs  claimed 
under  it.  Buck  v.  Ilermance,  9  Law 
Rep.,547.— CoxKUNG,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1846. 

25.  Where  there  has  been  a  posses- 
sion for  some  years  under  a  patent,  and 
also  numerous  recoveries  for  infringe- 
ments of  it,  and  sales  have  been  exten- 
sive, an  injunction  will  issue.  Wood- 
worth  v.  Ilall,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  253.— 
WooDBUBY,  J.;  Mass.,  1846. 

26.  Recoveries  under  an  original  pat- 
ent are  evidence  after  the  issue  of  new 
letters  with  a  new  specification,  to 
strengthen  the  title  of  the  plaintiff  so 
as  to  obtain  an  injunction.    Ibid.,  257. 


27.  On  a  motion  for  n  provisional  in- 
jun(;tion,  where  a  patent  has  been  fro- 
•  piently  made  the  subject  of  legal  actions, 
and  decisions  have  been  made  in  the 
Circuit  and  in  the  Supreme  Court,  in 
which  the  originality  of  the  invention, 
and  the  validity  of  the  patent  have  been 
examined  and  confirmed,  the  patent  will 
be  considered  as  eslablisheil.  ^^uu 
Ifuok  V.  Pendleton,  1  Jllatchf,  191.— 
NKr.Hox,  Unrrs,  JJ.;  N.  Y.,  1H40. 

28.  Though  a  j»laintifl'  by  repeated  re- 
coveries on  his  patent,  and  long  posses- 
sion under  it,  may  be  entitled  to  a  tem- 
porary injmiction  Jigainst  those  infring- 
ing, yet,  if  the  defendants  deny  the 
validity  of  the  plaintifi*'s  invention,  tho 
injunction,  if  granted,  will  only  bo  until 
the  validity  of  the  patent  can  be  de- 
termined by  a  trial  at  law,  and  will  bo 
dissolved  if  such  suit  is  not  brought 
before    the   next   term   of    the    court. 

Woodworth  v.  Edwards,  3  Wood.  & 
^[in.,  133. — WoouuuBY,  J.;  Mass., 
1847. 

29.  The  rendition  of  a  verdict  in  a 
patent  case  in  favor  of  a  plaintift'  is  not 
conclusive  upon  the  right  of  such  j^arty 
to  an  injunction.  Many  v.  *S7*e/*,  MS. 
— WoounuuY,  SruA.(iUK,  JJ.;  Mass., 
1849. 

30.  Where  tlic  plaintiff's  machine  lias 
been  in  use  for  a  long  time,  and  the 
right  to  its  enjoyment  has  been  estab- 
lished by  the  judicial  tribunals,  if  the 
court  is  satisfied  that  the  defendant's 
machine  is  substantially  identical  with 
it,  the  court  is  bound  to  grant  an  injunc- 
tion, and  tho  defendants  camiot  give 
security  for  the  damages  that  may  be 
found  against  them  on  a  trial  at  law. 
Gibson  V.  Van  Dressar,  1  Blatchf., 
536.— Nei.sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

31.  Where  a  bill  was  filed  for  an  in- 
fringement of  a  patent,  and  an  injunc- 


Hi  II 


>WWi 


■•.•f<^ 


■':^K^ 


^^wWvM 


"«i^ 


j  m4^ 


*»?;?te^.)'^-' 


**.<■ 


i 

!s; 


no2 


IX  J  UNCTIONS,  B.  2.  b. 


VilKLIMINAUr.      JlKillT  TO,    rilOlt   KXCLL'HIVB   POHHUWIO.V,    XTC. 


"«»>•' >^' 


tioii  WHS  |>ray<'(l  nnd  Uio  originality  of 
the  iiivi'iition  was  ilciiiol,  ami  many 
atliilavitH  ivad  in  Nniiport  ot'Hiieh  doniul, 
iiml  It  also  appeared  that  there  had  heeii 
three  trials  at  law  upon  the  question,  in 
which  there  had  Iteen  a  verdiet  in  favor 
of  each  party,  plaintitV  and  defendant, 
and  a  divided  jury  on  tho  other  tri-il, 
J/rf)f,  that  the  <piestion  of  oritjinality 
eoiild  not  lie  eonsidered  as  Hettle<I,  and 
therefore  the  eonrt  suspended  deeision 
on  the  niotiiiii  for  an  injinuttion,  and 
directed  an  account  to  he  ke|>t  liy  the 
defi'udants,  ainl  tliat  an  i>siu'  shoidd  be 
made  up  and  preseiiteil  f  >r  trial  Itefore 
a  jury  on  the  (luestiou  of  orij^inaiity 
and  infiinifcuiciit.  Afle/i  v.  S/>nif/in'^  1 
Ulatchf.,  r)(J7,  50H. — Xki,S(»v,  .r.;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

32.  An  injunction  will  he  refused  if 
the  verdicts  establishinj?  tho  complain- 
ant's title  have  been  obtained  on  such 
inconsistent  and  contradictory  claims, 
or  have  left  the  plainfilf's  title  in  such 
a  doubtful  shape  that  the  court  cannot 
say  with  certainty  what  is,  ami  Avliat 
is  not  an  infrinj^emont  of  the  patent. 
Par/cvr  v.  ^eurs,  3IS. — Guiku,  J. ;  l*a., 
1850. 

33.  An  injunction  will  also  bo  refused 
where  possession  is  very  vaguely  stated 
ni  the  bill,  and  is  met  and  avoided  by  al- 
legations and  proof  of  a  mure  j)c.iceable 
and  exclusive  possession  by  the  defend- 
ants.    Ibid. 

34.  On  a  motion  for  an  injunction, 
based  upon  prior  adjudications  in  favor 
of  Ins  patent,  the  defendant  m.ay  show 
tliat  the  title  was  not  fairly  in  contro- 
Aersy  in  the  cases  which  professed  to 
try  it — or  that  some  material  fact  was 
then  unknown,  or  some  opposite  argu- 
ment overlooked — and  the  court,  if 
satisfied  that  such  was  in  truth  the  case, 
"would  not  hold  itself  concluded  by  the 


former  adjudications.  Parker  x.  Jirn  f 
.MS.— Kank,  J.;  I'a.,  IH50. 

35.  Hut  the  considerations  wliid, 
would  justify  a  judgt"  in  renewiiit;  tlic 
discussion  of  a  patentet''s  title  iil'hr 
solemn  hearing  and  judgment  at  law 
shoulil  bo  such  as,  if  presented  to  \\\^^ 
view  after  a  trial  at  law,  would  liavo 
induced  him  to  set  aside  the  verdict, 
Ibid. 

30.  \Vhe"o  tho  evideneo  shows  that 
the  defendants  are  infringing  some  of 
the  claims  of  a  patent,  and  the  piaiiititl' 
has  had  a  verdict  at  law  upon  his  pjii. 
cut  sustaining  such  claims,  an  injunction 
will  be  granted  before  fimil  heariiur,  a|. 
though  it  may  bo  a  question  wlicilicr 
another  claim  in  the  same  patent,  thu 
novelty  of  which  is  disputed,  is  valid. 
Colt  V.  Young,  2  Hlatchf.,  472,  474.— 
Nki.sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

37.  When  a  patent  has  been  granted 
and  there  has  been  an  exclusive  j)ossi's. 
sion  of  some  duration  under  it,  the 
court  will  enjoin,  Avithout  putting  the 
party  jjreviously  to  establish  his  riyht 
at  law.  Foster  v.  Moore,  1  Curt.,  L'8ti. 
— CuuTis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1852. 

38.  It  is  not  possible,  however,  to  fix 
.any  precise  nundier  of  years  iluriii!; 
which  exclusive  possession  nuist  have 
continued.     Ibid.,  286. 

39.  And  the  acquiescence  of  the  pub- 
lic is  entitled  to  more  or  less  weigiit, 
according  to  the  degree  of  the  utility 
of  the  machine,  and  the  number  of  pur- 
sons  whose  trade  or  business  are  afieet- 
ed  by  it.     Ibid.,  286. 

40.  An  exclusive  possession  of  about 
eight  years,  under  a  patent  for  a  useful 
machine,  which  affects  the  trade  aud 
business  of  large  numbers  of  persons, 
and  many  of  which  machines  had  been 
constructed  and  put  in  operation  in 
different  states,  is  sufficient  to  justify 


N 


^•^^. 


INJUNCTION'S,  B.  2.  b. 


309 


PHBUMINAKY.      RrOIIT  TO,   FROM   KXCI.imiVI  POHMKHMlOy,    RTC. 


.'nulling?  iiii  injuiiclioii,  bt'tbro  rofjiiiritiij 
the  tilaiiitin' to  l)i'iii)r  iiii  nclinii  at  law. 

//W.,  '1>*^\  '^H7. 

41.  r|>**ii  >i  motion  fur  u  pri'litniiiary 
iiijiinctinii,  a  vi)rtli(rt  in  favor  of  tlic 
l<|iiiiitiirH  ill  anotlicr  action,  but  against 
(lill'iTt'iit  <lfft'n<lants,  Hustaininj^  tin-  oi  i<:- 
iimlitv  of  tlu'ir  uivcniion,  llion^Ii  not 
(Oiiclusivo,  is  (Mititli'il  to  ffreat  consid- 
iTitioii,  iui<l  if  the  niacliino  uhciI  by  tlio 
ilet't'iitlaiits  is  Hnbstautially  lik»'  that  of 
the  |>laiiitiir,  an  injunction  will  issue. 
St.  John  V.  PrentisSy  MS. — Nklso.v, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  185;). 

42.  Although  on  a  motion  for  an  in- 
iiinctioii,  it  ai>|K'!irs  that  on  a  trial  at 
law  as  to  tho  question  of  infringement 
there  liad  been  a  verdict  in  favor  (»f  the 
jihiintitf,  the  court  is  not  bound  to  adopt 
the  verdict  of  the  jury,  so  found,  but  will 
examiuo  the  whole  case,  including  the 
evidence  given  before  the  jury,  and  will 
"iiiiit  or  withhold  tlio  injuiu-tion,  ac- 
(oiditig  to  its  own  jtidgment  therein. 
Si'i-lcs  V,  Yonn'js,  :\  lUatchf.,  297. — Nel- 
6ox,J.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

4;i,  In  this  case,  notwithstanding  the 
wnljit  of  the  jury  in  favor  of  the  plain- 
lill,  the  court  decided  that  tho  defendant 
ilid  irnt  iiifiiiiii;o,  and  refused  tho  injunc- 
tion.   Ui'ul.,  ;t():i. 

44.  If  a  patentee  has  establislicd  his 
title  under  his  original  letters  patent,  he 
is  entitled  to  a  temporary  injunction  un- 
der an  extension  of  such  letters  patent, 
witliout  a  further  trial  at  law.  Clum 
V.  Bmcer^  2  Curt.,  617,  618. — Cuktis, 
J.;  3Iass.,  1855. 

45.  Tiiough,  strictly  speaking,  tliere 
can  be  no  possession  of  an  exclusive 
right  to  an  invention  before  the  date  of 
the  patent — because  the  patent  grants 
that  right,  yet,  under  our  patent  laws, 
the  inventor  may  make  and  sell  his  in- 
vention for  two  years  before  his  patent, 


and  tho  public  may  acquiesce  in  his 
claim  <lin"ing  sudi  period,  and  such  ac- 
(|ui«'sccnce  may  be  entitled  to  weight,* 
in  considering  his  right  to  a  temporary 
injiuu'tion.  Snrijent  v.  tifiiijrniu'y  2 
(^trt.,  555.— CiTUTlH,  J.;  11.  I.,  1855. 

4(J.  To  nuike  a  prhmi  fiii'h\  title, 
without  a  judgment  at  law,  the  ])aten- 
tee  nuist  have  had  such  an  exclusive 
possession,  as  with  iiis  claim  and  tho 
ac(piieseenco  of  the  public  lays  a  roa- 
son.'ible  fouiulation  for  the  presMiiiption 
of  tho  validity  of  his  patent.  Iltid.^ 
656. 

47.  An  imsuccessful  attom]»t  to  inter- 
rupt a  possession  strengthens  the  pre- 
sumption which  arises  from  it.  Ihid.^ 
550. 

48.  It  is  not  possible  to  fix  any  term 
of  years  during  which  the  exclusive 
possession  must  have  continued.  Each 
case  must  depend  upon  its  own  circum- 
stances, i.  e.,  tho  extent  of  the  use  or 
sales  by  the  patentee,  the  degree  of  tho 
utility  of  the  invention,  and  the  number 
of  persons  whose  business  is  atl'ected 
by  it,  and  who  are  interested  to  ques- 
tion the  exclusive  right,  and  the  com- 
pleteness of  the  acquiescence  under  it. 
liml.,  557. 

40.  Where  sufficient  possession  is  es- 
tablished, a  doubt  concerning  the  valid- 
ity of  the  patent  will  not  necessarily 
prevent  an  injuncticm.  The  court  will 
look  to  the  particular  circumstances  of 
the  case,  to  see  what  degree  of  incon- 
venience will  be  occasioned  to  either 
party  by  granting  or  withholdirig  the 
injunction,  and  Avhetlier  the  defendant 
has  voluntarily  placed  himself  in  the 
position  to  be  subject  to  that  inconve- 
nience.    Ibicl.y  557,  658. 

50.  As  respects  the  eftect  of  a  ver- 
dict upon  a  motion  for  a  tempv  r.ary  in- 
junction, a  verdict  and  judgment,  where 


sr4kt 


— "■  ■S^i, 


•-.■(.^: 


'^JH*' 


?(  .. . 


i;btf?^ffe^^a^w^ 


""'toi^.. 


'"'^'-4^' 


301 


INMUNCTIONS,  H.  2.  h. 


I'llKMMINAIIT.     MMIir  1<),   lltnM  KXCUHtVI  PONMMHOy,  BTO. 


•tVm 


1^ 


■>ti 


I 

It! 


«!!, 

m 


thfR"  is  u  liill  of  i>xi't'|itii>tiH  :ui(l  ii  writ 
«>t'  error  siiimI  out,  cniiiiDt  Im  <li>4|iii;{nis|i- 
I'd  from  :i  verdict  wlicr*-  tlirrc  is  ti  iiiu- 
tioii  for  a  new  trial.  KitluT  may  lu' 
diMrcgurdetl  by  tlu«  judye,  if  liis  ('((ii- 
HciciK'c  iH  satislii'd,  tlioii^li  ordinarily 
iK-itliur  «lioiiid  bi'.  J)iiif  V.  //<irts/tor/i, 
MS.— Pitman,  J.;  H.  I.,  1h.-)5.  [Statt«d 
aH  tliu  o|iiiiioii  uf  CtUTiri,  J.] 

51.  A  vt-rdict  at  law,  or  finding  in 
cast'  of  a  fci'^iu'd  isMUo,  is  never  eonelii- 
Hive  npon  a  jiidj^e  hitlin;?  in  equity,  on 
an  application  for  an  injunction.  //>/'</. 
[Stated  as  the  opinion  of  Nki.sdn,  .I.J 

fi'J.  The  obtaiiijiij^  a  veriJict  in  i'a\or 
of  u  ])laiMtitf  on  a  trial  at  law,  is  not 
necessarily  conehisivc  us  to  tlje  rii^lit  of 
Hueli  party  to  have  an  injiniction  aj^ainst 
the  defendant.  On  a  motion  for  an  in- 
junction, the  jiidj^ment  of  the  judj^e  iij>- 
on  the  law  and  the  evidence  must  de- 
termine his  action,  and  not  the  judgment 
of  the  jury.     If/id. 

r»3.  Wher(;  the  plaintitr's  title  has 
been  finally  established  at  law,  he  is  en- 
titled to  un  injuiu-tion,  whatever  may 
be  the  eflect  upon  the  defendants  as  to 
Btopping  their  works,  and  throwing 
their  employees  out  of  employment. 
Forhush  V.  Bnulj'onl.  1 1  Mo.  Law  Itep., 
472.— CuUTis,  J.  ;  ]\Iass.,  1850. 

54.  ]iiit  where  litigation  is  not  in 
fact  terminated,  but  a  bill  of  exceptions 
lias  been  taken  upon  a  trial,  resulting 
in  favor  of  the  plaintiff,  and  the  result 
may  be  adverse  to  the  plaintiff's  title, 
it  is  necessary  for  the  court  to  contem- 
l)late  tliat  as  a  possible  result,  and  look 
at  the  consequences,  in  that  event,  of  al- 
lowing or  refusing  the  uijunction.  Ibid., 
472. 

55.  Where  a  patent  has  not  been  es- 
tahlished  by  a  trial  at  law,  nor  its  use 
been  acquiesced  in  by  the  public,  to  au- 
thorize the   issue  of  a  provisional  in- 


junction, the  right  of  the  plainliir  ii,ii>t 
be  clear  and  fre«'  from  doubt,  ;iiii|  il,,, 
violation  fin  the  part  of  the  dil\ii.l„„i 
nuiNt  bo  ecpially  clear.  Ni>tth  v.  ,/ok,„. 
4  Illatohf. — Imiicuhoi.i.,  J.;  \  v 
1857. 

5(J.  In  (»rder  to  justify  the  issuiiipd 
an  injunction  to  restrain  th(>  inliiiiL'i'. 
ment  of  a  patent,  it  IM  not  neceKNurv 
that  the  validity  of  the  patciif  sli„„i*i 
havi!  Iteen  established  in  a  trial  at  law  • 
the  chief  use  of  it  having  Ik-cm  n(i  i.s. 
tablished  is  to  show,  where  the  defciul. 
ant  denies  the  invention  of  the  palentrr 
or  elainiM  that  the  invention  was  known 
and  used  more  than  two  years  lut'oi,. 
the  date  of  the  application,  that  there  is 
no  foundation  for  such  ilenial  or  claim. 
SkklcH  v.  Afifc/ifll,  ;<  lMat(;lif.,  £52.— I.n- 
oKusoi.i.,  .1.;  N.  v.,  IH.")?. 

67.  Where  the  patent  has  been  in 
use  a  nund)er  of  years,  and  there  i»  no 
denial  of  the  invention  of  the  patentee, 
nor  any  jtroof  that  it  had  been  nsid 
for  more  than  two  years  before  tlio  a]i- 
plication  for  a  patent,  an  injunction  will 
be  granted  without  such  trial.     Jhld.,  5.52. 

58.  Where  upon  a  trial  in  a  former 
suit  between  the  plaintiff  and  another 
defendant  it  had  been  deterniiiied  that 
the  invention  used  by  the  defendant 
in  that  suit  "was  an  infringement  of  the 
plaintiff's  patent,  although  such  use 
was  under  a  patent,  and  the  thing  used 
by  the  defendant  in  the  jiresent  suit 
was  admitted  to  be  the  same  as  that 
used  by  the  defendant  in  such  other 
suit.  Held,  that  the  former  adjudication 
as  to  the  question  of  infringement  was 
conclusive,  and  that  an  injunction  would 
issue  to  restrain  such  use.    Ibid. 

59.  Where  a  patentee  had  failed  to 
sustain  his  patent  in  actions  at  law 
brought  under  both  the  original  patent 
aud  its  reissue,  and  the  patent  had  not 


in'ji:ncti()xs,  ii.  j.  /,. 


305 


nuctiMiMARr.    Hiuirr  to,  muM  kxcxuhivk  ruHMUMtoN,  ktc. 


bi'flit  at>quii*Hou(l  in  by  tliu  public,  but 
tlio  ii;,'lit  of  ill*'  |iiit('iit«'«'  wiiK  conli'HttMl 
liv  ililli'n'ul  |K'is»»iis,  JJihly  tliut  uinliT 
Miu'li  ('ir(-uiiir<iiin('i's  an  iiijiinctinu  woiiM 
not  Ihhuo  bi'foro  u  triul  at  law  ;  but  the 
ili'li'iulaiitrt  WITH  r«'<jirMi'il  to  bo  reatly 
for  trial  at  tlu'  next  term,  nr  that  iii- 
juiiclittn  mIh»u1(1  thi'u  Imsu*'.  tSi.rriU  \. 
Collinii,  i  lHati'hf.-  Inokuhuli.,J.;  N.  Y., 
1«57. 

00.  Where  u  trial  at  law  ha.i  boon 
h:ul,  ro.-iultiii}^  in  a  viMilict  I'avor  of 
the  jiiitenli'i',  in  which  the  lif^hl  to  the 
tiling  jdilcntecl  huH  been  cslaldiNJietl  to 
liic  natisfaction  of  the  court,  ami  the 
ititViiiLjeiiient  nuulo  clear,  such  trial  is 
niitVicient  without  any  otln-r  proof  to 
milliorize  a  court  to  j^rant  an  injunction 
to  prevent  any  future  violation  of  ri<,'lit. 
J'lijijiohiu.vit  V.  N.  y.  (J.  J',  Comf) 
Co.,  4   lllatclif. — lN(iKU8i)LL,  J.;    N.  v., 

01.  Whcrt)  a  patentee  has  had  (piiet 
ciijoynuM.t  uiuler  his  patent  for  a  con- 
gidcrahle  time,  ami  has  ha<l  verdicts  in 
Lis  favor  in  suits  at  law,  tlu- judgments 
in  which  were  obtained  .without  col- 
lusion, though  the  validity  of  the  pat- 
ents was  not  contested  ;  and  the  novelty 
of  his  invention  is  strongly  sustained 
by  attidavits  of  competent  persons,  his 
liatunl  will  be  considered  valid  and  he 
will  he  entitled  to  a  preliminary  injmic- 
tiou  against  a  defendant  using  Hid)stan- 
tially  the  thing  i)atented  to  him.  Potter 
V,  Holland,  MS. — Ingkusoi,l,  J.  ;  Ct., 
1858. 

02.  On  a  bill  fded  for  an  injunction 
withui  three  months  after  issuing  of  the 
patent,  the  defendants  denying  that  the 
patentee  was  the  inventor  of  the  thing 
claimed  by  him,  and  also  denying  in- 
fringement, Held,  that  there  was  no 
proof  of  such  a  public  acquiescence  of 
the  exclusive  right  of  the  patentee,  as 


to  justify  lhc>  aMsumptiiin  that  hiit  chiim 
was  well  foimded,  and  there  being  also 
s«iiiK!  doulil  as  t«i  the  sufticiency  of  the 
Hpuciti('ati«)n  of  the  patent,  tin  injunc- 
tit»ti  wait  refuHed,  and  the  partieH  Kent 
to  an  action  at  law.  Jfusruu  //air  Co, 
wAniir.  Iliiir  Muinij'.  Oi.,  i  Ulalclif.^ 
ll.vi.i,,  J.;  ,N.  Y.,  iHiH. 

0;>.  Where  there  huH  been  no  adjudi- 
cation UH  to  the  valhlity  of  u  patent 
muh'r  which  a  party  claims,  such  party 
must  show  that  he  has  had  exclusive 
possession  and  enjoyment  for  some  time 
before  a  preliminary  injunction  will  bo 
granted  in  his  favor.  Mitchdl  v.  /tnr- 
rl)ii/,  !MS. — Siiii'MAN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  iHOd. 

04.  The  jtoMsession  and  enjoyment  of 
a  patent,  which  will  justify  a  «'ourt  in 
granting  a  preliminary  injum-ti  >n,  pre- 
vious to  a  trial  at  law  eslalilishing  the 
validity  of  the  patent,  must  be  Non»e- 
thing  more  than  the  mere  holding  ol 
the  parchment,  or  muniment  of  title,  or 
experinu'nting  with  the  patented  article. 
If  it  is  a  nuichine  or  tool  it  nnist  bo 
brought  into  use — if  a  process,  it  must 
be  put  in  execution — if  a  composition  of 
matter  or  patented  article,  it  must  be 
put  on  sale.  This  is  the  true  doctrine 
both  in  England  and  ui  this  country. 
I/nd. 

or).  The  bare  holding  of  a  patent  and 
an  infringement  alone  constitute  no 
complete  ground  of  relief,  at  least  by 
preliminary  injunction.     I/u'd. 

CO.  llelief  by  injunction  is  never 
grantt'd  as  a  matter  of  covnse,  nor  on 
merely  filing  a  bill  and  producing  a  pat- 
ent. The  j)atent  itself,  though  in  0 
certain  sense  prima  facie  evidence  ot 
the  validity  of  the  grant,  is  never  suf- 
ficiently strong  jt)er  ae  to  warrant  relief 
by  injunction.  Toppan  v.  National 
Bank  Note  Co.y  MS. — Shu'max,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1861. 


0^^ 


■  W 


•       \m^  i 


hi 


^Ai  is^ 


wui'^i-i-fyUifl' 


"*^***WW! 


«^' 


.  i  i  i  1  i  i 


-w^%$ 


1-;...:'^ 


806 


.      1NJUX<TI()\S,  n.  _'.  ,.. 


rHKI,IMIM4Kr.     Mtll-RITT  OX   <H(\min<i,   iiii  |N   i>l^(1R  Of, 


■■>ir^ 


111 
11 


07.  In  onliT  fo  ohfrtlu  mu-h  rclU'f  tint 

titll)    «>('    »lu<     plltl-lllcc    InlINt     !lhV!l)M    III' 

Mlmi^^thcrifil  by  cxt'liiHivu  |MiHM!HMioii 
lor  HOiiii'  pfrUxl  of  tinif,  or  \ty  an  udjii- 
iliialioii  ill  vvliifli  tlii<  v:tli<lity  of  tlu* 
piUoiit  has  Imm'ii  NUNtaiiuxi.     Ifiiil. 

(IH.  Till!  |irin('i|ili>  that  (■xdiiHivo  po^. 
Ht'HNiori  for  u  tiinu  Htrcn^M lions  tiiu  titlo 
of  a  patcntcv,  is  foiiiidril  on  tliti  idea 
that  as  it.  is  a  ciaini  of  ri^dtt  adverse  to 
the  pulilic,  aiitl  the  pidilic  ai'ipiiesee  !ii 
that  elairii,  such  ae<|nieNcenee  raises  u 
presiiniptioii  that  thu  claim  is  good. 
Jfmf. 

Ui).  Hut  thu  usu  must  have  been  a 
puhli'i;  use,  under  an  avowed  eliiim  of 
rij^ht  to  a  patent  otherwise;  there  is  no 
ex<  lusivo  possession  as  (n/itinKf  the  pub- 
lic, and  no  ehiiin  in  whicii  the  public  can 
ae(|uiesee.  A  secret  use,  away  from 
the  eye  of  the  public,  sweeps  away  the 
ground  of  exciusivi'  possession  and  ae- 
(piieseeiico  of  the  pu!)lic.     Ifjid, 

c.  Security  ou  Urantiugiorin  Plitco  or. 

1.  Tf  an  injunction  will  lead  to  seri- 
ous injury  in  suspoiitliiiij;  iho  works  of 
the  defendant,  the  court  may  recpiirc  se- 
curity of  the  complaiii.uit,  to  indemnify 
for  such  loss,  if  the  [)atent  is  avoided, 
or  can  make  an  order  to  expedite  a  final 
liearing  and  ilecision.  Otr  v.  Littli'Jleld, 
1  Wood.  &  Miu.,  20. — WoouiiuuY,  J. ; 
N.  ir.,  1845. 

2.  Where  an  injunction  liad  been 
granted  against  a])erson  for  an  intVingc- 
ment  of  a  patent,  and  while  such  pro- 
ceedings were  being  taken,  a  third  party, 

with  full  knowledge  of  all  the  circum- 
etances  connected  with  such  injunction, 
became  the  assignee  of  all  the  rights 
and  interests  of  the  person  first  enjoin- 
ed, Ileldf  that  such  assignee  stood  in 
the  light  of  the  other's  substitute,  and 


that  he  could  not  ho  allowed,  by  gi\iti;j 
security  and  keeping  an  mcoiini,  to 
eontimie  the  biiitinesii  till  liiiiil  luMrintr 
but  that  an  injiiiictioii  wmiM  i^yn,, 
against  him.  J'arkhumt  v.  Kinmutin 
2  nialchf,  rtj,  H2.- HiciTs,  .!.;  \.  y^ 
|H»H, 

;t.  Where  an  applicatirm  was  iniul,. 
for  an  injiiiiction  to  restrain  the  u^e  of 
certain  telegraph  instruments,  in  umi 
'upon  an  <'Xten<leil  lino  of  lelegratili, 
Jliid,  that  if  any  prudential  proceed 
ings  were  necessary,  that  the  workiiij,' 
of  the  line  should  not  be  stopped  (uh 
that  might  seriously  and  wrnngfuHv  j,,. 
jure  the  delVndants),  but  that  Hcciuity 
shoulil  be  requiied  to  iiideiiinify  thu 
plaint irt",  in  case  the  suit  shoiiM  njti. 
inately  result  in  his  favor.  Miirne  \. 
(y  Jit  till/,  MS.— CJatkon,  J.,  at  Cliaiii- 
bers;  1).  C,  1849. 

4.  Where  the  judges  of  the  court 
dillered  as  to  the  <piestion  of  infringu- 
meiit,  and  the  jury  had  failed  to  agiw, 
the  court  <lirected  an  injunction  already 
granted  to  be  dissolved,  upon  the  d«. 
fetalant  giving  proper  security  to  kecj) 
an  account;  or,  on  failure  so  to  do,  or- 
dered it  to  remain,  upon  the  plaiiititV 
giving  proper  seciu'ity.  Wilson  v.  liar- 
tium,  1  Wall.,  Jr.,  354,  ;t55.— Gun;!:, 
Kank,  JJ.  ;  Pa.,  1841). 

5.  Where  a  patent  has  been  in  use  a 
long  time,  and  the  right  to  its  enjoy- 
ment has  been  established  by  the  judi- 
ci.'d  tribunals,  and  it  is  evident  that  the 
defendant  is  infringing  upon  it,  he  will 
not  be  permitted  to  give  security  fur  tho 
damages  that  may  be  found  against  him, 
but  he  will  be  enjoined.  Gibson  v.  Van 
Dresar,  1  IJlatchf.,  630. — Nelsox,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

G.  Where  an  infringement  is  clear, 
and  the  riglit  to  an  injunction  manifest, 
an  injunction  will  not  be  stayed  on  the 


1*^.1*% 


iNjr.Ni  rioNs,  n.  2.  <.. 


ao7 


rMUMtMANT.     MKTHITT  ON  aMHT»0,  01  IV  rLAFR  or. 


(Ifl'i'ii'linitH,  ulviii^  muMirily,  mul  ri'inU'r 
jiii;  II  |i«<i'ii)ilifiil  iiiM'Diiiit  of  llifir  Miilt'M, 
evi'ti  tliDiii;!)  lliii  <lfti'iiil:tnt  in  it  |M>r^iiti 
of  |Mfimiiiry  rff»|Min.-«il»ilit)'.  7W»cy  v. 
fofnyy  'i  niatchf.,  iJ"l».— Nkij*on,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  IH.-Jl. 

7,  Wlicti  a  Mil  was  filrd  for  an  iiijiiiu'- 
tinn,  t'i>iiii<lnl  oti  loii;^  |io<*MCHNioii,  aitil  an 
allfjj;  lion  of  infiinp-nirnt  hy  the  <l»'- 
fi'ndiiiit'H  tiiacliiiio,  hut  it  appcart'i]  tliiit 
thv  (li'f<>iiilaii(  liatloiily  constt-uctcil  oiii> 
niBcliliii'  for  liis  own  iist-,  and  It  waH  not 
nuj^f;r?«t<'il  lliat  In-  was  aliout  to  oon- 
itruct  Miiy  othor  inacliint',  tho  court  rc- 
(|iilrt'(l  tho  (U'fcriilant  (o  k«'rp  an  ar- 
('i)iiiif,  ami  fill'  a  bond  wiMi  Kuflicicnl 
fiiirt'tit'S  to  pay  such  Minns  as  should 
linally  ))(<  dt'criM'd  against  him,  or  t  hat  in- 
junction should  issuo.  /'oHd  r  v.  Mtnnr, 
1  Curt.,  '.'ICJ.— C'riiTis,  J. ;  Mass.,  lHr,i>. 

8.  If  \\\ii  plaintiff  is  iiiailc  secure 
of  receiving;  all  the  profits,  which  may 
ariitc  from  the  uho  oi  tho  iimcliint>  until 
a  final  hcarinj^,  ho  is  siiilicicntly  protect- 
ed in  case  the  infringement  \a  proved. 
Ib'uly  '-'!»;». 

0.  Where  a  plaint  iff,  upon  lull  filed, 
asked  a  preliminary  injimction  against 
tlic  defendants,  restraining  the  use  of 
j)l:iintifrs  nuichine,  and  the  «lefendants 
justified  their  use  uiuler  certain  agrei'- 
inentH  of  the  patentee,  hut  omitted  to 
bIiow  that  they  had  performe<l,  on  their 
part,  the  conditions  of  such  agreements, 
tho  court  granted  a  modified  injuiu-- 
tion,  that  the  defendants  should  he  en- 
joined from  using  the  machines,  mdess 
within  a  certain  numV)er  of  d.ays,  they 
gave  security  to  keep  and  render  an  ac- 
count of  the  profits  arising  from  tho  use 
of  tho  machines,  and  to  pay  over  the 
same  according  to  the  order  of  the  court. 
Day  V.  Ilartahom^  3IS. — PixsrAX,  J. ; 
R.  I.,  1853. 

10.  Where  a  defendant  was  a  bona 


fiiU'  purchaMT  of  nil  invention,  without 
notice  that  it  wum  claimed  to  he  an  in* 
iVingenicnt  of  another  p:kti  iit,  prior  in 
time  to  till'  patent  which  had  heeii 
granted  for  the  invention  ho  purchased, 
and  hiN  invention  wan  eoiiMtriicted  in 
conformity  with  the  patent  granted  for 
it,  and  it  appeared  that  a  peremptory 
injunction,  if  granted,  would  have  the 
ctlcct  to  close  the  buHinesM  of  the  de- 
fendants, the  court,  iilthoiigh  the  de- 
fendant did  not  ciuitest  ihevniidity  of  llut 
pIninlilV's  patent,  or  the  title  of  the  plain* 
till'  us  assignee,  and  iti*  validity  had 
hcen  Hustaim'd  hy  verdicts  and  Jiidg- 4 
ments  in  two  suits,  withheld  the  injimc- 
tion on  condition  that  the  defendant 
should  give  hondri  in  i|(.'i,(l()()  to  uhido 
the  final  decision  of  the  ease.  U.  S. 
Anwiiiriitor  id  Jiiil  7J7.  C'<>.  v.  Sand- 
ilnsim,  ;i  IJiatcht'.,  1H7. — Ikrrrt, .1.;  ,N.  V., 
t».')(. 

II.  I'pon  :ipplic!ttions  for  injunctions 
there  is  much  latitude  of  discretion. 
The  application  may  ho  granted  or  re- 
fused unconditionally,  or  terms  may  ho 
imposed  on  I'ither  of  the  parties,  as  con* 
ditions  for  making  or  refusing  tho  «)rder. 
Forhunh  V.  Jini<I/or(I,  1 1  Mo.  Law  Ilep., 
f7l.-Ci  ims,  J. ;  Mass.,  iH.'iO. 

I'J.  Where  the  defendants  were  ««///</, 
hut  not  making,  certain  looms  having 
a  patented  improvement,  and  an  injunc- 
tion would  stop  their  whole  husiness, 
Held,  that  they  might  he  allowed  to 
give  security  to  keep  and  render  an 
account.     Ibid.,  472. 

in.  It  is  common,  in  case  of  a  bill 
filed  for  an  infringement,  and  motion 
made  for  a  preliinin.iry  injunction,  where 
the  (luestion  of  infringement  is  net  man- 
ifest, and  enjoining  the  defendant  would 
produce  serious  hardship  and  inccHive- 
nience  of  his  husiness,  to  withhold  tho 
injunction  on  the  defendants,  keepbg 


M., 


t<^ 


fia^i 


litf:t;,^i 


•^^> 


■^ 


.ITM 


:'^1S|H 

yLoi 

-J^ 

.  ^-  "^^  »^  k 

-nZ 

jE   ,  "-^s^^ijMi 

Vp**                                        '   ^^^flVvrt 

"  w 


,^ 


"^.^ 


'tW 


3^1 


,;Vi^c 


1^ 

ScF 

i2''/wU 

7T?i;> 

^s 

SM 


INJIX'TIONH,  II.  «.  a. 


I'I(IIII4IM«NV.      l*MA<*rtrH  UK    NlVTIDNN  roN. 


Iltl 


All  NiViMint  or  Ki^i'*)f  H«>«<iirily  lot-  li.tiiiit 
>;••*  ni'iriiiii^.  Tuthiim  v,  l.i>y>htr,  4 
IHiilihr.,    V,    C— Niii.«<n«,    J.;     N.    V. 

II.  WluM-c  It  ilcri'iiilaiit  WMH  iniiiiii- 
I'lii'tiii'iii^  iiiiiliT  II  |iiil(<iil,  Mliit'h  WW* 
rliiiiiiril  lo  lit*  nil  iiirriiivri'iiii'M  oriiiiolli- 
I'l'  tiinl  nil  nlilrr  ptitciil,  tin*  court  ri't'iiNiil 
Iti  ^r.'iiit  :t  |)ri'liniiii:ii  V  iiijiiiirtioti,  Iml 
i)t'i|i>ri'*|  llirili'lcinliiiil  tit  ki'i'|iiiii  iiiTiMiiil 
<>r  nil  I  lull  hi>  iniiniirui'tiii'cii  nml  pimM. 
(lOitihf'nr  V.  />nnf>iir,  'A  Willi,  .Ir. 
(tiuKit,  .1. ;  N.  .1.,  IHiil. 

J.  rrAftlttt  on  UotioiiM  for. 

I.  Till' pnii'lico  (irili(<  ritiirl  in  t'«|iiily 
tipoii  iiioti«iiH  tor  an  iiijiiiii'lii>ii,  is  to 
;;raiil  iiii  iiijuix'tioM  ii|miii  tlii>  Hliii;r  nl' 
till'  Mil,  Mini  iii't'ori'  11  trial  at  law,  il'llu' 
Mil  Mtiiti'  II  cliMir  ri^lit,  iiinl  \n  vrrilii-il 
l>y  alllilavit.  li*ii(V'n\.  f 'oo^ht,  I  WiihIi., 
'JilO.-  \\  AHiiiMiniN,  .F.;  I'll.,  IHJI. 

'1.  It'  till'  Itill  Htatrs  Mil  t'M'luKivo  pos- 
NcsHioii  of  till'  itivcntioii  for  uliirli  tin- 

]llMilltitr     llMN    oIltMilKMl    II    pMtl'Ilt,    till    III- 

jiiiiflioii  i«  ^raiiti'il,  altlnMiujIi  tlio  court 
may  led  iloul>ts  as  to  the  xaliility  ol'tlii' 
patent.      //'/</.,  'JilO. 

W.  Hut  if  tlie  ild'ects  in  the  patent 
or  speciticMtion  iiro  ho  ^iMriiii;  that  the 
court  cMii  eiitert.aiii  no  iloulit  as  to  thai 
point,  the  court  will  not  restrain  the 
tlet'eiiil.-iiit  from  usiii<;  i\  luachiiie,  or 
other  thiiij;  which  he  may  liavo  ('ou- 
st met  eil,  until  ii  decision  at  law  can  he 
had.      Ihiil.,  '.'(10. 

4.  Where  a  patent  was  for  an  itn- 
proront'Ht  on  the  horizontal  wheel  for 
gaiiiiiifj  power  to  propel  boats,  but  the 
ppecitication  did  not  st.ate  the  nature 
of  the  oriixiiial  invention  upon  which  it 
was  an  iinprovenu'iit,  nor  whether  it 
had  been  patented,  or  give  any  in- 
formation resjiecting  it,  an  injunction 
\vu8  refused,  as  ihe  iiatu  e  of  the  im 


pro\cmciit    wiiH   nitogi'ther   iiiiiiiti'tl|^|. 
ble.      /i>ii/.,'H\\. 

A.  Ill  iiii  tipplic'ilion  for  an  iiijiini  tinn 
made  by  a  patentee  In  ri'Mlriiiii  the  it). 
iVilij^emeiit  of  11  paliMit,  It  should  n\<\<v:\r 
by  the  bill,  or  by  al)lda\il,  that  the  v„\u. 
plainani  believcH  biiimelf  to  be  llieuH,^. 
inal  inxetitor  of  what  he  cjaiiii*  iUM|i>r 
h'  .  patent,  ami  the  bill  mii><t  be  nuumi  |,, 
The  oath  talon  by  tin-  pateiili  c  nf  nri^. 
inality  of  imetiiion  at  lh(«  time  of  |||» 
application  font  patent,  In  not  Mullirirnt. 
The  ipicsiion  IH,  not  whether  the  plain- 
titf  bclle\ed    himself  In    lie   the    lirot  ii|. 

M'litor  at  the  time  he  applied  fur  a  p.ii 
cut,  but  whether   he  believoM   it   at   l|ii> 
time  he  a^ks  fur  the  relief  souj^lit.    Sul. 
lii-ini  v.  /i,)/f(</,/,  I    I'aiiu',    II.),    ||(j,_ 
Tiio\ii'so\,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  IH'.'.T. 

il.  It  is  not  a  inaller  of  cinirse  to  u'fii.'it 
an  injunction  upon  th(>  mere  exhihiiimi 
ol*  the  patent,  and  an  alleL^atioti  tli.it  ii, 
has  been  iniViiiyetl.  The  p.ateiit  injiv 
be.  Upon  a  trial  at  law,  prlinn  furit 
evidence  of  rij^ht,  but  in  order  to  wiir. 
rant  an  interference  by  iiijuiiclinii,  lliiii' 
oimht  to  be  but  little  if  any  ilniiiii  in 
the  minds  of  thu  court  as  to  the  validily 
of  the  patent,  especially  where  the  caio 
rentH  entirely  upon  the  compl.'iin.-int's 
own  showin^^  without  any  oppimiiij;  tes- 
tinionv.      [hid,  I  17. 

7.  rpon  a  motion  for  an  iiijiiiicticin, 
the  plaintiir  should  subjoin  to  his  hill  a 
special  Mflidavit  to  the  truth  of  the  alio- 
ir.-itions  ihereiii,  and  that  lu>  was  tlio 
orijiinal  and  first  inventor,  as  lie  he. 
lieved,  of  the  thing  patented,  and  that 
the  Hiitnu  had  not  been  in  use  or  du- 
scribi'd  anterior  to  his  iiivcniioii.  A'"//- 
n'H  V.  Alihott,  \  Wash.,  514.— WAsiiiNti- 
TON  J.;  Pa.,  1825. 

8.  On  a  inoliou  for  an  injiimttioii,  tliu 
plaintilV  must  rest  on  the  case  statcil  in 
the  bill;  tlw  ugh  he  may,  by  aflidavit-i, 


^113 


«UZ 


I);i. 


U's- 

I'linll, 

l.ill  :i 


:illr- 

III.' 

III! 

Ilial 

■  -U- 

/>'",'/• 

rsii- 

,  tlio 

'.1  in 

vit.s, 

INJI'MTIiKSS.  II.  :.,/. 


.11H» 


m*!tt«tW*IIT.     MMVflM  ON   H. 


1 1.  •'.•4  rtm. 


tilli  iiiori'  |tiirtii  iiliii  it y,  timl  ii  ri'iVn'tin> 
t,i  I'lilliili'riil  iiiiilliTN  wliii'li  t>\|)l:iiit,  or 
wliii'ti  li'ii't  !•>  ^ii|>|Mirl  iimi  Mlii'ti;;ilM-ii 
it ;  III' iiiity  <tl***>«  i»  lilt*  olIiiH*  Wriiy,  t'oil- 
iriiilii-t  iiity  Hiiiii'iMi'iiiM  itiiulo  liy  iliu  ilr 
f«)n*lniit  ill  liix  illlilin  i.  iiimI  i'IiImt  piiiiy 
tiinv  Itiki'  iiikI  n'liil  1 1  iMiiliivitH  itl'iMlMr 
|..i«inii».  (\utfur  V.  Mtitlfifim,  m  I.uw 
|{.|».,  4lft.- M,ui»wi!»,  J.  5  I'll.,  \H\>i. 

I).  No  iillMikvii  ol'tlic  i|i'r*>ti)1iiiit     iiimI 
liiH  niitwiT  ill  thin  Kliij;i'  nl"  llif  i-!i«i(«  in 
In  III'  I'Miixiili'ti'il  urily  an  iilli<liivil      iiti 
<.ii|t|Mirli'il  l>y  oilier  li'Niiinoiiy,  iM  In  lit' 
rOIINlili'l'i"!     'I**     fViili'liri'     In    ov  itIIiI'hW 


•mil*  n'>y  iitolt*'*'"  wlilfli    It  M«>|M  ritrlli    ri|t|(lyiii({  for  iiit   iiijiiiiriinii  lor   ila   ih« 


;iitv  iivi 


iitii'iii  ill  I  III'  liill.     11,1,1 ,  |i: 


III,  ll*tli«'i'i'  ii|i|M':ii'<4,  iVuiii  till'  iilliilu- 
vilH  of  llii' piirtii'H  or  Hitiii'MNfM,  Niii'li  II 
M'|iii|;ii:iiii'y  ill  |M>iiit  of  tiii't  UN  iii.'iki'H  it 
iiii'i'^^ary  lo  <lrii«li'  nn  llu'  ri'lativi-  Inilli 
iftlicir  roiilliftiiijjf  Hliiti'iiii'iitH,  or  llii< 
crcililiilily  <>)'  (III!  at1ii'iiiaiil>«,  iii>  prii- 
ilciit  jiiilf^i'  will  umli'i'tak*'  no  ilan^rrniiH 
an  iiii|iiii7  ill  llu'  llrNi  slaj^i'  ortlii'  i-aiHt'. 

11.  It'  iIk'  liill  or  alllilavitN  Niatc  any 
ficlH  not  ili'iiii'il  l»y  till'  ilt'li'iMl:iiit,  or  if 
tlic  |ilaiiitiir,  ill  IiIn  counti'i-  iiirhlavits, 
ijiu'H  11  ♦  ili'iiy  till'  Nlali'iiKiils  of  till-  ill' 
litiiliiiil,  Hucli  lUi'tH  all'  assiimi'il  as  ji 
sate  linsis  for  i\  ili>('i'<ioii  of  tin'  iiiotioii, 
tlioMsli  iIk'X  limy  '••'  oj'i'ii  to  iiii|uify  at 
a  siiliHi>(|ii(.'nt  Htatu  uf  tliu  case,  thiil., 
nil. 

!'.'.  Oil  a  iiiutioii  tor  an  injunction, 
lliL'i'xIiiltition  ^)'^  inoi|<>ls  on  wliirli  llirir 
imlicH  I'onNtnict  tlii'ir  rrsiK'clivo  nia 
(liiiH's,  will  not,  siifllct!  to  tnrn  tin-  M-alc 
lit  her  way,  without  an  cx.'iminatinn  into 
llio  detail  ot*  till' roust  ruction,  coiiiltiiia- 
tioii,  and  operation  of  all  their  pjirts,  l»y 
npiii|pi'l('iit  nu'uhanics.     //>/*/.,   tlV, 

l;t.  The  loss  of  a  patent  issued  iiiuler 
the  act  of  170;t,  and  which  is  re.piiied 
to  bu  rccoriied,  is  no  excuse  for  delay  in 


iVili^i'lilent ;  II  copy  HoiiM  In-  \\a  full  fvU 
•  leiicc  of  llii>  palenlei<'<4  riKliI,  a-i  Mm* 
original,  or  iin  u  im>w  patent  l«>iiied  iiii' 
iler  llie  act  of  IN.'I?.      /AAA,  -llN. 

1 1.  Oil  a  Miolioii  for  an  injiiiiclioii,  if 


III! ni|>l;iinaii 


Is   I 


•ave   call*  <l    III 


II 


leir 


ImII  liir  till'  detriiijanis  I  i  aiiNwer,  hikI 
lliey  hiivti  llleii  Midi  aiiHWer,  ihoii^li 
voluntarily  and  hcfore  the  ciilry  of  any 
rule  to  anN>\(>r,  it  sccnis  ihal  Miich  an* 
iwrr  will  h"  Irealeij  aH  an  answer,  mimI 
not  merely  as  an  iil)lda>il.  flntni/i  v. 
Iti'kinll,  I  .Mcl.cail,  'iTti,  Ml  I, KAN,  J. ; 
Ohio,    INI.'I. 

i:.,  rioin  )}  r.,  ch.  'ii,  of  the  act  of 
IVII^I,   and    the   .'i.'tth   rule    in    eipiily,  it 

on- 
on  an  applicalion  lor  an  in* 


NeeiiiN  a  hearing  of  holh  parlicH  Ih  « 

teiil| 


lilted 


jiitiction. 


11,1,1., 


». 


in.  And  atlidavils  may  he  read,  oil 
the  part  of  the  plaiiililf,  in  support  of 
the  hill,  and  in  contradiction  of  thn  nil* 
swer.      //</«/.,  155.%. 

17.  Where  the  answer  is  responnlvo 
to  the  hill  and  tinder  oath,  and  denies 
the  ini'riit^enient,  Honiethin^  morn  than 
the  evidence  of  a  sin<,'l«i  witness  must 
he  produced  to  overcome  it,  Mild  jiislil'y 
Mil  iiijiinclion.  \Vi>inhn,,flf,  v.  Hull,  \ 
Wood,  it  Mill.,  2'ii. — WooinuMiv,  ,r.  J 
.Mass.,  IHIO. 

|H.  Where  ft  hill  was  filed  a-^kinjj  for 
.'Ui  injiiiictioii  M^^iiiiist  the  use  of  a  patent 
hilt  lately  issued,  and  the  answer  denied 
tlio  iiHo  of  it,  ttid  uIho  tliR  originality  of 
the  inv(>ntion,  and  such  answer  was  alHO 
supported  l»y  several  afVid.ivits,  the  In- 
junirlion  was  refused  utili!  the  trial  of 
an  issue  at  law  to  determine  such  mat- 
ters. Ifiiiuy  v.  SlercHM,  I  Wood.  So 
.Mill.,  2{>2,  a05,— WooDniKV,  J.;  Mass., 
iHtn. 

I!).  On  anaiiplicatioii  tin- a  preliminary 
injunction  for  an  iufringi'inent  c>f  a  pat- 


*♦*■ 


••■  m0, 


-^Wt 


-  ».^ 


1^8 


fi$0^ ,-,-^ 


_4%r 


w 

III 

u  > 

m 

c       I 

I  I 

;  ' 

Mil 
h  i 


»'■!!  •» 


■'H  i 


liiii 


"H'l 


''ill 


.i|, 

■N 


400 


^^^Tlr^xTI()NS,  b.  2.  d. 


I'UKI.IMISAUT.      I'UACTICK  OX  iiOTlONH   FOR. 


cut  wliic'i  had  been  rcissiH'd,  and  liad 
bt'i'ii  IVcMjiU'iitly  adjiidicati-'il  ii|miii  and 
Biistaini'd,  JJtfd,  that  thi'  court  Moidd 
not,  on  such  motion,  entLM-taiii  any  <iiii.'.s- 
tions  as  tt)  the  origiiiahty  of  the  inven- 
tion, or  as  to  the  validity  of  tlie  reissu- 
ed patent.  Gibson  x.Jietts,  1  Ulatclif., 
104.— Xti.soN,  J.;  N.Y.,  1840. 

20.  A  court  will  not,  on  an  a|>|iHc;<tion 
as  to  an  injiuu-tion,  examine  critically 
the  correctness  or  even  suHicieiicy  of  the 
apiilication  for  a  patent,  if  it  was  made 
to  all  appearance  in  good  faith,  and  was 
an  attempt  to  make  known  and  secure 
the  claim.  Sparkinan  v.  JIi</i/i/is,  1 
Ulatchf.,  208.— BK-rrs,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1 840. 

21.  Under  the  act  of  17 OS,  ch.  22,  ^ 
5,  requiring  "reasonahle  previous  notice 
to  the  adverse  i)arty  or  his  attorney  of 
the  time  and  place  of  moving  for  an  in- 
junction," i(  is  usual  to  give  a  rcason.'i- 
l)le  time  for  tlie  preparation  of  the  an- 
swer, and  the  taking  of  affidavits.  117/- 
aon  V.  Stolhy,  4  McLean,  273. — Mc- 
Lkax,  .1.;  Ohio,  1847. 

22.  Such  notice  was  designed  to  ena- 
ble the  defendant  to  resist  the  ap[)lica- 
tion  for  the  injunction;  and  this  resist- 
ance can  be  most  eftectually  made  by 
Iiennitting  the  defendant  to  file  his  an- 
swer.    Il>ul,  273. 

23.  Affidavits  may  be  heard  in  behalf 
of  both  parties,  especially  in  patent 
cases.  This  enables  the  judge  to  act 
npon  the  motion  with  u  better  knowl- 
edge of  the  equitable  rights  of  the  par- 
ties    Ibid.,  273. 

24.  The  defendant  may  be  permitted 
to  show,  as  preliminary  to  the  motion 
for  an  injunction,  that  the  bill  npon  its 
face  is  materially  defective.    Ibid.,  273. 

25.  But  the  court  is  not  bound,  on 
motions  for  injunctions,  to  decide  doubi- 
ful  and  difficult  questions  of  law,  or  dis- 
pute questions  of  fact,  nor  exercise  this 


high  and  dangerous  power,  if  cxeicist.,) 
rashly,  in  doubtful  cases,  bifon.  In-  of. 
femler  shall  have  .m  opportuii.ty  of  a 
full  and  fair  hearing.  I'at'hr  v.  Si, us 
MS.— (iiMKK,  J.;  Pii.,  1850. 

20.  The  nature  of  an  application  fnr 
a  preliminary  injunction  is  peculiiip.  It 
is  not  a  final  settlement  of  the  l(.^r;ii 
rights  of  the  parties;  nor  do  they  cnnu' 
into  court  with  what  are  strictiv  to  In. 
called  legal  proofs,  but  with  allidaviN 
alone,  upon  which  neither  party  lias  tin. 
right  of  cross-examination.  J>,nj  v, 
lio8.  Jielt.  Co.,  0  ]Mo.  Law  U(  p.,  ;!;i!i. 
— Si-XAciiK,  J.;  Mass.,  lHr)3. 

27.  In  moving  for  a  itreliminary  in- 
junction, the  practice  is,  that  flie  com- 
plainant  must  file  the  affidavits  upon 
which  he  relies  by  a  certain  day,  ami 
then  the  defendant  files  his  afiidavits  in 
reply  by  another  api)ointed  day,  ami 
this  closes  the  evidence.  The  coni|iIain- 
ant  is  not  entitled,  as  a  matter  of  rii^lit, 
to  file  further  afiidavits  in  answer  to 
those  of  the  defendants.  Ibid.,  X\\. 

28.  "Whether,  in  a  case  of  entire  sur- 
prise, the  complainant  miglit  not  liavo 
an  opportunity  to  reply ;  query.  I/tid., 
331. 

29.  A  mere  denial,  by  an  answer,  of 
the  equity  of  the  bill  will  not  prevent 
the  court — at  least  in  ttie  first  circuit, 
since  the  decision  of  Poor  v.  Carkton, 
3  Sumn.,  70 — from  looking  into  the  law 
and  the  facts  of  the  case,  on  a  motion 
for  a  speci.al  injunction,  and  granting  or 
refusing  it,  .iccording  to  its  discretion. 
Chan  V.  Brewer.,  2  Curt.,  518. — Cuktis, 
J.;  Mass.,  1865. 

30.  If  the  right  to  a  temporary  in- 
junction depends  on  the  construction 
of  a  deed,  the  court  v>  ill  construe  it  and 
act  accordingly,  whatever  view  of  the 
question  the  answer  may  have  preseut- 
ed.     Ibid.,  519. 


INJUNCTIONS,  ».  2.  e. 


401 


I'UHI.IMINAUY.     CONTINUANCK,    OK   IHSSdHTION    OF. 


ai.  "riulor  rule  107  in  equity,  and  the 
•iini'iKliit »>'■>'  rulo  of  jMay,  1840,  the 
court,  or  a  ju(lj;o  out  of  court,  has 
imWiT  to  |»t'rinit  the  i)hiiiitilF,  on  a  uio- 
tidii  for  an  injunction,  w  lu're  the  dcfcnil- 
jints  Hct  up  a  license  in  defence,  to  ))ut 
in  prool's  in  rebuttal  of  the  ju-oofs  put 
in  by  the  defendant.  D<n/  v.  X.  K  Cur 
Hpniiij  ('<'.,  :t  lilatcht'.,  157. — Bktts,  J.; 
N.  v.,  it^-^-t. 

32.  But  the  defendiuit  caiuiot  reply 
tosiich  rebiittintr  proof  by  '"urthcr  proofs 
onlii-i  part.     Jhiil.,  159. 

aa.  On  a  motion  for  a  jtreliniinary  in- 
junction to  restrain  the  infringement  of 
a  patent,  the  court  will  not  look  further 
into  the  case  than  to  ascerl.iin  whether 
or  not,  upon  established  ))rincij)les  of 
eiiuity,  to  i)revent  an  irreparable  i  Jury, 
the  interference  of  the  court  is  neeessa- 
IV,  pending  the  litigation.  Sickles  v. 
Wnmjs,   ;.t    Jilatclif.,    '^9(3. — Nklson,  J.; 

N.Y.,  is.-.r.. 

34.  Unless  the  right  is  clear  upon  the 
papers  and  proofs  presented,  in  favor  of 
the  plaintiffs,  the  injunction  will  be  re- 
fused.   Ibid.,  29G. 

e.  Continuance,  or  Disaohition  of. 

1.  Though  doubt  and  uncertainty  are 
fatal  to  a  motion  to  grant  an  injunction, 
they  are  good  cause  for  continuing  it 
on  a  motion  to  dissolve ;  the  burden  of 
proof  being  on  the  phiintifF  in  one  case 
and  on  the  defendant  in  the  otlier. 
Cooper  V.  3Iatt?ieics,  8  Law  Rep.,  410. 
—Baldwin,  J.;  Pa.,  1842. 

2.  The  continuance  or  dissolution  of 
an  injunction  is  entirely  within  the 
sound  discretion  of  the  court.  Because 
the  right  of  the  patentee  may  be  ques- 
tioned and  even  appear  doubtful  to  the 
court  from  the  evidence  offered,  an  in- 

jiuiction  will  not  necessarily  be  dissolv- 
2G 


ed.   Orr\.  liiuhjtr,  7  Law  Uep.,  407. — 
Si'KAot  K,  ,L;  Mass.,  1H44. 

;i.  Where,  tln'ret\u'e,  a  patentee  had 
been  in  qfiict  jjossc>sion  for  some  years, 
and  had  reci'ived  (  )nsi(lcralde  sums  for 
sales  under  his  patent,  and  had  obtained 
a  Judgment  in  a  suit  at  law,  though  the 
athdavifs  olferetl  by  the  d"(\'ndant  were 
sufficient  to  render  the  result  of  a  trial 
dt)ubtful,  a  tenqtorary  injunction  was 
continued  to  the  hearing,  it  also  appear- 
ing to  the  court  that  the  piniiitilV  would 
sutler  great  injury  from  a  dissolution  of 
it.     Ibid.,  408. 

4.  An  injunction  granted  on  an  orig- 
inal patent,  will  not  be  continued  as  to 
the  amended  patent,  issued  on  the  sur- 
render oi  the  original  jjatent,  without  a 
supplemental  bill.  Wuodworth  v.  Sfo)ie, 
.1  Story,  750. — Stouy,  J. ;  ]MasR.,  1 845. 

5.  Where  an  injunction  had  been 
granted  on  a  bill  tiled  for  an  infringe- 
ment of  an  original  patent,  and  ])ending 
the  proceedhigs  the  patent  had  been 
surrendered  and  a  new  or  reissued  pat- 
ent taken,  to  which  proceedings  the 
parties  to  the  suit  had  consented,  and 
'.t  was  moved  upon  a  supplemental  bill 
to  continue  the  injunction  as  to  the  new 
patent,  Held,  that  the  injunction  already 
granted  (suj)posing  botli  patents  to  bo 
for  the  same  invention)  wn^jiriituifacie 
evidence  of  an  intended  violation,  if 
not  of  an  actual  viokation,  .and  the  in- 
junction was  ordered  to  stand  contin- 
ued as  to  the  new  patent.  Ibid.,  753, 
755. 

C.  Where  the  bill  or  affidavits  of  the 
complainant  did  not  state  with  certain- 
ty the  infringement  of  the  defendant, 
and  the  complainant  did  not  swear  at 
the  time  of  the  filing  of  the  bill  that  he 
believed  he  was  the  original  and  true 
inventor  of  the  thing  patented  to  him, 
and  the  defendant  denied  on  oath  that 


,*^,**iV'iWi-. ! 


kx 


•'  ^^^wwl 


'S<^>^.  ,.  - 


'*^'**t*?^  !!''^^ 


!('i 


•'»:-?'■■ 


.  -'^ 


a 


402 


IXJUNCTIOXS,  13.  2.  e. 


A 


,:-"^t 


'■**!.*rl%>' 


f>J    I 


•It?- 


li,.  oJ  ^-'^':C';j 


■■■.. .  -h-     -.1 


v.K,;: 


8i 

linn 


'VI ; 


nil 


Mi 

m 
'Si: 


PKKIJMINAKY.     CUNTINUANCE,  Oil  DIHHOI.UTIUN  OF. 


the  patentee  was  the  orij;inul  itiventor, 
unci  also  denied  the  novelty  and  utility 
of  the  invention,  the  preliininavy  in- 
jiinction  Avas  dissolved.  Wilson  v. 
Curtiua,  2  West.  Law  Jour.,  611. — 
jVIiCalkii,  J.;  La.,  1845. 

7.  lint  the  injunetion  maybe  revived 
on  further  afiidavits  setting  fortli  the 
partieulars  of  the  infringement  com- 
jjlained  of,  and  alleging  priority  of  in- 
vention in  the  patentee.     Ibid.,  511. 

8.  It  is  not  a  matter  of  course  to 
dissolve  an  injunction  on  the  coming  in 
of  an  answer  denying  the  ((piity  of  the 
bill,  if  tlie  complainant  lias  produced 
auxiliary  presumptions  in  favor  of  his 
right.  Orr  v.  Littlcjicld,  1  Wood.  & 
Min.,  19, — WooDBuuY,  J.;  N.  IL,  1845. 

9.  It  is  withhi  the  sound  discretion 
of  the  court  whether  to  issue  an  injunc- 
tion or  refuse  it,  or  if  issued,  to  dissolve 
or  retain  it.     Ibid.,  19. 

10.  In  order  to  obtain  an  injunction 
in  advance  of  a  trial  at  law,  there  must 
be  proof  not  only  of  a  patent,  but  also 
of  some  length  of  use  under  it,  or  some 
considerable  sales  under  it,  or  some  re- 
covery establishing  the  validity  of  the 
patent,  so  as  to  impart  to  it  weight  or 
strength  as  valid  beyond  the  mere  is- 
sue of  it.  Ilovey  v.  Stevens,  1  Wood. 
&  Min.,  303. — WoonnuKY,  J.;  Mass., 
1846. 

11.  But  where  possession  for  some 
years  has  existed,  or  there  have  been 
numerous  sales  or  recoveries,  the  court 
will  not  refuse  an  injunction,  or  dissolve 
it  on  a  denial  of  the  validity  of  the  pat- 
ent by  the  defent'.ant,  either  through 
affidavits  or  an  answer,  or  other  plead- 
ings.    Ibid.,  304. 

12.  If  none  of  these  fortifying  cir- 
cumstances exist,  courts  will  not  only 
refuse  an  injunction,  but  will  dissolve 
•one,  previously  allowed,  if  the  validity 


of  the  patent  is  denied  or  brought  into 
doubt.     Ibid.,  304. 

13.  An  injunction  issued  on  a  bill  lilod 
to  restrain  the  use  of  a  patent,  and  al- 
leging  long  possession  and  Kales  uikKt 
the  patent,  and  that  the  validity  of  tlio 
patent  had  been  supported  by  sovoral 
trials,  Avill  not  be  dissolved  on  an  an- 
swer denjhig  generally  the  originality 
of  the  patent,  and  the  use  of  it  by  tlio 
respondent,  unless  the  denial  is  justiticd 
by  something  else,  or  the  claim  stren<rtli- 
ened  by  some  evidence.  Ori'  v.  Mcr- 
rill,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  370,  378.— Wood- 
•iiuuY,  J. ;  Me.,  1840. 

14.  But  such  an  answer  is  suffcicnt 
to  justify  the  court  to  direct  an  action 
at  law  to  test  the  patent,  with  instruc- 
tions that  if  such  action  is  not  hrouirjit 
by  the  plaintiff  within  a  given  time,  the 
injunction  will  be  dissolved.  Ibid.,  T,% 
379. 

15.  A  common  injunction  will  be  dis- 
solved on  an  answer  denying  title,  <te. 
but  a  special  one  will  not,  unless  the 
denial  is  justified  by  sometlJiig  else,  or 
the  claim  is  strengthened  by  soinetliing 
else.  In  special  injunctions  a  motion  to 
dissolve  depends  on  the  soimd  dicretion 
of  the  court,  after  affidavits  as  to  mcriti*, 
if  required,  and  on  the  nature  of  the 
case.     Ibid.,  378. 

16.  Though  it  may  be  true  to  a  cer- 
tain extent,  that  doubts  as  to  the  valid- 
ity of  a  patent,  M'hen  such  doubts  re- 
late to  the  merits,  are  to  be  favoiably 
considered  against  granting  an  injunc- 
tion ;  an  injunction  once  granted  should 
not  be  disturbed  for  such  doubts,  when 
they  relate  to  some  technicality  of  form, 
and  not  to  any  neglect  or  wrong  of  the 
patentee,  and  especially  when  the  trial  on 
the  merits  is  near.  Wbodworth  v.  Hall, 
1  Wood.  &  Min.,  400. — Woodbuey, 
J.;  Mass.,  1846. 


3!r  "** 


yw, 


INJUNCTIONS,  IJ.  2.  €. 


403 


rUKUMINAIiy.      CONTINUANCE,  Oil  DIHHOMTION   OK. 


17.  On  a  motion  to  tlissolvo  an  in- 
junolioa  jjniiited  on  u  bill  of  conipluint, 
unless  the  proof  otfered  ovc'-como  tlie 
equity  of  tlio  bill  and  the  evidenco  sup- 
iiortinr'  it,  the  motion  will  be  denied. 
The  motion  must  depend  on  Mhat  is 
then  presented  to  the  court,  {^park- 
man  V.  JIifff/i"S,  1  lilatchf.,  207,  208.— 
mnTS,J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

18.  Where  the  defendants  deny  the 
validity  of  the  plaintiflf's  patent,  a  tem- 
porary injunction,  if  granted,  will  oidy 
1)0  till  the  validity  of  the  patent  can  be 
tried  at  law,  and  will  be  dissolved  if 
Kuch  «uit  at  law  is  not  brought  befure 
the  next  term.  Woodioorth  v.  £(l- 
wiirds,  3  Wood.  &Min.,  133. — Wood- 
iiruY,  J.;  Mass.,  1847. 

19.  On  a  motion  to  dissolve  a  special 
injunction,  the  main  point  is  not  wheth- 
er an  injunction  should  be  granted  at 
all,  hut  having  been  already  granted, 
until  the  contrary  is  shown,  it  will  be 
presumed  that  the  injunction  was  right- 
ly granted.  Woodworth  v.  lioncrs,  3 
Wood.  &  Mill.,  143. — WooDBUUY,  J. ; 
Muss.,  1847. 

20.  Such  presumption  may  be  over- 
come by  new  matter  or  evidence,  arising 
since  the  uij  unction  was  imposed,  though 
generally  not  by  matter  then  existing, 
which  the  party  neglected  to  present  to 
the  consideration  of  the  court.  Ibid.,\4S. 

21.  Such  new  matter  is  usually  a  sub- 
sequent answer,  denying  the  origin.ality 
of  the  patent,  or  its  validity,  and  sup- 
ported by  prima  facie  proof,  or  by 
sliowing  a  trial  at  law  and  a  judgment 
against  the  patent.     Ibid.,  144. 

22.  The  presumptions  arising  from 
the  answer  may  be  disproved  by  evi- 
dence on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff,  and 
then  counter  testimony  is  admissible  by 
the  respondent  to  sustain  the  answer. 
Ihid.,  144. 


23.  It  18  the  duty  of  the  court  to  bal- 
.ance  these  .lilegations  and  proof^i,  and 
decide  how  the  weiglit  of  them  is ; 
and  whether,  in  the  exercise  of  a  sound 
discretion,  the  injunction  ought  to  bo 
dissolved  or  not.     Ibid.,  145. 

24.  If  the  jtrepoiulerancc  is  in  favor 
of  the  plaintiff,  the  injunction  will  bo 
ret.ained  until  the  legal  right  has  been 
determined  by  a  feigned  issue,  or  a  trial 
at  law.  And  when  the  parties  do  not 
agree  as  to  the  issue  to  be  tried,  the 
court  will  direct  a  suit  at  law  to  be 
brought  at  the  next  term  of  the  court, 
or  the  injunction  will  be  dissolved.  Ibid.^ 
140,  151. 

25.  A  common  injunction  is  usually 
dissolved,  as  a  matter  of  course,  on  the 
coming  in  of  an  answer  denying  merits, 
or  a  leg.al  title  in  the  plaintiffs,  and 
without  any  inquiring  into  the  truth  of 
the  allegations — otherwise,  in  the  case 
of  a  special  injunction.     Ibid.,  147. 

20.  An  injunction  is  never  issued  in 
hostility  to  what  seem  t^  fee  the  legal 
rights  of  parties,  but  in  aid  and  i)rotec- 
tion  of  them.  And  whenever  a  trial  is 
had,  showing  that  the  rights  at  law  are 
with  the  party  enjoined,  the  injunction, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  will  be  dissolved. 
Ibid.,  150. 

27.  Nor  does  lh  injunction  delay  or 
retard  a  trial  by  jury,  but  only  makes 
the  pi'ima  facie  title  prevail  till  then. 
Ibid.,  150. 

28.  Where  a  bill  was  filed  against  K., 
and  an  injunction  was  granted  against 
him,  and  afterward  a  supplemental  bill 
was  filed  to  bring  in  the  assignee  of  K., 
and  new  charges  were  inserted  in  re- 
gard to  K.,  so  as  to  embrace  transac- 
tions of  his  not  covered  by  the  injunc- 
tion originally  awarded  against  him, 
Held,  that  as  the  transactions  of  K.  set 
forth  in  the  supplemental  bill,  were  of 


l;    .../"^^-^ 


■■■'  V*»(V''^*^*'j*^ 


WWM^ 


401 


INJUNCTIONS,  n.  3. 


I  ft 

II ' 

.-  'i 


FINAL  on  I'KHrETU.J. ;   WIIKN  UKANTKD  OR  NOT. 


I 


""^SS, 


tlio   same  cliaractcr  Avllli  (liosc  before  [ 
enjoined,  tliey  eanie  within    tlio  seo|»e  j 
of  tlie    ft)nner   injunction,  and    that  it 
innst    1)0    cxtenleil    to    ineludo   them. 
Parkhiirst  v.  Kinionon^  2  Ulatolif.,  79. 
— Ukpis,  J.;  X.  v.,  1848. 

20.  It  ajj^earing  also  that  G.  had  been 
clerk  of  K.  and  knew  his  transactions, 
in  respect  to  the  patent,  and  of  the 
grantinj^  of  the  injunction  aga'nst  K., 
aiidtliat  on  the  very  day  of  the  hearing 
for  the  injunction,  hebocame  the  assignee 
of  IC,  Jfeld,  on  a  motion  for  an  injunc- 
tion against  G.,  that  he  stood  before 
the  court  eliarg-ablo  with  the  liabilities 
of  K.,  and  took  llie  subject  matter  as- 
signed to  him  with  no  other  or  higher 
rights  as  respected  the  ))laintiff  than  K., 
and  did  not  stand  before  the  court  as 
an  independent  infringer.  I/tkl,  80,  81. 

30.  Where  a  bill  w  as  filed  for  an  in- 
fringement of  a  patent,  on  wliich  a  pre- 
liminary injunction  was  allowed,  and 
the  answer,  wliich  was  supported  by 
affidavits,  denied  the  infringement,  and 
also  set  up  that  the  acts  of  the  defend- 
ant were  done  under  a  license  fi'om  the 
plaintitt',  the  injunction  was  dissolved. 
G'ooili/ar  v.  Bourne,  3  Blatchf.,  2G8. — 
Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y,,  185G. 

31.  Where  an  injunction  has  been 
granted  in  a  patant  case  by  a  circuit 
juil  ,  a  district  judge,  as  a  judge  of  the 
Circuit  Court,  will  not  review  or  set 
aside  such  action,  by  dissolving  the  in- 
junction. At  least  the  reasons  that 
would  justify  such  a  course  must  be  pe- 
culiar and  stringent.  Ilusaey  v.  White- 
ley,  MS. — Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1861. 

3.  Final  or  Perpetual;  when  granted 
and  when  not. 

:   See  also  Injunctions,  B.  1. 

■'■   1.  If  a  state  grant  to  the  possessor  or 


introdii  -er  of  an  invention  an  exilu.sive 
privileg.t  to  use  the  same  fbi'  a  limited  i,,.. 
riod,  Nueh  act  or  grant  is  consii(iiti:,|,.,| 
and  the  grantees  are  entitled  to  an  injuiic. 
tion  against  those  infringing  such  privi. 
leges.  Lirl)if/sfon  tt'l'^tKoHx.  I'ati  J„. 
*/fV/,l)Jolm,,.507,r)OL'. — YaTKS,  J.;  iHj.j. 
Ihid^blX. — TllOMl'SON,,!.  Ibid.,  SS.i  to 
.589.— Kknt,  Ch.  J.,  N.  Y.  [Overrule,! 
in  fact  by  Gibbons  v.  Of/dtn,  9  Wheat. 
1824,  as  iiiterfering  with  the  general 
laws  regulating  iho  cosisting  trade  — 
A'd.] 

2.  An  acquiescence  of  a  jtatontoe  in 
the  known  user  by  the  j)ublic,  witli- 
out  objection  or  (pialiHcation,  of  his 
invention,  is  suHicient  groinid  to  juv 
tify  a  court  in  refusing  liim  an  in- 
junction  against  such  user.  Wi/eth  v. 
Stone,  1  Story,  284. — Stoky,  J. ;  Mass., 
1840. 

3.  A  court  of  equity  will  refuse  an 
injunction,  even  where  the  legal  ri<'lii 
and  title  of  the  party  are  acknoAvledged, 
when  liis  own  conduct  has  led  to  the 
very  act  of  application  of  the  defend- 
ants of  which  he  complains,,  and  fur 
which  he  seeks  redress.     Ibid.,  2S3. 

4.  If  a  p.atentee  neglects  to  tile  a  dis- 
claimer, where  ho  ought  to  take  bucIi 
proceedings,  until  after  suit  is  brought, 
a  court  of  equity  will  not  interfere  to 
grant  a  perpetual  injunction,  whatever 
may  be  his  right  and  remedy  at  law. 
Ibid.,  295. 

5.  Where  a  party  was  the  owner  of 
a  patent-right  for  a  certain  district,  and 
articles  under  the  same  patent  were 
manufactured  in  another  district  but 
sold  in  the  first  district,  Held,  that  the 
court  would  not  enjoin  such  sale,  as  the 
exclusive  right  was  confined  to  the 
things  patented,  and  not  to  the  products. 
Boyd  V.  Jirown,  3  McLean,  296,  297. 
—McLean,  J.;  OJiio,  1843. 


iNJ UNCTIONS,  B.  3. 


405 


riNAL  AND  PBRPKTUikL|   WUKN  ORANTID  OB  NOT. 


^i,  Wlu'tlinr,  if  tlio  party  rHiimifuctur- 
iiiL' ill  tiio  HC'coiid  (listrict  was  jictiiiilly 
eiiijagcd  in  selling  within  tlio  disirii.t 
owned  by  the  other,  it  would  not  bo 
Biic'Ii  ft  violation  of  tho  right  of  Hijch 
m'lHon  that  !'.n  injunction  would  issue. 

Ibid.,  200. 

7.  The  sale  of  tho  products  of  a  pat- 
ented machine  by  a  person  not  conjiect- 
ed  with  or  interested  in  tho  manufac- 
ture is  not  su<!h  an  inl'ringymont  as  will 
be  enjoined;  Dutif  tho  person  who  sells 
is  connected  with  tho  use  of  the  nm- 
I'hiiie,  ho  is  responsible  for  damages, 
iind  may  be  enjoined.  Jioyd  v.  McAl- 
jii/ie,  .'J  McLean,  429,  430.— McLkax, 
J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

G.  And  though  the  structure  and  use 
of  the  niachinr:!  may  bo  beyond  the  ju- 
risdiction of  tho  court,  if  tho  court  have 
jurisdiction  of  the  person  of  the  defend- 
ant, the  court  may  restrain  him  from 
using  the  machine  and  selling  the  prod- 
uct.   Ifnd,  430. 

9.  Where  a  party  has  a  license  under 
a  patent,  anil  the  patentee  reserves  the 
power,  upon  default  of  payment  of  the 
agreed  price  for  the  i)rivilego,  to  claim 
and  take  b-ick  the  interest,  and  an  ac- 
tion was  brought  to  recover  ^.ho  arrears, 
the  patentee  may  still  liavo  an  injunction 
tu  restrain  the  licensee  from  further  use 
of  the  privilege,  the  action  for  the  ar- 
rears and  a  judgment  thereon  being  no 
waiver  of  the  forfeiture.  Armstrong  v. 
Ilanlenhecky  3  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  45. — 
BEm,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1844. 

10.  Where  a  party  has  a  license  to 
use  a  patented  machine,  upon  certain 
conditions,  he  may  be  enjoined  from 
using  it  except  upon  those  conditions  ; 
but  a  failure  to  perform  such  conditions 
is  not  necessarily  a  forfeiture  of  his  li- 
cense, so  as  to  entitle  the  plaiutilF  to  an 
absolute  injunction  against  all  use  of  the 


machine.  Tho  defendant  nuiy  bo  en- 
joined according  to  (he  conditions  of 
his  license.  Jirooks  v.  StolUyy  .'i  Mc- 
Lean, 529.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1H45. 

11.  A  reference  being  ordon^d  to  a 
master  to  take  testiniony  as  to  an  in- 
fringenu'ut,  and  to  report  thereon,  and 
the  report  of  such  nuister  being  in  favor 
of  tlio  plaintift",  iind  that  tho  defend- 
ant had  infringed  his  patent,  tlu'  court 
granted  an  injunction  as  prayed  tor. 
Parker  v.  Jlntjidd,  4  McLean,  04. — 
McIiKAN,  J.;  Oliio,  1846. 

1 2.  A  purchaser,  for  his  own  account, 
of  articles  manufactured  by  a  patented 
machine,  though  purchased  with  a  full 
knowledge  that  they  were  manufactured 
in  violation  of  tho  patent,  cannot  bo  en- 
joined, or  held  liable  in  any  other  way. 
Anon.,  3  West.  Law  Jour.,  144. — N. 
Y.,  1845. 

13.  If,  from  the  evidence  in  the  case, 
it  appears  ihat  tho  defendant  has  infring- 
ed the  right  of  the  complainant,  an  in- 
junction will  be  granted  restraining  the 
defendant  from  further  infringement. 
JJurk  V.  Gill,  4  McLean,  174,  177.— 
:M(;Li;an,  ,T.  ;  Ohio,  1846. 

14.  Li  particular  cases,  as  where  the 
patent  is  for  a  machine  to  make  some 
article  of  manufacture,  and  a  source  of 
profit  arises  from  tho  monopoly  of  such 
articles,  a  court  would  issue  an  injunc- 
tion in  the  last  month  or  week  of  the 
j)atent's  life,  to  restrain  the  sale  of  arti- 
cles piratically  m-inufactured  in  viola- 
tion of  the  patent  Avhile  it  was  in  force. 
But  where  tho  plaintiff  can  be  compen- 
sated in  damages,  it  seems  an  injimction 
will  not,  under  ordinary  circumstances, 
be  granted  during  the  last  few  weeks  of 
a  patent.  Parker  v.  Sears,  MS. — Geiku, 
J.;  Pa.,  1850. 

15.  The  rule  that  a  court  of  equity 
will  not  grant  a  final  and  perpetual  in- 


-■<.-•■  ijSi 


■imi 


V  W( 


^ 

■^ast 

I* 


406 


INJUNCTIONS,  B.  3. 


t'l.NAIi   AND    l-KKI'KTl'AI. ;    WIIKN   (lUAMKII   .)lt   SOT. 


.V„/ 


IK 
II     ' 

I 
la  •! 

M  i: 


!N^' 


u  t' 
II  I' 


§ii 


II  11 


all 

no 


M\  ,, 


ii 


ll>K 


ii 


junction  in  patent  cnsos,  when  tho  an- 
swer (luniuH  tilt)  validity  of  tlic  {latont, 
■without  sending  tin  partie.-i  to  law  to 
have  that  (|uo.stion  derided,  is  not  alino- 
hite  or  universal.  It  is  a  prat-tice  found- 
ed more  on  convenience  than  necessitv, 
and  always  rests  in  the  sound  discretion 
of  the  court.  Goodyear  v.  Aiy,  2  Wall, 
Jr.,  29((.— Gkiek,  J. ;  N.  J.,  IH52. 

10.  In  the  courts  of  the  ITnited  St.atus 
the  i)ractice  of  sending  the  parties  to  an 
action  at  law  is  by  no  means  as  general 
as  in  England,  and  there  arc  many  cases 
in  which  a  final  injunction  has  been  de- 
creed without  a  verdict  to  establish  the 
patents,  thus  .showing  that  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  do  not  always  consid- 
er i'  a  proper  exercise  of  their  discretion 
to  order  such  issues  to  be  tried  at  law, 
before  granting  a  final  inj miction.  Ibid., 
297,  298. 

1 7.  One  of  a  number  of  joint  tenants  in 
a  patent  cannot  come  into  a  court  of  equi- 
ty and  assert  a  superior  cjiiity  as  against 
another.  Nor  can  one  tenant  in  common 
enjoin  the  other  from  the  use  or  sale  of 
the  patent.  Cliim  v.  Jireioer,  2  Curt., 
624. — CuiiTis,  J.;  Mass.,  1855. 

18.  The  plaintiff  was  the  .assignee  of 
the  Maynard  patent  for  locks  and  prim- 
ers, which  the  defendants,  a  company 
organized  for  the  manufacture  of  Sharp's 
rifie,  applied  to  their  guns  without  the 
license  or  consent  of  the  plaintifT,  though 
with  his  knowledge ;  as  to  the  compen- 
sation for  such  use  some  negotiations 
had  also  been  had  between  the  parties, 
but  without  any  satisfactory  result.  The 
defendant  J  had  contracted  to  furnish  the 
British  government  with  six  thousand 
of  such  rifles,  fitted  with  the  Maynard 
lock.  The  plaintiff"  now  filed  his  bill  for 
the  infringement  of  his  patent,  asking 
an  account,  and  that  the  defendants  pay 
the  damages  the  plaintiff  had  sustained, 


and  also  that  the  defendants  be  enjoirinil 
from  completing  their  contract  wiih  il^ 
Hriti.sh  /jovernment,  until  t!.ey  s.|ioi,|,i 
pay  a  reasonable  compensation  for  tli,. 
use  of  the  jtatei.t.  The  dffeiniaiits,  in 
their  answer,  did  not  deny  the  valiijitv 
of  the  jjatent,  or  tho  plaintifl"s  title  Imi 
admitted  the'tise,  sotting  up  tho  ihi„q. 
tiations  as  to  c(mipensatioii,  their  wil'- 
ingness  to  jiay  a  reasonable  prici',  and 
the  fact  that  the  contract  with  tlio  l>rit 
ish  government  was  entered  into  jn'iid. 
ing  such  negotiations,  and  orti-red  to 
pay  twenty-five  cents  per  lock,  u.slmI  by 
them,  or  tho  profits  which  an  accoiint 
ing  should  show  they  actually  made 
upon  such  locks;  Held  by  tho  court 
that  tho  defendants  should  bo  enjoiiiud 
from  further  use  of  the  plaintiff's  pat- 
ent, without  first  paying  for  the  use  of 
the  same,  or  obtaining  the  plaintilT's 
consent,  except  as  to  the  contract  witli 
the  British  government,  which  tlnv 
should  be  allowed  to  complete,  and  fur- 
ther that  the  defendants  should  not  bo 
permitted  to  withdraw  their  offer  as  to 
tlie  amount  they  were  willing  to  pay  fur 
their  use  of  the  plaintift''s  patent.  JSmith 
V.  Sharp  Rijle  Co.,  3  Bhitchf.,  548.— In- 
GEUSOLL,  J.;  Ct.,  1857. 

19.  G.,  the  inventor  and  p.atentee  of 
a  new  process  for  vulcanizing  india-rub- 
ber, in  1844,  gave  to  the  Naugatuck  I. 
R.  Co.  a  license  to  use,  Avitli  a  iaw  ex- 
ceptions, liis  Avhole  right,  granted  by 
such  patent,  upon  the  payment  of  a 
stipulated  tariff.  G.  also  covenanted 
not  to  license  any  other  person  to  use 
such  p.atent,  but  reserved  the  jjrivilege 
to  sell  tlie  right,  under  such  patent,  for 
any  particular  subject  of  manufacture 
for  a  sum  in  gross,  the  said  company, 
however,  to  have  the  refusal  to  become 
the  purchasers  of  said  right  at  tie  stip- 
ulated sum  offered  by  others,  and  auy 


m 


INJUNCTIONS,  n.  4. 


407 


YIOLATtOlf  or,   AND  ATTACIIMRNT  OX. 


BiK'h  Hulo  couM  not  1)0  msulo  to  nny 
other  piirtic'S,  cxoopt  on  tli«  rufiisul  or 
nojrleot  of  tho  coinimiiy  for  sixty  tliiys 
after  tlic  offiT  liiul  beon  iimde  to  tlioin, 
to  lit'coinc  tho  piircliasorH,  nor  then,  ex- 
cent  tlio  one-fourth  part  of  tho  Htipula- 
tc'tl  fluni  HhottUl  be  paid  to  Huoh  com- 
pany. Tho  place  of  manufaeturo  of 
such  company  was  at  Naufjatuck,  Con- 
necticut, but  they  had  a  place  of  busi- 
ness in  the  city  of  New  York,  whiTo 
tlicir  treasurer  was  to  be  found,  and 
who  was  the  aj?cnt  of  tljo  company. 
There  was  no  regular  time  or  j)lace  j»i'e- 
Bcribcd  for  tho  meoting  of  tlie  directors 
of  such  company,  who  met  sometimes 
at  Iliivtford,  sometimes  at  Naugatuck, 
anil  sometinu's  at  New  York.  Subse- 
(uiontly,  in  1H47,  (t.  had  an  oiler  for  the 
purchase  of  the  right,  under  his  patent, 
to  manufacture  car  springs.  He  gave 
notice  of  such  offer  to  the  treasurer  of 
the  said  company,  at  his  office  in  New 
York,  and  after  the  expiration  of  sixty 
days  from  such  notice,  sold  such  right 
to  E.  &  C,  for  the  agreed  price,  onc- 
quartcr  ot  vyhich  w.as  ])aid  to  said  com- 
pany, through  their  said  treasurer,  who 
received  the  same,  with  a  knowledge  on 
what  account  paid,  and  carried  it  to  the 
credit  of  such  company.  E.  &  C.  after- 
ward assigned  their  nght  to  the  plain- 
tiffs. The  Naugatuck  I.  R.  Co.,  about 
the  same  time,  assigned  all  their  right 
under  the  patent  to  the  defendants, 
who,  under  it,  commenced  to  manufac- 
ture and  sell  car  springs.  The  plaintiffs 
filed  their  bill,  asking  an  injunction  to 
restrain  such  manufacture.  The  de- 
fendants insisted  that  their  grantors,  the 
Naugatuck  I.  R.  Co.,  had  never  assent- 
ed to  the  sale  of  G.  to  E.  &  C,  and  that 
G.  had  not  performed  the  conditions 
which  entitled  him  to  make  such  sale. 
N.  K  Car  Spring  Co.  v.  Union  Rub. 


Cn,,  t  I'latclif. — Tnoerholl,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1H67. 

20.  Jlrld,  iKt.  That  the  payment  to 
the  treasurer  of  such  company,  of  tho 
oiu'-fourlli  of  the  sum  received  by  such 
sale,  and  tho  receipt  of  it  by  him,  and 
his  applying  it  to  tlio  benetit  of  such 
company,  was  a  legal  and  stifficient  pay- 
ment thereof  to  the  company. 

'Jd.  That  such  treasurer  or  agent  vvas 
tlio  proper  jx'rson  to  receive  notice  from 
(f.  of  any  intended  sale,  and  that  G. 
was  not  bound  to  give  personal  notice 
to  the  directors,  and  that  the  agree- 
ment not  retpiiring  Avritten  notice,  a 
verbal  notice  was  stifficient,  and  that 
such  notice  could  be  given  at  any  time. 

3d.  That  it  was  tho  duty  of  the  di- 
rectors of  such  company  to  itiform  them- 
selves of  the  transactions  of  said  com- 
pany and  tho  acts  of  their  agent,  and 
that  tho  defence  could  not  bo  set  up 
that  the  corporation  had  no  knowledge 
of  the  purpose  for  which  said  money, 
tho  one-fourth  of  proceeds,  was  paid, 
iind  were  not  bound  by  it,  or  th.at  their 
agent  had  neglected  to  inform  them  in 
respect  thereto. 

4th.  That  the  transfer  to  E.  &  C  by 
G.,  was  a  legal  and  valid  license  or  as- 
signment, and  that  from  and  after  its  date 
the  Naugatuck  I.  R.  Co.  had  no  right 
to  use  the  patent  for  tho  j)urposes  for 
M'hich  conveyed  to  E.  &  C,  and  that 
the  plaintiffs  were  entitled  to  an  injunc- 
tion, as  prayed  for,  to  restrain  the  de- 
fendants. 

4.  Violation  of,  and  Attachment  on. 

1.  Where  a  plaintiff  in  an  injunction 
suit  endeavored  to  entrap  tho  defend- 
ant into  a  violation  of  an  injunction, 
JTeld,  that  the  proceeding  on  the  part 
of  plaintiff  Avould  not,  either  in  con- 


«i^K 


i 


f^ii 


Ilt< 


408 


INJUNCTIONS,  n.  4. 


,11 


MHi 


'H   I- 


til 


(I.    . 

la  I 

till:: 


^ir: 


vioLAnoic  or,  and  attaciimknt  on. 


Hcit'iico  or  Inw,  jii«*(ify  an  attiiclinient, 
luitl  tli:>>  tilt' plaiiitin'  hIio^I'I  !•«'  «'li:ir)^(>il 
with  tlic  cnxts  of  till'  :i|tplir!ititiii.  S/ntrk- 
UKin  V.  Jlii/iihiK^  '1  lUatflif.,  :»(),  31. — 
JJktih,  J.;  N.  v.,  1S4(J. 

2.  Whori'  an  injunction  was  Imniu'cI 
Against  a  (Iffcnilant  !'('Htr:iiiiiii;r  liiin  tVoiii 
iisiii;^  !i  ct'itain  niacliiiu',  arnl  at^tTuard 
8iicli  ilcfcndiiiit  leased  tlic  iiiacliinc  to 
otlicrs,  who  continued  U>  use  it,  l»nt  it 
had  never  lieen  in  the  Icfjfal  possesHion 
of  such  (l('!eiidaiil  since  he  w  as  enjoined, 
Jfeltf^  on  ii  motion  lor  an  attachineiit, 
that  the  tlefi'iidiuit  could  not  lio  r»'j;ard- 
ed  as  in  coiiteni|it,  and  that  an  attach- 
ment woiilil  not  issue.  SloKt.  v.  J*((t- 
ten,  (5  I'eiin.  Law  Jour.,  l.s!),  1!)0.— 
IVANK,  J.  ;   l':i,,  IHKI. 

.').  When' a  person  had  been  enjoined 
not  to  use  a  machine  suhstaiitially  like 
the  on<'  mentioned  in  tin;  complainant's 
bill,  III  Id,  th.'it  he  was  j^fuilty  <tf  a  eoJi- 
tenipt,  by  the  purchase  and  use  of  a 
machine  which  had  been  enjoined  aijainst 
in  a  neii'liboriii"'  circuit  as  beiii<'  .also 
substantially  like  the  plaintitr's,  Wood- 
tporth  V.  Jiof/ers,  H  Wood.  &  ^lin.,  142. 
— AVooDiJL'UY,  J. ;  3Iass.,  1847. 

4.  He  may,  however,  jmrfxe  liiinself 
of  such  contempt  by  showinj;  that,  lie 
was  ignorant  of  such  injunction  ai^ainst 
tho  machine  so  used  by  him.  Ifnd., 
14.1. 

6.  An  injunction  in  a  patent  case  does 
not  extend  beyond  wliat  is  the  ritjlit  of 
the  plaintiff;  unless  there  has  been  a 
violation  of  the  riglit  held  by  the  plain- 
tiff under  his  patent,  there  can  have 
been  no  disobedience  of  the  injimction. 
lii/am  V.  IJihly,  2  Blatchf.,  624.— I'kex- 
Tiss,  J.;  Vt.,  1853. 

6.  Where  a  defendant  some  months 
before  the  service  of  an  injunction  upon 
liim,  had  made  his  bond, acknowledging 
the  validity  of  the  plaintifTs  patent,  and 


of  his  right  to  all  that  was  granted  hv 
it,  //iltl,  that  Huch  bon<l  was  no  (.yj. 
d«'nce  of  a  breach  of  such  injiitictinn 
any  further  than  the  recital  in  it  ilmt 
the  defendant  h.ad  infringed  the  pateiii 
might  have  a  temlency  to  t'Htabli>.h  such 
bre.'ich,  and  that  such  inference  or  jiiv- 
sumption  arising  from  it  cttiild  bi>  over- 
come' liy  credible  positive  testiimmy 
proving  no  infringement.     //»i(l.,  fi-j". 

7.  An  injunction  al\er  it  has  Wvw 
once  served  continues  its  jictioii  until 
witlnlrawn  by  order  of  the  court.  Mr. 
Connick  V.  Jenwu',  ,\  JJIatclif.,  487.—. 
r.Krrs,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IH.'5(J. 

H.  Where  an  onler  granting  an  in- 
junction was  made,  and  the  writ  of  in- 
junction  issued  thereon  wjis  not  tested 
till  nu)re  than  six  weeks  after,  and  was 
not  served  till  within  ;i  few  days  of  one 
year  after  the  day  of  its  test;  //(/(/, 
that  a  disobedience  of'  tho  writ  wctiilil 
not  be  punishable  l)y  attachment.  Find. 

0.  After  such  a  lapse  of  time  tlic 
plaintiff  should,  before  using  the  writ, 
have  applied  to  the  court  for  autliority 
to  do  HO.     Ihiih,  488. 

10.  In  order  to  warrant  an  attach- 
ment for  a  bre.'ich  of  an  injiinetion,  the 
party  to  be  prt)ceede<l  against  must  lie 
a  party  to  the  suit,  and  h.ive  had  iiotict' 
of  the  application  for  the  injunction. 
Sii'kles  V.  Borden,  3  or  4  lilatclif.— 
IIai.l,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

11.  On  a  motion  for  an  att.achniciit 
for  a  violation  of  \\n  injuTiction  the  oh- 
jection  cannot  be  taken  that  tlie  injunc- 
tion is  broader  than  tlie  order  author- 
izing it ;  if  the  injunction  served  is  too 
broad,  the  defendants,  when  served  with 
it,  should  immediately  take  means  to 
set  it  aside  for  that  reason.     Ibid. 

12.  An  attachment  for  a  violation  of 
an  injunction  may  issue  against  tho 
agent  and  acting  officer  of  the  dofoinl 


INJUNCTIONS,  C. 


400 


m  MtnOT  TO  TIIADI.MAMS. 


lit  (tt  f<»i«''J.'"  <"i|""'i'li"'>)»  "'"^   ''*'  '"    ■A''-  y-  f*-  /*•   Cutnft  Co.t  MS.   -1ni;kii- 
not  cXfiiip'''"!  tlnTcrroiii  on  llu'  ^'I'oimil  |  sol.i,  J. ;   \.  Y.,  iHr.H. 

111.  NVIiiTi',   tlui-i't'ii',  tlu'  |tlaiiitin"rt* 
|>at«>i)t  wiiH  for  tin?  U(Hi«  of  linj'nif,  or  ilK 
la.  Wht'i'o    tlio    violiktioi)   of  tliu  in-   rytz/r/rA/i^,  in  tlio  viilcitni/.ation  of  iinliit- 

nililtcr  mill  otlin-  i^iiiiis,  and  an  iiijuno- 
lion  isHiit'd  uirjkliist  tli««  ili>fi>nilanlH  to 
rcHtrain  their  infringing   hii*-Ii    paltnt, 


not  I'Xt'ini 

tliiit  In'  i-*  'k  '"^''■"  "tTvunt  of  tliu  Ucfi'ml 

iiiit.     //"■''• 


junction  wan  llu-  ns^>  ..f  tin.  tl.inj,'  j.al- 
,.„t«<l  on  a  stfamlioat,  //>lif,  that  the 
(ii^'iiifi'i"  was  i>ro|H'iIy  nwi'lr  a  party  to 
till' itroci't'fling,  iukI  that  an  attachnu'nt 

woulil  is**'!''  aKi'i«"*l  '''"»•     ^'""''• 

14.  Tin'  opt'ralion  or  restraints  of  an 
iiijiinction  eaiinot  he  exteinleil  heyond 
tho  nreeise  limits  indicated  hy  it.    Ihiil. 

15.  WliethtT  an  injnnetion  will  I'ni- 
linice  till  servants,  aj,'ents,  workmen, 
and  employees  of  the  defendant,  unless 
hinrially  named  ther»'in  ;  qinri/.     Jhil. 

10.  To  warrant  an  nttaehment  for  a 
violation  of  an  inji.netion,  the  service 
(if  tlie  writs  should  not  he  left  in  douht. 
Wlu'ie  the   |)laintitf  j^'avu  evidence  of 
the  service  of  the  writs,  ]>ut  the  party 
pnicccded  a,<,'ainst  swore  positively  that 
ln' liml  never  hcen  served  with  anysiu-h 
writs,  hut  only  with  a  copy  of  the  ordi-r 
„f  the  court   j,'rantinj?    an    injunction, 
Jlld,  that  there  wan  so  much  uncertain- 
ty !is  to  service,  that  the  writ  of  attach- 
iiii'Ut  should  not  bo  j^ranted.      Wk!pi>h' 
i.  lldrhii.iDiiy  ■[  Jilatchf. — Nklson,  J.; 
X.  v.,  I8r.8. 

17,  Where  the  use  coin])laincd  of 
was  under  an  ai,'rceincnt  with  the  i)at- 
(iitc'f,  luailc  subsequent  to  the  .nllowaiu-e 
(i  the  injunction,  an  attachment  should 
luit  issue.    Ibid. 

IH.  An  attachment  .as  for  a  contemj)! 
for  disobey  iiiLT  an  injunction,  issued  af\er 
vi-rdict  to  restrain  a  defencbint  from  in- 
fniij,'inij  the  jtlaintiff's  i)atent,  will  not 
lie  jrranted  unless  the  alle<;ed  violation 
is  a  use  of  that  actually  patented  to 
the  plaintifi',  or  its  evident  equivalent ; 
the  injunction  issued  can  only  be  a 
broail  as  the  patent.     Poppenheusen  v. 


and  they  afterward  wnvil  n/mtit  <>/  f>r<t.HS 
ami  tin,  in  a  similar  way  to  that  in 
which  (t)i-Joil  was  us«'(l  by  plaint itf'a 
patent,  //«/(/,  on  a  motion  for  an  attach- 
ment for  violatin}r  the  injunction,  that 
such  plates,  thouj^h  somewhat  tlexible, 
couhl  not  be  considered  an  eipiivaleiit 
for  tin-foil,  and  that  the  attachment 
nuist  be  denied.     Jf*id. 

C.  In  Uksi-kct  to  Tuadk^SIauks. 

See .ilrto Equity,  C; Tuadk-Makks, A. 

1.  If  there  is  any  (piestion  whether 
the  acts  of  the  deft  udant  art'  a  fraudu- 
lent interference  wiili  tlu(  rij;hts  of  the 
plaintiff  as  to  the  j^ood-will  of  his  busi- 
ness, it  should  be  left  to  a  trial  by  jury 
in  the  onll.iary  course  of  law.  An  in- 
junction will  not  bo  allowed  in  such  a 
cas-'.  Snomden  v.  u^Tod/i,  Ilopk.  ('I'., 
35:3.— Walwoutii,  ChiUi. ;  N.  Y.,  1825. 

2.  "NVhoro  u  person  intentionally  pi- 
rates a  trade-mark  of  another  for  thu 
fraudulent  purpose  of  intliu-iug  the  pub- 
lic, or  those  dealing  in  the  article,  to 
believe  it  was  in  fact  the  article  mami- 
factured  by  the  one  origin:illy  using 
such  mark,  and  with  the  intention  of 
supplanting  him  in  the  good-will  of  his 
trade  and  business,  a  perpetual  injunc- 
ti(m  will  issue,  restraining  such  use,  and 
the ,  party  so  using  will  also  be  ILiblo 
tti  damages.  Taylor  v.  Carpenter,  11 
Paige,  298. — Walwoiitii,  Chan.;  N. 
Y.,  1844. 


''v^s; 


\^\ 


-'♦'jrl 


'"•'.f 


yn 


SJ^.^  r  >- -I 


^^^^~1<^J 


^wl 


'»*.'H,».»^| 


'toCC^M 


k. 


I 


'w*»^.- 


117 


ii 


410 


INJUNOnoNS,  C. 


IN  IIRM>IIT  TO  TRAUB-MAIIKII. 


Itw        I 

,1    . 


» 

l^^H  H 

^W*/"' '  i  • 

tt^T^    U 

^i 

I"' 

nn 

^w^ 

iir 

^s.. 

Mr' 

^ 

^.:' 
& ' 

^^p 

^ 

k 

.'I.  Ami  it  i<*  wliolty  initiuiti'riitl  wliotli- 
rr  till)  Niiiiiiliil«><l  iirti«'io  U  or  U  not  of 
f<|iiiil  ^ooilnt'>«N  iitiil  viiliif  with  till)  riMkl 
nrlirl.'.      /■A/7.,  '.MIH. 

4.  Wlifi't'  tilt'  cntiiplitiniintH,  NiilijoftH 
of  < trout  Itritaiii,  wt'i'u  initiiiitHfliircrH 
of  a  t'orlaiii  tlirt'iid,  laltclltMl  "TavlorV 
IN'ruiaii  Tlm'ail,"  ami  llu'  ilcffnilantM  in 
America  man  < tact iirctl  ami  niiIiI  llirciil 
tttampctl,  lal)«'llc(i,  an<l  ciicIomciI  in  ciivcl- 
opcN  rost'mldin;;  tlumt'  niailo  usu  of  l>y 
tlio  ('om|ilaiiiants,  //il)f,  tliat  it  waH  an 
1^  ,iin;,M'nH'nt  of  tlic  rights  cf  (lie  cdni- 
plninaiil.s,  for  wliicli  t'<|uity  wonltl  jLtivc 
relief  ]>y  a  |)er|)etiial  injinictinii.  '/'hi/- 
lor  V.  ('iirjKiiter,  n  Slory,  tno,  WA.— 
Stoky,  J.;   Mass.,  iHlt. 

5.  K(|iiity  will  tleercL'  a  perpetual  in- 
junction to  restrain  the  use  of  anotlier'w 
tratleinarks,  ami  will  decree  an  account 
ns  to  dania^es,  with  the  costH  of  suit. 
CoittH  V.  Ili)lhr<u,k\  '1  Saml.  Ch.,  r.l).-), 
690.— Sanui-ouu,  V.  Chun.;  N.  Y., 
1845. 

6.  A  coininission  niorcliant,  who  sells 
on  commission  an  article  which  he 
knows  to  be  an  imit:ilion,  is  liable  to 
Kuit,  ami  will  1k'  enjoiued  from  ii  fur- 
ther saio  of  the  imitated  nrticlo,  and 
■will  be  subjected  to  the  costH  of  Huit. 
Ibhl,  AOT,  rj!)H. 

7.  A  party  has  a  right  to  (^•dl  upon  a 
court  of  tMpiity  to  restrain  ii  defendant 
from  frau(bdently  using  the  words  and 
devices  which  ho  has  previously  tak- 
en for  the  purpose  of  distingijishing 
}»is  property.  Taylor  v.  Ciirpcnter  (in 
Court  of  Errors),  2  Sand.  Ch.,  012.— 
Bkakdslky,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

8.  In  cases  of  doubt,  whctlier  the 
complainant's  sign  or  trade-mark  has 
been  actually  pirated  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  bo  likely  to  deceive  and  impose 
upon  others,  the  court  will  not  grant  or 
sustain  an  injunctioi.,  until  the  cause  is 


heard  upon  pjcadin^jH  and  pruofx,  or  tlm 
ciwnplainitnt  haH  cNtablisheil  his  ri^lit  Kv 
lui  action  at  law.  I'urtn'i/i/t'  v.  .lAx.i, 
'.'  Harb.,  Ch.,  ion— W.\i.wouiii,  Climi  ! 
N.  Y.,  IH47. 

\).  lint  where  the  court  nee  that  tlm 
com|>lainant*H  traile-nuirkH  are  Mimclutiil 
in  Nuch  a  minwicr  as  probalily  todccfivo 
his  customers,  or  patmns  of  his  trinlc 
Of  business,  tlm  piracy  will  l»e  ntdbiiiil 
at  «»nce  by  injunction.     //>/</.,  io;{. 

10.  A  court  of  ixpiity  in  refusini;  to 
restrain  the  wrongdoer  by  injuiicticni, 
would  violate  the  principles  upmi  wliich 
a  large  portion  of  its  jurisdiction  \i, 
founded.  AmonkiiKj  Maiuif.  Co,  v. 
.S>)mr,  2  Sand.,  8.  C,  005.— 1)i;ku,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1H41). 

11.  Kipiity  vsill  restrain  a  wron),'(liM>r 
by  injunction,  on  the  groumls  of  protect- 
ing a  party  in  the  exercise  of  a  lri.':il 
right,  the  suppression  of  framl,  aiiil 
preventing  a  mischief  which  otliorv.i.M' 
might  prove  irr»'parable.     //>///.,  000. 

12.  An  injmiction  to  restrain  tlio  tin- 
authorized  use  of  a  trade-mark  hIkhiIiI  lie 
granti'd  with  great  caution,  and  is  imt 
to  be  exercised  where  the  legal  riijlit  i» 
disput(^d  and  doubtful,  or  ho  as  to  cre- 
ate a  monopoly  imjust  toward  otliersor 
injurious  to  the  public.     Ih'nL,  00(5. 

l;t.  An  injun(!tion  ought  to  ho  grant- 
ed whenever  the  design — whether  ap- 
parent or  proved — of  a  person  who  im- 
itates  a  tnide-mark,  is  to  impose  his 
own  goods  upon  the  public  .'is  those  of' 
the  owner  of  the  mark,  and  the  imita 
tion  is  such  that  the  success  of  tho 
<lesign  is  a  probable  or  even  possible 
circumstance,  and  nmst  he  granted 
whenever  the  public  is  in  fact  misled, 
whether  intentionally  or  otherwise,  by 
the  imitation.     Ibid.,  009. 

14.  IJut  an  injunction  need  not  neces- 
sarily be  granted  whenever  there  exists 


*^.»»^  .^ 


iNJUNcrnoss,  c. 


411 


IM  NMrnt  TV  TRAUK-IIAMU. 


tiieli  tt  r«'N«Miil)l!iii<-i'  Im'I  wt't'ii  truiIt'inai'kH 
UK  mi«v  iii'lii'"''  '"i  iM'li'f  timl  llicy  Ih'Ioii^ 
to  aii'l  tli'Hi)Xiiui«'  tin*  K'""''*  ••'  'I'"  wimii' 
trmltT  or  iiiamiliu'liirrr.  Tlit>  ri'Mfiii- 
Mitiu't'  iniiMt  tunuiiiit  to  II  t'iklMv  r«>|)r«'iicii- 
tufioii,  I'XpH'MH  or  iiiiplifti,  il«>rii^ii<>il  or 
niTi<K'iitul.     Itti'l.y  <lt»U. 

IT).  A  (*oiii|>liiiii!int  cannot  olaini  llit> 
proH'oiion  of  ii  court  of  i'<|iiity  to  r«- 
ittrain  i*  fnnnliilfnt  \\m  of  liin  trmlf- 
iii.iik,  on  tli(»  K''"'""l  •'illi«'»*  of  liav'mj,' 
an  I'xt'ltiHiv*'  ri^lit  hs  an  inventor  in  tin* 
thinj;  inanuliiclurotl  by  lilin,  or  uii  ox- 
clii)ttv(>  ri>;lit,  uh  antlior,  in  IiIm  label. 
CnJWii  V.  Iti'uutitn^  \   Ml- Loan,  617. — 

M.Ij:\v,  .L;  I'l'i-.  »«'»• 

10.  Uiit  n-lu'f  by  wiiy  of  injunction 
is  f^riiiitcd  bccauHU  of  tliu  uhu  of  a  nmrk 
orlaltcl,  which  rccioinincnds  an  article  to 
the  |iiil)lic  to  the  injury  of  tin*  coin|il:iin- 
ant;  the  fraiul  ari*(!H  from  the  false  rv\\- 
ri'Mcutalion  that  tliu  urtidu  is  the  nauiu. 

JbiiL  617. 

17.  An  intentional  fraud  is  not  ni'ces- 
Rary  to  entitle  a  pl.-iintiir  to  |irotcction 
for  a  wrongful  use  of  his  Iradc-niark ; 
but  whoro  thu  Haniu  mark  or  label  is 
uscil  which  reconnnunds  the  .article  tt» 
till' piihlii'  by  the  I'stablished  re|)Utation 
of  another,  who  sells  a  similar  article, 
and  the  spurious  camiot  be  detected 
from  the  geimine  one,  an  injiuu^tion 
will  be  i^ranted,  althouj^li  there  was  no 
intentional  fraiul.     Ibid.^  .'ilO. 

IH.  The  itlaintifF  was  a  nuinufacturer 
of  steel  pens,  which  were  put  up  for 
sale  in  boxes,  the  labels  on  which,  and 
the  number  they  boro,  indieated  the 
J  quality  of  the  pons.  The  defendant 
ri'inovcJ  from  the  boxes  containing  in- 
furior  pens  the  label  properly  belong- 
ing on  such  boxes,  and  put  upon  them 
the  label  and  number  design.ating  a  bet- 
ter and  higher  priced  article,  and  sold 
them  as  the  8uj)erior  article ;    JIdd, 


that  Nuch  nets  wvre  u  fraud  upon  thu 
public  and  the  plaintilV,  and  bein^^  a 
tVaud  coupled  \«ilh  damage,  the  court 
would  restrain  tin  defendant.  liiUolt 
V.  h'iiih\,  :i  iMier,  tJ'jo,  0'J7.  -  Kohwouhi, 
J.  ;   N.  v.,  iH.")!. 

lt>.  Tin*  n'lneily  by  injunction  is  in- 
\ariably  granted  w  hen  tht*  nature  of  thu 
injury  is  nuch  that  u  preventive  remedy 
is  indispensable,  and  should  be  perma- 
runt.     //</»/.,  tl J 7. 

20.  In  such  cas(>s,  if  tlu«  injured  party 
is  obligtul  to  seek  redress  by  actions  to 
recover  damages,  there  will  be  no  end 
to  litig.alion,  and  certain  and  adequate 
relief  would  be  unattainalilu.  //>/(/., 
027. 

21.  Courts  of  ecpiity  do  not  interfere 
i)y  injunction  in  cases  of  \iolation  of 
trade-ni.arks,  except  in  aiil  <»f  a  legal 
right;  if  the  fact  of  the  pl.iintitlV  right 
in  a  trade-mark,  or  the  defendant's  in- 
terference with  it,  be  doubtful,  the  plain- 
tills  w  ill  be  left  to  establish  their  title 
at  law.  Mcirhmn'k  Mamif.  Co,  v. 
darner,  4  E.  1).  Smith's  Hep.,  aOO.— 
Daly,  J.;  N.  Y.,  18.'i6. 

22.  It  may  be  that  ai)arty  would  n(»t 
be  permitted  to  manufacture  and  vend 
an  inferior  article,  and  put  it  forth  t«) 
the  public  as  of  the  Hatnu  tpuility  and 
kind  as  that  of  another;  but  whether 
he  could  bo  restrained  by  injunction  Ls 
doubtful.     Ifnd.,  :{92. 

2;i.  Where  the  plaintiffs'  trade-mark 
consisted  of  the  words  "  Merrimack 
Prints,  Fast  Colors,  Lowell,  Mass.,"  en- 
closed in  a  floral  wreath,  and  the  de- 
fendants marked  their  goods '' English 
Free  Trade,  Merrimack  Style,  warrant- 
ed Fast  Colors,"  and  also  enclosed  in  a 
floral  wreath,  but  lighter  and  more  open 
than  in  the  otber.  Held,  on  a  motion  for 
an  injunction,  that  though  there  was  an 
undoubted    reseniblaiico    between    the 


<«%ta 


>w;. 


»^'^ 


*»*»« 


^m 


...  *i-' 


rfi 


..■=!tii 


II V 

•'I' 

It 

-I 


;  W 


If 

HI 

h 
111 


lll«' 

i»'»> 


III 


I'll  \i 


418 


IN.FI'\(TIONB»  C. 


IK   NKMfKCT  Tl»    rNADR  MAMII. 


two,  thnt  tli«*  fHMirt  rtiiilil  not  Hiiy  ili.tt 
tliu  onlliiiiry  iiitiitM  of  |)iirfliu><t<rN  woiild 
Ih)  iU>''Lilvi')|  hy  llio  ill  li>iiil:iiil>«'  IiiIm-I, 
mill  lli.'kl  an  injiiiiflinii  uii^lit  imt  ti»  Im< 
^niiitcil  ill  till'  lii'Nl  iiiMiiiiici* ;  ttiit  tli«> 
liiirlit'M  hIiimiIiI  Im)  li'tl  to  try  tlir  i|ii<'Mtii)ii 
uC  actual  iiniiatioii.     //>/</.,  :(0'i,  :io:i. 

'H.  Wlii'i'tt  an  iiijiiiit'linii  in  iiMkt'tl  to 
rcNlraiii  a  ildi'iiilant  tVoiii  ^I'lliiiL;  iirticli'M 
with  a  |tai'tii'iilai'  tnnlriiiurlv,  tlii>  ri;,'lit 
to  UNO  wliifli  ift  claiini'il  Wy  tlic  |)laiiilil)', 
it  I'liiNt  appi'ur  tlitit  tlid  ili'l'i-tnlniit  Im 
m'l'kiiif^  litHi'll  till' art icIi-M  iiiaiiiir:irlun'i| 
by  fiiin  as  tlioHO  iliiiiiiit'artiii-fil  by  tlii' 
(MTHon  wliu  fNtubliHlii'il  till*  nri^iiiiil 
trailc-iiiark,  aiiil  tint  plaint IIV'h  ri^lit  to 
UMi>  tlic  irailf-iiiark  imiHt  be  clciir.  .SV/m- 
u>lv.  Ii,r>iii\  Jt  ilaib.,  S,  C,  lOl.— 
Da VI KM,  J.;  N.  v.,  IH.'iU. 

2A.  All  injiiiirtioii  iri  iii'vcr  to  bo  p^rniit- 
cil  in  tli(>  tii'.it  iiistaiK'f,  if  tli(>  fXcltiMivt* 
title  of  till'  plaintitr  is  ilniinl — milrsH 
upon  ixruiiiiilH  cli'aily  iVivolous — or  if  it 
is  ilispiitcd.     //;/(/.,  105. 

20.  Till'  plaintitV,  a  niMnulu'turcr  of 
watclii's,  riaiiui'il  tin*  rij^lit,  as  assij^nci', 
to  stamp  liis  ualdicH  with  the  tiaiiio  of 
one  Ibi'i'snn  ibiiiillc.  Tint  ilcft'iiilaiits 
Holil  watclu'Htnaiitifacturcil  by  Hai<l  lirln- 
illc  liiiiisi'lf,  and  stainpi'il  with  his  iianio, 
Jltil,  that  tho  plaintiir  was  not  cntitlcil 
to  an  iiijiinc'  >ii  to  iTst rain  the  ili'ft'iiil- 
aiits  from  r  ••''.. i^'  thuorii^'inal  artifk*,  and 
thus  protect  the  pluintitls  in  Hclling  the 
siniiilatcd.     IhiiL,  1(15. 

'11.  Whore  the  powiT  of  a  court  of 
c'liuity  has  been  invoked,  it  has  been  to 
restrain  the  defendant  from  niakinir  his 
goods  and  selling  them  as  and  for  the 
goods  maniifactuivd  by  the  plaintiff*,  on 
the  ground  that  such  a  fraud  was  an  in- 
jury to  the  plaintiff',  and  tending  to  mis- 
lead  and  deceive  the  l)ublic.  Ibid.,  105. 
28.  It  is  well  established  that  a  court 
will  grant  an  injimction  against  the  use 


by  one  Iradi'Hiiinn  I'f  the  triiili-innrk  of 
another;  mid  xiiili  proteition  vsilj  \^, 
evti'iideit  tiM'nterpriM'H  iiiidertiiki'ii  fur 
(he  purpoMc  of  affording  Mniii-«riiii<i||  0^ 
recreatinii  to  tl;.  piililii'.  C/irinfu  \, 
A/itrfi/ti/,  I J  How.  Pr.,  77,  7H.~('i,ii|,n^^ 
J.;  N.  Y.,  IHftO. 

20.  Till'  plniiitifrorgani/i'd  u  liaml  of 
pertbrimrs  of  negro  niiiiHlnUv,  m,,! 
named  tlieiii,  after  himself,  "('Iiri«tv\ 
•Minstrt'lM;"  //ilif,  that  h«'  wai«  nitillvd 
I  to  tliu  exelimivii  usu  of  that  iiaiiii',  aiul 
that  the  Hssinnption  and  use  nf  that 
name  liy  others  without  a  licence  \v<iii|<| 
be  per|ietiially  restrained  by  iiijiiiuiiiiri. 
Ifui/.,  7H,  70. 

no.  A  tradesman,  to  bring  IiIm  privj. 
legt!  of  using  a  particular  mark  iiinli  r 
the  protection  of  eipiity,  is  imf.  Iininul 
to  prove  that  it  has  been  copied  in  every 
partiiular  by  another.  It  iH  eiioiii;h  fur 
him  lo  show  that  the  represcntaiiiins 
employed  bear  siirh  resemlilaiiie  to  liis 
UH  to  be  calculated  to  mislead  the  piihlio 
generally,  who  are  purchasers  of  tlio 
article,  and  to  make  it  pass  with  tlu'iii 
for  the  article  sold  by  him.  Wttltin;  \, 
Cniwlci/,  :i  Jllutclif.,  .U7.— r.Kns,  J.; 
X.  Y.,  1860. 

31.  If  the  imllcla  or  signs  used  tend 
to  th;it  result,  the  parly  agi^'rieved  will 
be  allowed  an  injuiiclioii,  st.iyiii;,'  tlif 
agi,'n'SHii.ti  until  the  merits  of  the  cuho  laii 
be  ascortuiiied.      Ibid.,  117. 

.'12.  The  mere  affiihu  it  of  the  dcfcml. 
ant,  without  a  formal  answer,  denyiiii,' 
that  the  trade-mark  claimed  was  tiie 
original  device  (»f  the  j»laiiitirt"s  assi^'iiur, 
or  was  first  adopted  by  him,  it  kcciih 
will  not  be  sufficient  to  bar  the  e(|iiity 
of  the  ]>laintiff*,  arising  from  long  undis- 
turbed jiossession  and  use  of  such  trailo- 
mark,  and  particularly  if  such  right  liiid 
been  corrohorateil  by  after  acts  and  diclu- 
ratii^iis  of  the  (k'feiKiants.     Ib'uL,  147. 


IH'I 


INJUNcrriONH,  V. 


4U 


III 


Wt  TO  TRAMI-IIAMft 


9.1.  The  |>riiifl|»li'M  of  till*  riiloH  ti|ti)ii 
wlii.li  iiijiiii«"ti'>"'«  iiri'  Kniiili'.l,  to  Miip- 
|,ri'44  tiitliilioii')  of  triiili'-iiiinks  iiint  iIm> 
(•xtriil  !'•  wlii'l"  iJ"'  ri'lii'l'iH  riini«'i|,  uro 
(liMii^tt'il  lUi'l  ««'H'«''l  ••>  -  h'l nt.  Cum., 
'ill  "'•»  ^"''  *""'  '*"'** — A/«/r«  on  In- 
Jiiiictiom,  l»y  WntiTMiaii,  '.'71  itii<l  imton. 
•i  Story,  K'l.,  1>''I.     /'"■'/.,   HH. 

:i4.  A  IuIm'I  nr  M-inU'-iiiui'k,  wliifli, 
from  itx  f^t'iiorat  rcNciiilditiUMt  to  tliiit  of 
the  |)l:iitititV,  is  ciilfulatcil  to  ini«l<>ai|  tht< 
i)iil>li<',  !•>  iinliiciii;;  tiic  licliit'  llwit  tin- 
ttrtii'lit  to  wliirli  it  i>«  ;il)i\tMl  urv  in  re- 
ality pri'partMl  or  iiiaiiiitiu'tiiriul  l>y  tin- 
iiliiiiititr,  Hiiil  wlii-ri!  tliu  imitation  \h  hi* 
i'l(iM>,  iniiiitti',  ami  I'xact,  as  to  hIiow 
tli;it  it  wax  iVaiiifil  witli  siidi  ilt'^ij^n, 
iiiiiy,  ill  11  |»i'o|M'r  cast',  1k>  it  traiiiftl  liy 
jiijiiiiftiiiii.  /''ifriili/t;  v.  U'*///*,  i:i  Mow. 
I'r,  ;iH*l,  :tH7.— DiiKii,  J.;  N.  V.,  1857. 

.T,').  A  V!iii:itioii  must  lie  n'^anh-d  uh 
iiiiinatrriai  wliiili  it  rt'i|iiircH  a  closf  iii- 
upoc'tioii  toth'tcrt,  ami  wliicli  can  Hcarcf- 
Iv  1(0  sail!  to  ilimirii^li  tho  oiFi'ct  of  tlu' 
fiic-Hiinilii  wliicli  llu!  simul;il(!il  l.-ilicl  in 
all  olIuT  rcHpocLs  ih  foiiml  to  cvliibit. 
Ibid.,  ;tH7. 

30.  Hut  if  (i  pluintifT  coinoH  into  u 
court  of  iHpiity  to  i-lairn  ri'Iicf  .'ii^aiiiHt 
tlio  framl  of  anotluT,  ho  nuist  l>o  fioe 
himself  iVoin  the  imputation.  //>/</.,  IIHO. 

37.  WIkto  tho  plaintiffs  wcro  i-ii- 
gaged  in  manufacturing;  and  selling  iin 
article  called  tho  "  Halm  of  a  Thousand 
Flowers,"  and  which  tlicy  roprcsontcd 
•IS  "tho  very  l)aha  and  extract  of  heal- 
ing blossoms,"  but  which  in  fact  was 
only  a  licpiid  soap,  and  sought  to  ro- 
ttr-iiii  tho  defendants  from  doing  tho 
panic  thing,  Jlelil,  that  tho  name  was 
intended  to  docoive  tho  public,  and  that 
the  plaintiff  could  not  bo  i»rotcctod  in  such 
aprivilege,  and  that  the  (a  urt  would  not 
enjoin  the  defendant.     lOid.,  300-a93. 

38.  It  is  well  Bcttlod  that  whero  a 


pnrly  uhom  hli«  tnido mark  tor  tht>  pur- 
poMo  of  palming  otV  upon  tho  public  ar- 
lii'lfi  of  hit.  nwu  manuliii'tinf  or  citni- 
po«ition  for  iho^o  of  another,  who  hitM 
olitiiincd  celebrity  or  notoriety,  the 
court  will  not  protect  him  in  niicIi  u>e, 
/''fn'i/i/r  v.  Mmhtiiit,  i    Abb.  I'r.,  15". 

lloi>'KM  AN,  J. ;  N.  v.,  |Nrt7. 

Mil,  Ibit  the  conduct  of  the  person  in- 
fringing  nucIi  a  trade-mark,  lui'i  a  mate- 
toriiil  iidliicuce.  If  he  han  deliberately, 
without  any  previous  cotmertinii  with 
the  particular  bu><inesN,  liut  simply  to 
break  in  upon  llie  tradu  it'itl  profit  by 
the  notoriety  ubtaineil  Ity  another, 
adopted  his  einblems  and  apprlliitions, 
the  <|Uestion  should  be  judged  of  solely 
as  between  the  immediate  parties,  and 
the  public  should  be  let't  to  itM  own 
guardianship;  when  such  is  the  case,  an 
injumtioii  should  lie  granted  to  restrain 
tho  violation.     Ifiiif.,  I.'»7. 

•JO.  Whero  the  title  of  tho  plaintilV 
to  appropriate  a  particular  name  to  him- 
self is  not  clear,  but  considerable  duiilit 
exists  rospoctiiig  it,  an  injunction  should 
not  bo  granted  in  the  first  iiiHtance  ;  but 
tho  defendants  may  bo  roipiirod  to  exo- 
onto  a  bond  to  keep  and  render  an  no- 
count  of  their  sales.     I/iitf.,  1(11. 

41.  An  imitaticm  of  n  trade-mark, 
which  will  bo  enjoined  against, ombraces 
not  merely  n.-imos,  but  tho  manner  of 
putting  uj)  tho  articles;  and  ovi'ii  inclu- 
iling  the  wrappers  and  envelopes  em- 
ployed by  tho  |»erson  entitled  to  the 
trado-nmrk.  Willimna  v.  Johnson,  2 
Hosworth,  1. — WooDUUFK,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1857. 

42.  Whether  the  name  given  to  an 
article  can  or  crinnot  be  niaile  tho  sub- 
ject of  protection  as  a  trade-mark,  tho 
court  Mill  enjoin  .ind  restrain  the  use 
thereof  hi  combination  with  labels, 
handbills,  or  devices,   in  imitation  of 


^^■L 


l>wuy>* 


^L 


'^4 


iU 


IN.U'NCTIONS,  C. 


11  • 


IN   RKHI'MOr  TO  TUAIiKUAUkH. 


tlioMO  iiMcd  liy  iinothor,  and  oaliMiliitod 
to  doft'ivo  flw  |»ul)li»',  or  fn'al*'  the  ln'- 
liot'tlial  (lii'simiilalod  ailicK-'  sold  islliul 
mado  Of  sold  by  tliost>  «>nti(l('d  to  mu-li 
lalu'Is  and  dcvii-o^.      Ifn'if.,  U. 

•l;l.  All  iiiJiiucti'Mi  will  lti>  tx'"""'<'d,  at 
till'  suit  of  a  rorim-r  partner,  against  (lie 
otluM"  paitiuT,  rostraiiiin^jj  tlu'  t'oiitiniicd 
n»o  ot'  the  siijiiH  I'ontainiiijj  llio  old  tlrin 
naino,  without  lonioviiit;  tlio  naiiio  of 
till'  ri'tiriiii;  |>artii('r,  or  nialxiiiij  altera- 
tion or  addition,  as  to  ^ivo  notice  ol'llif 
I'lianjxe  in  tlie  lirni.  /'vfcrson  v.  I/inn- 
y/n-ei/,  I  Al>b.  Vr.,  ;»!»"). — Mrr«iiKM„ 
J.;  N.  v.,  is:. 7. 

44.  The  old  siijns  would  bo  holdiiit:: 
out  to  the  \v»>rld  that  the  old  partnership 
was  eontinued,  and  nuLrht  make  the  re- 
tired ]>artner  :is  a  eontiiiiiiii<»  partner, 
it'  he  sanetioned  its  eontiimanee.    /fn'i/., 

•\'u  A  party  will  bo  restrained  tVoin 
tisin<»  a  trade-mark  whieh  had  been  pnv- 
vioiisiy  used  by  anotlu'r,  and  iVt^m  any 
imitation  of  it  with  only  eolorablo  dil- 
foreiieos.  Clark  v.  Clark,  '25  Harb.,  S. 
C,  70.— MnriiKU,,  J.;  N.  Y.,  isr.7. 

4ti.  Any  lalso  name  that  is  assumed 
in  imitation  ot"  a  prio<-  true  name,  is  in 
violation  of  the  right  of  the  holders  of 
tlie  latter,  and  tlio  use  of  il  should  bo 
restrained  by  injuuetion.  Jirookh/'i  W. 
L.  Co.  V.  J/<^s■^/?7/.  '2'^  Barb.,  S.  (\,  41H. 
— 3Invi:Ki,i.,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1857. 

47.  The  plaint ifVs  woro,  and  had  been 
for  more  than  twenty  years,  nianufaetu- 
rors  of  white  lead,  and  marked  their 
kegs  "Brooklyn  White  TiOad  Comjia- 
ny,"  or  "  Co."  The  defendants  subse- 
quently established  the  same  business, 
and  marked  their  kogs  "Brooklyn 
AYhito  Load  nwn  Zinc  Cjnipani/,''' 
Jfcld,  that  this  was  nn  imitation  of 
plaintiffs'  mark,  with  only  a  colorable 
dittbionoe,  and  was  adopted  to  make 


th»'ir  paint  pass  us  the  plainlillV;  .,„,i 
that  tlie  defendants  should  be  rcsli.iinci 
from  using  ti;e  words  <^i»Hfhnii/  »{■  r,i. 
ImiI  that  tliey  eould  oontiniie  lo  nst<  |||„ 
title  "  Brooklyn  White  Koail  Ji  Vine." 
//»/</.,  4  I S. 

4S,  \Vli«>re  the  defendanis  ediiiiiMicil 
tluMiiselvos  with  the  plaintilfs  iiitlicluisi- 
nesH  of  manufa«-turiiig,  advertisiiii;  iuul 
selling  pills  by  a  partieiilar  name,  "Dv. 
Morse's  Indian  Boot  Bills,"  aiiil  iiidu- 
eed  the  plaiiililfs  (o  expend  large  muhh 
of  moiuv  in  ailvtirtising,  tfee.,  siieli  |iills, 
and  then,  tvlthout  notice,  sovereil  ilii'ir 
eomieetion  with  them,  and  sel  up  tl.o 
same  business  t'ortlu'inselves,  I/u'il,  iluit 
such  defendants  wtuild  Im>  restr:iiiicil 
from  using  the  Name  name  or  ilesiirnn. 
lion  in  selling  sueli  pills,  as  was  iiscil 
by  the  plainlillV,  antl  from  using  any  Li- 
bels or  marks  so  much  like  Ihnse  iiscil 
by  the  plaint  ill's,  as  to  bo  likely  to  ln' 
easily  mislakeu  for  them.  <\n)is(()r/i-\. 
■l/oo/v-,  18  How.,  Br.,  4'jr.,  4'JO.— Sini- 
Kiji.ANi),  .1. ;  N.  v.,  18(10. 

4H.  A  court  of  oipiity  will  not  iiiu>r- 
fore  to  protect  a  party  in  the  use  o( 
lrad»'-iiiarks  whieh  are  employed  tode- 
eeive  the  public,  and  to  dei^'ive  them 
by  fraudulent  reiireseiilalions  eontaiiied 
in  the  labels  ami  devices,  wlreli  me 
claimed  to  constitute  wholly  or  in  imrt 
such  trade-marks.  Ifohbs  v.  /•'nincdin, 
1!)  How.  Br.  Bt'p.,  671. —  Boswouni, 
.1.;  N.  Y.,  1800. 

riO.  Whore  the  plaintill*  luaiiufactuml 
a  skin  powder  called  "  Meeu  Kiin," 
which  was  represented  as  made  in  Ijoii- 
don,  and  "  Balronizod  by  Her  Majesty 
the  Queen,"  when  in  fact  it  was  in,adc 
in  New  York  ;  and  the  defendants  man- 
ufactured  a  like  article,  ropresenling  it 
as  "Patronized  by  Her  ALijesty  tlio 
Empress,"  J/ehl,  tliat  the  court  would 
not  grant  an  injunction  ;  not  out  of  any 


pi'Hl 


iNsrixrioN  or  maciiinks.— intknt,  a.  u. 


4)A 


WIIKN  ORhKUKII. 


IIHAHINll   or,   ON    tNrHINUKMKNT,    MTn. 


rciriii'l  l'"i"  <•"'  tlt'l«''i<linii,  lull  iiiti  to  iiH 
tiinl  ill  dt'fciviii";  till'  piiMir.  A/'/</.,  ftVI. 
61.  Wlicri)  tlio  plaiiililV  sold  to  tlif 
,l,.ri'ii(l;iiil'H  Mssiyiior  liJH  IfiiMc  of  (lii> 
•iri'iiiisfs  known  ;ih  "llowt^'n  llnki<ry," 
IoimmIu'I-  witli  tlio  Ntock-in  liiulc,  tiiul 
ll,y  "jruotl-will  of  tlic  liUNiiifsM  of  link 
iiii',  now  or  hcrctoron'  ciuiitMl  on  l»y  nic, 
ill  ilic  city  of  N'.'w  York."  /A  A/,  tliiil 
tilt.  iil.iintilV  WI19  i-ntilU'il  to  nn  iiijimc 
liim  to  restrain  tlu'  tlclt'iidmit  iVoni  ih'- 
Mi'iiatiiiL;  lii>*  l>akcry  rHtaliliNlinicnt  mm 
"lldWc'N  llakcrT,"  and  I'rnin  olliorwisc 
iisiii"  llif  naino  of  llnwr  in  liis  ItnsincHH, 
so  as  to  iiidiifo  tin'  |»nliliti  to  licrn-vc 
lh;it  tlic  liusim-Hs  caiiicd  on  l»y  liiin  waw 
oHiiicd   on   l»y  tlio    plaintilV.     Ilime  v. 

Salfiliih    11*    •'"'^^■-   '*'■•    -'>•— lluKI'MAN, 
.|.;Siiii.  Cl.,  N.  v.,  IHCO. 


INSl'KCTION  OF  MACllINKS. 

1,  On  a  liill  filed  for  an  iiifVinL^eincnt 
dt' u  patent  and  for  jin  iiijiinetion,  if  the 
ilct'eiiilaiilH  rel'iise  to  allow  (lie  plaintillH 
to  I'xuinine  tlie  niaehineH  nwcd  l»y  tlieni, 
llio  court  Mill  order  an  inspeetioii  of 
tlu'inasto  whether  they  are  an  infriiiffe- 
iiu'iit  upon  the  plaint  ilV's  invention.  Sloat 
V.  l\ittrii,  24  Jonr.  I"'r.  Inst.,  ad  Ser., 
2!).— Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  1H52. 

ii,  In  thin  caHC  the  court  ordered  the 
ili't'cndants  to  run  thoir  niaehineH,  in  the 
prcsiMice  of  noi-.io  expert,  antl  (hat  sneh 
(■\|itrl  1k^  allowed  to  brinj;-  into  eoiirt 
speciiuuns  of  the  work  produced.   /&«(/., 


INTENT. 


A.  Patkntadiutt  of 415 


II.    llmUlNlJ     or,      AH     Til      AllVNIMtSMIIINr, 

iNKIllNOKMKNr,  KTd 4|5 


\,    I'ATKNTAnil.lTY    oK. 
See  I'lruiMiHK. 

IB.    ISkAKINO  ok,    ah  to  AllANI>«lNMKNr, 
In  Fill  NCI  KM  KNT,    K'K!. 

1.  The  intent  with  which  a  work  in 
repriii(ed,  cannot  lie  tahcn  into  consid- 
eration, as  (he  act  of  reprinting  is  pro- 
hilii(ed  l»y  (he  H(a(n(e.  Nirlntln  v.  liny- 
ifhn,  :i  Day,  ir.H.— Cchiam  ;  ('(.,  Ihoh. 

2.  To  cons(itnte  an  iiifrin^eiiient  (lin 
ni.-ikin^  iiinst  ho  with  an  inleiit  to  in- 
frinj^'e  the  patent-rijiht,  and  de|»ri\e  (ho 
owner  of  the  lawful  reward  of  his  dis- 
covery. Kiiwhi  V.  (Inihl,  I  Call.,  (87. 
—  Stouv,  .1.;  IMass.,  |H|:;. 

;i.  No  man  is  (o  he  permitted  to  lio 
hy  for  years,  and  then  take  out  u  pat- 
ent. If  he  has  been  pracdsiiiij  his  iii- 
vendoii  with  a  view  to  improve  it,  that 
will  not  prejinlice.  i'.iit  it  should  al- 
ways he  u  (piestion  for  (ho  Jury,  what 
was  the  intent  of  the  delay  of  the  pat- 
en(,  and  whedier  (he  allowiii^^Mlie  inv.'ii- 
tioii  t(»  1)0  used  wi('iout  a  pjiteiit  should 
not  he,  considered  an  ahaiidomneiit. 
Af<nrifiv.  J/v/ifinf/ftm,  1  Paine,  nr>4. — 
Thompson,  .f. ;  N.  Y.,  1824, 

4.  Tliou(;h  tlie  inventor  may  not 
have  intended  to  f,nve  the  henetits  of 
his  discovery  to  the  ]»nl»li(r,  nnd  may 
have  supposed  that  by  ^ivini;  permis- 
sion to  n  particular  individual  to  manu- 
factur<!  the  thinj;,  he  coiilil  not  be  pre- 
sumed to  have  given  his  invention  (o 
the  jiublic,  it  matters  not.  It  is  not  a 
ques(ion  of  intention,  but  of  lei^al  in- 
ference, rc3ul(in<^  from  (he  conduct  of 
the  inventor,  and  aflbuting  the  interests 


M'  vi 


^.^i^mW 


■ym 


41l'> 


INTENT,  IJ. 


UKAItINU  OK,   ON    tNKKIMIIMKN T,    KTO 


Pt'lllHtrk    V.    DiuliXJtir^ 
-W'ASUIMiTKN,    J.;    I'll., 


•*  u  i' 


|th  IP 


t)f  tiu'  |»iii>ru' 

4  Wash.,  514 
1825. 

5.  The  (nu'slion  of  abaiuloiinu'iit 
(Iocs  not  turn  U|M)n  tho  iiitoiitioii  of 
tho  iuvt'iilor.  AVhatcvor  may  bi;  his 
iiiti'iitioii,  if  he  siiHi-rs  his  iiivi'iitioii  to 
p)  into  juiblic  usi>,  through  any  means 
whatever,  without  an  immediate  a.'tser- 
tion  of  his  right,  he  is  lud  entitled  to  a 
])atent,  nor  will  a  patent  obtnineil  under 
hueh  eireumstanecs  jiroteet  his  rijj;ht. 
ISIiaio  V.  Cooper,  7  l*et.,  323. — McLean, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 

0.  Intention  eamiot  be  taken  iiito 
view  in  reference  to  an  infiin<j;ement  of 
a  coi)yriglit;  if  a  eopyri^'ht  has  been 
invaded,  whether  tlie  j)arty  knew  it  was 
copyrijjhted  or  not,  lie  is  liable  to  tlie 
])enalty.  Milldt  v.  Snoicdoi,  1  AVest. 
Law  Jour.,  240. — Fucns,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1843. 

7.  The  intent  not  to  be  piilty  of 
piracy  is  not  material,  if  much  has  been 
actually  copied,  and  the  new  work  is  a 
mere  substitute.  IJut  if  this  be  dotil)t- 
ful,  the  intent  not  to  pilfer  from  another, 
colorably  or  otherwise,  for  the  substan- 
tial parts  of  the  new  work,  nuiy  be  im- 
portant. Wel>b  V.  Powers,  2  Wood.  & 
Minn.,  524. — Woodbuuy,  J.;  Mass., 
1847. 

8.  The  intention  Avith  wliicli  extracts 
from  a  work  arc  made,  lias  no  bearing 
upon  the  question  of  violation.  Tho  in- 
quiry is,  what  effect  must  the  extracts 
have  upon  the  original  work.  If  they 
render  it  less  valuable  by  superseding 
its  use,  in  any  degree,  the  I'ight  of  the 
author  is  infringed  ;  and  it  can  be  of  no 
importance  to  know  with  wh.at  intent 
this  was  done.  Story''s  J^xrs.  v.  IIol- 
combe,  4  McLean,  310. — McLeax,  J.; 
Ohio,  1847. 

9.  The  question   of   infringement  is 


one  irrespective  of  tnoti'ne.  The  dclVii,]. 
ant  may  have  infringed  without  iiiii.n,]. 
ing,  or  even  knowing  it  ;  but  li<>  is  imi 
on  that  acc(Muit  tlu'  less  the  iiifijiii^r,.!. 
Piirkrr  v.  llidmv,  7  West.  Law  Jour, 
42(1.— Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1H49. 

10.  An  intentional  fraud  is  not  ncrcs. 
sary  to  entitle  a  ))laintitf  to  protcctidi, 
for  a  wrongful  use  of  his  tiadeiiiiiik, 
Ciifft'CH  V.  Jirunton,  4  JNlcLean,  510.-- 
M«  Lean,  .F.  ;  Ind.,  1H40. 

1 1.  The  intent  not  to  injure  in  llic  in. 
fringemenl  of  a  patent,  as  the  making 
of  a  niiichiue  by  a  person  ignorant  u( 
the  existence  of  a  patent,  never  exon- 
crates  from  -dl  dam.-iges  for  the  ;i(tii;,l 
injury  or  "iv  • '  «hment,  though  it  iii:iv 
mitigate  them.  Jlofjf/  v.  A)utr.soii,  U 
IIow.,  008. — WooimcuY,  J.;  Sup.  ft., 
1 850. 

12.  The  mere  use  or  sale  of  tlio  in. 
vention,  however,  within  the  two  yens, 
will  not  alone  or  of  itself  work  :iii 
abatulomnent.  The  use  or  s.ile  iimsi 
be  accompanied  by  some  dedanitiims 
or  acts  going  to  establish  an  intciitidii 
on  tlie  part  of  the  inventor  to  give  to 
the  public  the  benefit  of  the  iniprovc- 
ment.  Pitls  v.  IMI,  2  lllatchf.,  2:3:. 
— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.  Y     ;  ■  .'<  * . 

13.  The  mere  cxj  .><  of  an  inten- 
tion not  to  take  oui  ;  ,»r'  nt,  or  the 
mere  declaration  of  an  ii  ,  ,tion  to  deii- 
icate  .an  invention  to  the  public,  cannot 
be  regarded  as  equivalent  to  an  actual 
dedication.     Ibid.,  238. 

14.  The  use  by  a  defendant  of  a  trade- 
mark belonging  to  the  plaintiff,  even 
without  fraud,  renders  him  liable;  it 
matters  not  whether  such  use  be  by 
fraud  or  mistake.  Davis  v.  IlcikMI, 
2  Drrffee,  11.  L,  570.— Gkeene,  Ch.  J.; 
11.  L,  1853. 

15.  If  a  machine  is  constructed  so  as 
to  conform  in  all  respects  to  the  de- 


INTEKFEUENCES,  A. 


41T 


WIIKK   ARISR;   NATUliB  Ot. 


gcription  in  a  piitont,  iixccpt  as  to  one 

niii'lii'"''"''  *"'  '"*  '"  '"'*'  '"•'''<"'  '""'  *■'• 
fi'ft  yi't  i"*  ^**  foiistniclcil  junl  i/ifni(fi<l 
ns  to  ()l»t!iiii  tliiil  motion  or  viYwi  in  tlm 
usugo  of  tlie  niacliini!  hy  tlu'  action  or 
woiuiiig  of  tlio  piirlM,  an<l  it  ia  ho  ob- 
tiiiiit'il,  it  in  a  violation  of  tlu'  pati-nt,  a 
,,\nvy  of  till!  principle.  \l'  {\h^ 2>''""'>P^'' 
is  wortli  any  tliin<;f,  no  nicro  evasion 
(ilioultl  l>«  eonnlenanced.  Perfect  iden- 
tity is  "ot  re(pnre»l  to  demonstrate  an 
infiiii.iionient  of  prin<'iple.  /'(it/t;  v.  Frr- 
ry,  MS.— Wii.KiNS,  J.;  Mich.,  iH.iT. 

10.  The  riglit  of  a  phiintitV  to  main- 
tain an  action  for  a  viohition  of  a  trade- 
mark (hies  not  depend  upon  the  inten- 
tion of  tlie  defendant  to  approi)ri!ite 
Biu'Ii  trade-mark  (violate  it),  it  is  enoiij^Ii 
if  it  i8  made  to  appear  that  lie  has  done 
80.  Dole  V.  ASmit/ixon,  12  Abb.  I'r., 
2;(8.— lIii.Tox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1801. 


INTEKFEKENCES   ON  APPLICA- 
TIONS FOJi  PATENTS. 

A.  WlIKK    AlilSE,    AND    GENERAL   NaTUUE 

OP 417 

B.  PiucTicK  IN  Cases  or,  and  Evidence 

I.V 418 

A.  When  arisk,  and  Genkbai,  Na- 

TUKK   OF. 

See  also,   as  bearinjj  on  this  title, 
Equivalents  ;  Invention,  E. 

1.  A  filed  a  description  of  an  alleged 
invention  in  1802,  as  required  by  §  3 
of  the  act  of  1793,  and  took  no  further 
step  till  1814.  In  that  year  li  made 
application  for  a  patent  for  the  same 
invention,  "without  knowledge  of  A's 
invention ;  Held,  that  there  was  no  lim- 
itation of  time  within  which  a  patent 
27 


must  bo  taken  out,  after  speciiicatiDii 
filed,  and  that  the  fiicts  made  a  case  of 
iiitt'rfereiice,  to  be  arbitrated  under  ^  0 
of  the  act  of  1703.  .iiio/i.,  5  Opin., 
701.— Uisii,  Ally,  (ten.;  1H14. 

'J.  The  Commissiimer  has  autlu)rity 
to  permit  one  of  two  compcling  appli- 
cants for  a  patent  for  a  similar  invention, 
to  withilraw  his  application,  after  dccis 
ion  upon  an  interference,  and  relile  his 
application,  and  to  declare  a  second  in- 
terference between  such  last  application 
and  the  competing  one.  Wdifi:  v.  Jlut 
f/u'WM,  6  Opin.,  224. — Johnson,  Atty. 
den.;  1H41). 

3.  The  i>erniission  to  withdraw  an 
iipplication  in  such  a  Cisc,  will  b(!  grant- 
ed or  not,  as  the  Commissioner  m:iy  be 
satisfied.  The  matter  is  in  his  discrc- 
ti(m,  to  be  exercised  when  in  his  oj/m- 
ion  the  spirit  of  the  law  demands  it. 
Il/uL,  224. 

4.  The  question  of  i)riority  of  right 
of  invention  necessarily  implies  i/itcr- 
fereuce.  Jiain  v.  Morse,  MS.  (Apj». 
Cas.)— CuANOii,  Ch.  J.;  1).  C,  184!). 

5.  The  interference  mentioned  in  §  8 
of  the  act  of  1830  must  be  an  interfer- 
ence in  respect  to  patentable  matters, 
and  the  claims  of  the  applicants  must 
be  limited  to  the  matters  specifically  set 
forth  as  their  respective  inventions. ;  an<l 
what  is  not  claimed  '.",  to  be  considered, 
for  the  purpose  Ox  such  interference,  as 
disclaimed.     Ibid. 

6.  A  patentable  improveracnt  is  not 
an  interference.     Ibid. 

7.  There  can  be  no  interference  be- 
tween applications,  unless  there  is  a  sub- 
stantial identity  of  the  things  for  which 
a  patent  is  sought.  If  there  are  mate- 
rial and  substantial  HifftircnctiH  between 
the  two  things,  there  can  be  no  identity, 
and  no  interference.  l)/son  v.  liankin, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoRSELL,  J.;  1853. 


i  1 


m^. 


!-*-cv 


*%t\ 


\ 


i  iiii 


'hi^M 


t 


II!  I 

I) 


•'III 


^^-> 


Hill 


'.,   M» 


r..      ( 


4tll 


INTPMIFKIIENCKS,  n. 


I'KACTIOK   IN   OAHKH  UF. 


8.  WlicTo  two  separate  ii|)])li«vkti(M)s 
for  pati'iits  for  iinprovciiiciits  upon  tlie 
BJiinc  tliitig  wore  generally  niniilar  in 
form,  and  in  Honic  rtispccts  nearly  iilen- 
tical  in  conHtniction,  but  the  principal 
object  and  design  nl'  eaeh  wan  unlike 
that  of  the  other,  and  the  end  to  be  at- 
tained or  effect  intended  was  wholly 
different,  IMd,  notwithstanding  their 
general  similarity,  that  the  two  inven- 
tions were  not  substantially  (ho  same, 
and  that  there  was  no  interference  be- 
tween them.  O'lili'lly  v.  Jf^mit/i^  IMS. 
(App.  Cas.) — MoiJSKLi,,  J. ;  1).  C,  185.1. 

9.  An  interference  will  lie  between 
two  applications,  if  the  same  invention 
is  substantially  described  in  the  two  ap- 
plications or  specifications,  though  the 
claim  in  one  case  may  not  be  as  broad 
OS  the  specification.  The  oath  as  to  in- 
vention is  to  bo  considered  as  extend- 
ing to  all  described  in  the  schedule. 
Kin[]  V.  Gedncy^  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
MoiwHix,  J. ;  D.  C,  18r)«. 

10.  An  interference  may  1)0  declared 
between  a  pending  application  aud  an 
ai)prication  for  a  reissue  of  an  existing 
patent,  but  the  omission  to  do  so  at  that 
time  does  not  take  away  the  right  of 
the  I'atent  Office  to  declare  such  an  in- 
terference subsequently.  Jlic/cs  v.  iSAii- 
ver,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Dunlop,  J. ;  1). 
C,  1861. 

11.  An  interference  will  be  declared, 
between  an  existing  patent,  and  an 
application  for  a  reissue,  us  well  as  an 
original  ni)i)Vi(ia.t\on.  Snotcdoi  \.Pearce, 
MS.  (App.  Caa.) — DuxLOP,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1861. 

B.    Practice  in  Cases  op. 

As  to  depositions  in  cases  of  inter- 
ference, see  Evidence,  C.  2. 

As  to  declarations  of  parties  as  to  in- 
vention, see  Evidence,  D.  and  E. 


As  to  competency  of  witnesses,  ami  of 
assignor  of  invention,  see  Kvii»kn(  k  (J 

1.  The  rule  establislied  by  the  Com. 
missioner  of  Patents,  under  j^  1-'  (tf  tlm 
act  of  18U9,  to  be  usetl  in  eontcstci 
cases,  are  as  binding  upon  the  Coiniiiis- 
sioner  as  upon  the  contesting  panics, 
and  while  they  remain  unabrogated,  arc 
asbin<rmg  as  flic  law  itself,  and  tlic  Com 
missioner  e  n  lot  dispense  with  tlieinnt 
pleasure.  Arnold  v.  Iii.i/u>jj,  MS.  (A|i|i, 
Cas.)— CiANCu,  Ch.  J.;  1).  C,  1841. 

2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  laws  rola- 
ting  to  the  I'atent  Office,  or  in  the  rules 
adopted  by  the  Commissioner,  t<»  [ire- 
vent  lum  from  postponing  the  lie,inii<r 
of  an  interference,  if,  in  his  opinion  the 
justice  of  the  case  should  recjiiirc;  it, 
and  especially  for  the  eoirecting  of  an 
irregularity  in  matters  of  form.  Smith 
v./7tVA-e«/7(T,MS.(App.Cas.) — Chanvii, 
Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  184n. 

.3.  Where,  therefore,  depositions  iium 
interference  had  been  correctly  tiikcn, 
but  had  not  been  transmitted  in  ilu- 
form  recpiired,  so  that  they  conid  lie 
considered,  by  the  Commissioner,  7///, 
that  the  Commissioner  had  a  riijlit  lo 
postpone  the  hearing  to  allow  tlii'  par- 
ties to  cure  the  informality,  if  ho  kIkhiU 
deem  such  action  necessary  to  further 
the  ends  of  justice.     Ibid. 

4.  Affidavits  on  which  to  move  for  an 
enlargement  of  the  time  to  take  testi- 
mony in  an  interference,  on  the  grouiid 
that  the  moving  party  could  not  oljtaiii 
the  attendance  of  his  witnesses  at  the 
time  appointed  to  take  their  examina- 
tion, should  state  the  names,  conipi'ten- 
cy,  and  materiality  of  the  Avitnesses  to 
be  examined.  O'Reilly  v.  Sntith,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Moksell,  J. ;  D.  C,  1853. 

5.  Such  an  appfication  is  in  the  dis- 
cretion of  the  Commissioner,  and  it  will 


Iff  .^•^ll-  i)^. 


^Ci 


'^-Wv 


INTERFERENCES,  B.— INTRODUCER  OF  INVENTION.       410 


I'RACTICK   IK   CAHR8  OF. 


now   I'KOTKCTKD. 


Ik'  prosumcJ  that  IiIh  docision  on  it  has 
l,{ion  soundly  ext'rcisL'd.     ffnd. 

0.  WliiTO  ail  iiiti'rrcrenco  lias  been 
(li'flart'd  Iji'twceii  ciTtaiii  parties,  and 
tcsliinony  talieii,  and  tlien  aiiotiier  ap- 
[ilicatioii  is  made  l»y  another  party  and 
tio  is  made  a  party  to  the  interference, 
[nit  tiic  subject  matter  of  all  the  ajipli- 
jiitioiis  is  tlie  same,  the  testimony  taken 
on  tho  first  interference  may  bo  used  on 
the  second  without  being  retaken.  Car- 
ter V.  Carter,  MS.  (App.)  Cas.)— 3Iuk- 
sm.,.T.;  D.  C,  1855. 

7.  In  cases  of  interference  it  is  not 
enough  that  tlie  appellant  shows  that 
llie  opposite  party  is  not  entitled  to  a 
imteiit,  but  ho  must  show  that  he  him- 
self has  a  ri^ht  to  it.  Lilli/  v.  Kehey, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MousKLL,  J. ;  I).  C, 
1858. 

y.  The  proceedings  in  contested  cascf 
iu  the  Patent  Office,  have  no  resemblance 
to  trials  at  law — a  party  cannot  be  com- 
pelled to  examine  all  his  witnesses  in 
chief  l)ef()re  ho  closes  his  opening  ex- 
amination. Spear  v.  Ahhutt,  MS.  (App. 
Ciis.)— DuNLOP,  J.;  IJ.  C,  1859. 

9.  It  seems  that  testimony  taken  on 
%  former  interference  is  admissible  on  a 
second  one,  and  this  though  the  second 
interference  is  declared  after  an  assign- 
ment to  another  party.  Eames  v.  Rich- 
anU,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mkkrick,  J. ; 
D,  C,  1859. 

10.  A  second  interference  is  only  a 
rehearing  of  the  same  case.     Ibid. 

11.  After  the  closing  the  time  for 
taking  testimony  in  an  interference,  the 
Commissioner  of  Patents  may  admit  an- 
other party  to  the  interference,  and 
open  the  further  taking  of  testimony. 
LaidUy  v.  James,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
Meuuick,  J.;  D.  C,  1860. 


INTUODrCKR   OF   INVENTION. 

1.  The  power  of  Congress  under  ^  8 
of  tho  constitution  in  securing  to  au- 
thors and  inventors  tho  exclusive  right 
to  their  respective  writings  and  discov 
cries,  is  limited  to  authors  and  inventors 
only.  Such  clause,  then-fore,  never  can 
admit  of  so  extensive  a  construction  as 
to  prohibit  the  respective  states  IVoni 
exercising  the  j)ower  of  securing  to  per- 
sons introducing  useful  inventions  (with- 
out being  the  authors  and  iiiveiitors), 
for  exclusive  benefit  of  such  inventions 
for  a  limited  period ;  a  power  no  less  in- 
struineiital  in  promoting  the  progress  of 
science  and  the  useful  arts.  Livinyston 
t&  Fulton  V.  Van  Lajen,  9  .lohii.,  5G0, 
500,  582. — Yatks,  TiioMi'sox,  Kknt, 
JJ. ;  N.  Y.,  1812. 

2.  This  power  is  not  granted  to  Con- 
gress by  the  clause  as  to  authors  and 
inventors,  and  as  it  is  not  taken  aAvay 
by  any  other  part  of  the  constitution,  it 
must  of  course  be  retained  by  the  re- 
spective states,  to  bo  exercised  by  them 
until  it  interferes  with  tho  laws  of  the 
United  States,  passed  to  secure  tho  au- 
thor and  inventor.    Jbid.,  501,  50'>,  582. 

3.  Held,  therefore,  that  the  acts  of 
1798,  1803,  1807,  and  1808,  granting  to 
Livingston  &  Fulton  as  jjosscsaora  of  a 
mode  of  ajjplyiiig  the  steam  engine  to 
propel  boats,  tlie  exclusive  right  to  nav- 
igate the  waters  of  the  stsite  of  Xe\» 
York,  were  constitutional ;  and  that  they 
were  entitled  to  an  injunction  against 
those  infringing  those  rights.  Ibid., 
562,  566. 

4.  There  cannot  be  any  aid  or  encour- 
agement, by  means  of  an  exclusive 
right,  under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  to  importers  from  abroad  of  any 
useful  invention  or  improvement.    Such 


J    i 


aw*'* 


U-M^ 


f -'^'^Jm^Hr''^ 


"II II 


llli>l 


iii 


iftf  f'l 


■■^i^ 

'":>-, 


m 


III  1 1 


I'  w 

I'  ■ 
f!  IS 


St^ 


Willi 


I 


.  ,--lll-: 
■«(J|il 

.''Ijiiiii 


420 


INVENTION,  A. 


WHAT   18:    WIIKM   PATKNTAOLK. 


piM'HoiiH  nuiNt  ri'sort  to  llio  patroict^u  of 
Jlio  Htatc  jjoviTiinu'iils  in  wliicli  tlic 
|»<>>v«'r  to  rt'wanl  llit'ir  expensive  and 
lia/.anloiis  cxi-rtiuns  was  oiij^inally  vosi- 
0(1,  and  in  which  it  Htill  riMnains.  Ibid., 
683. 


INVENTION. 

A.  WtlAT  IS;    WHKN  PATKVTAni.E 420 

B.  rKUKEOTINd,  oil  UKI>l'("IN(lTO  I'HAOTIOK  'J2'l 

Ct  OUIIIINAI.ITY  AN'I)  ruiOUIlY   OK -i'i'J 

n.  NOVKI.TV    AND    UTH.ITY    OF I'JO 

E.  IDKNTITV   OK 4:15 

A.     What  is;   aviikx  i'atkntahlk. 

Soe  also,  Colorahi.k  Vakiations  ; 
Comiiination;  Comi'osition  of  Mat- 
ter; DiscovKUY ;  DouiiLE  Uhk;  Ef- 
fkct;  Fokm  ;  Impkovkmknts  ;  Invk.n- 
Tou,  A.;  Maciiinks;  jManufactuki:, 
AuTULK  of;  Matkkiai. ;  ^Feciianic, 
Skill  of  ;  New  Appuiaiion  ;  Patent, 
D. ;  Pimnciple  ;  Purpose  ;  Sugges- 
tions. 

As  to  evidence  in  respect  to  inven- 
tion, see  Evidence,  II.  4. 

1.  Whetlicr  the  mere  substitution  of 
one  material  for  another  be  an  invention 
within  the  sense  of  the  patent  law, 
may  well  be  questioned ;  but  there  being 
room  for  doubt,  a  patent  was  recom- 
mended. Seely^s  Case,  2  Opin.,  52. — 
WiKT,  Atty.  Gen.;  1827. 

2.  A  discovery  of  some  now  princi- 
ple, theory,  elementary  truth,  or  an  im- 
provement upon  it,  abstracted  from  its 
application,  is    not  a  now   invention. 

Whitney   v.  Mnniett,    Bald.,    311. — 
Baldwin,  J.;  Pa.,  1831. 

3.  But  when  such  discovery  is  applied 


to  any  practical  purpoHc,  in  the  ii,.,^ 
construction,  operation,  oretVccts  (ifin;]. 
ciiiiicry,  or  composition  of  matter,  in,!. 
ducin){  a  new  substance,  or  an  old  (iiii> 
in  a  now  way,  by  new  machinerv,  orbv 
a  new  combination  of  the  parts  nf  ;in 
oltl  one,  opcratinij  in  a  peculiar,  licii,!-, 
cheaper,  or  «piicker  nu'lhod,  a  new  hk 
chanical  emi>IoynK'nt  of  principle  aiiva. 
dy  known,  the  organization  of  a  ma- 
chine embodied  and  rcdnce(|  topraclid' 
on  somethiu}^  visible,  taujujiblc,  vcmlilili, 
and  capable  of  enjoyment ;  sonu'  rii'w 
mode  of  practically  employinjj;  Iiuiiium 
art  and  skill — it  is  a  "discovery,"  "in. 
vention,"  or  "improvenu-nt,"  witliintih 
acts  of  Congress.     I/ml.,  311,  ;)|'J. 

4.  A  change  in  the  position  of  tlio 
t)l)erating  powers,  or  hi  the  thin;,'  on 
which  the  effect  is  produced,  is  of  no 
importance.  Such  a  modification  dots 
not  rise  to  the  dignity  of  an  invciitidn, 
Brooks  v.  likkneU,  3  ]\IcLean,  202.— 
McLean,.!.;  Ohio,  1843. 

5.  The  substitution  of  a  known  me- 
chanical equivalent,  is  not  an  invciitidii 
within  the  patent  law.  Cochrane  v.  Ill;- 
terman,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Ckancii,  Cli. 
J.;  D.  C,  1844. 

6.  The  api)lic.ition  of  the  endless 
screw  and  lever,  which  is  a  common  me- 
chanical power,  to  a  machine  to  which  it 
had  never  before  been  ap]>lied — as  to 
the  periphery  of  a  quadrant  to  move 
and  hold  the  rudder  of  a  vessel — would 
not  be  an  invention,  although  it  miglit 
make  the  machine  better.     Ibid. 

1.  The  substitution  of  one  mechani- 
cal power  for  another,  as  a  wheel  and 
axle  instead  of  a  screw,  is  a  mere  formal 
alteration  and  not  an  invention.  Blanch- 
ard'a  Gnn-Stock  Turning  Co.  v.  ^Yar^ 
ner,  1  Blatchf.,  278. — Nelson,  J.;  Ct,, 
1840. 

8.  The  arranging  a  number  of  rollers, 


'ii 


Ii 


INVKNTIOV,  A. 


4'21 


WHAT  M,  AND  WHIN  PATaNTAIILE 


iicliri;,'  ill  1»!"'«.  ''"'■  '*  l»«rticulrtr iiurposf, 
iiiav  1"'  |'att'iil!>l»l«'.  tli(tu>^li  a  8ingU'  pair 
ooiiM  not  In".  Knight  v.  Ihivit,  Mir. 
Put.  Off.,  1.12.— Kank,  J. ;  Pa.;  IHIO. 
[(liti'tl  ill  I*<irkir  v.  Jlulmcj  7  Wt'Ht. 
Law  Jour.,  4'J'J.| 

9.  Til  iiiochaiiicH,  invcntionn  coiihIsI 
not  ill  t'l"  ili^t'oviTy  of  now  priiiciplfs, 
but  ill  ii(^>^  coiiibinationH  of  old  ones. 
Tlic  principU'H  of  iiu'cIianicH  aro  Ihw, 
Himpii',  !!ii<l  well  uiuUirHtood  ;  (lu-ir  com- 
liinutioiis  iir«)  variouH  and  incxiiaustililf. 
Any  now  comltiiiation,  wliicli  isofHtib- 
(sf initial  a(lvaiitaj,'o  in  tlio  arts,  coriics 
witliin  tlic  policy  an<l  protection  of  llu- 
i);itciit  law.  7'y/<r  v.  J)cv(il,  1  C'odi" 
Ui'p.,  31.— McC'ai.ku,  J. ;  La.,  1848. 

10.  A  duplication  of  partH  (as  the 
aiTaiijj;cmcnt  of  wheels  in  pairs  on  a 
]i()ri/.oiital  shaft,  in  a  water- w'.icel,  asin- 
I'k'  wheel  havin<j;  lieforo  been  used),  if 
it  produce  a  now  and  useful  result,  is 
invention  and  may  be  the  subject  of  a 
patent.  Purhir  v.  Ifuliiir,  7  West.  Law 
Iour.,4'21.— Kank,  J.;  P.-i.,  1849. 

11.  I'erfectin^  an  invention  by  supe- 
rior skill  in  the  niedianical  arrangement 
and  con.,*Tuction  of  the  parts,  is  but 
the  skill  of  the  mechanic,  not  the  genius 
of  an  inventor.  Parkhurst  v.  JCinsman, 
1  Blatchf.,  497.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1849. 

12.  Invention,  ns  it  respects  machines, 
IS  any  new  arrangement  or  cotnhination 
of  inacliinery,  wliethcr  of  old  or  now 
parts  or  materials,  producing  in  its  ar- 
rangement and  combination  a  useful 
result.  McCormick  v.  Seymour^  MS. 
-Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

13.  If  the  same  gcncr.al  plan  of  a 
machine  be  taken  and  applied  for  tlie 
same  purpose,  although  the  mode  of  con- 
struction may  be  varied,  it  will  bo  sub- 
stantially the  same ;  and  is  only  what 
is  called  a  mechanical  equivalent,  or  an- 


other way  of  dning  (he  same  thing,  by 
means  of  nuH-lianical  skill,  which,  how- 
ever meritorious  and  creditabh*,  is  not 
an  invention.  Mct-onnii'k  v.  Svytnonr^ 
U  lllalchf,  240,  248.— Nklson,  J.  ;  N. 
Y.,   1851. 

14.  The  doetriiio  of  the  use  of  meclian- 
ical  ('(ptivalents  is  not  confined  to  thoHO 
elements  which  are  strictly  known  as 
siudi  in  (he  science  of  nu'chanics.  'I'liere 
are  dilVerent  well-known  tievices,  any 
one  ol  which  may  be  adaptetl  to  ciroct 
u  given  result,  according  to  the  Judg- 
ment of  the  constructor.  'V\w  mero 
sidistitution  of  one  of  these  for  another 
does  not  belong  to  the  subject  »)finven- 
vention,  but  of  construction.  Foster 
v.  Moore.,  1  Curt.,  291. — Cuutis,  J.; 
Mass.,  1852. 

15.  There  is  a  wide  difference  between 
the  invention  of  a  new  method  or  pro- 
cess by  which  a  known  fabric,  product, 
or  manufacture  is  producetl  in  a  bettor 
and  cheaper  way,  and  the  discovery  of 
a  new  compound,  substiuieo,  or  manu- 
facture, having  qualities  never  found  to 
exist  together  in  any  other  material. 
Goodyear  v.  The  Jtailroach,  2  Wall, 
Jr.,  300.— (luiKK,  J.;  N.  J.,  18.53. 

10.  In  the  first  case  the  inventor  can 
p.'vtent  nothing  but  his  jH'oceHS,  and  not 
his  composition  of  matter ;  in  the  latter 
both  are  new  and  original,  and  both 
I)atentable,  not  severally,  but  as  one 
discovery  or  invention.     Ibid.,  361. 

17.  The  discovery  th.it  a  refuse  or 
worthless  material  can  be  advantage- 
ously applied  to  a  new  purpose,  if  that 
result  is  owing  to  the  presence  in  such 
refuse  material  of  certain  ingredients 
or  substances  which  had  before  been 
used,  but  in  a  different  way,  for  the  . 
same  purpose,  is  not  a  patentable  inven- 
tion. 3faide,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (Ai)p.  Cas.) 
— MORSKLL,  J  ;  I).  C,  1853. 


.%a 


'kyv^i 


/  /7Vt 


^^^*\ 


•Xtt^ 


-«»a. 


;-#' 
■  d 


m 


4ii 


INVK.NTION.   A. 


:^^4 


•*'»: 


ti4 

4 

k 


I 

ll 

u 


t» 


^is 


1! 


'JFT,      ^    >|^- 


t4#' 


WIMI    IS,     «Mt    «IIIN    I'AIKMTAIIIK 


..    ^>-< 


1H.  It  {«  n  ^\i'll  NcHlt'.l  |>iii)i'i|ilt<  <i|' 
\.\\\  \\\M    \\\i>  tin'if  clinii.M-  ill  (lie   Coini 
of  iM.'ii'liiiiiM  V  (iiiili'NM  It  )iiirtlciiliir  lonii 
in  ^|t<>l>i({l>ll  ii>4  llii>  iii«>ittis   Ity  \\liii'li   llu' 
rrtVft  .lt'i»«Mil>i't|  is  jnoiliict'il),  or  :iii  ill 
toiiilioii  in  HoiiU' ol'  i(M  niH'SMiniijiI  |iiiil«4, 
or  in  till-  iiM<  of  known  i<i|ni\  iilont  pow 
CVK,  not  \!ir\in^  oNNt'iiliiilly  llit<  iniu'liiiu', 
or  ilM  inoilc  of  opci.iiion  of  oijjiini/.ilion, 
will  not  in.'iKo  llio  inacliino  ii  ni>\v  iii\rii 
lion.      <>'  I\i,!h/\.  ,l/.>r,«*.  Irt  Mow.,  IJM. 
— Tanmv,  I'h.  .1.;  Slip  (')..  IM5;i. 

Il>.  Tlif  Mil».(iliilion  of  oin<  ntiM'liiin 
i«':il  I'lpiix  :il«>n(,  iis  ;»  rod   in  pliici-  t^f  iin 
ontllo'*'*  cliiiin,  (o  iicfomplisli  .i  like  pin 
posi'  itnil  with  lik«»  olVot't,  is  not  llio  mili- 
jocf    of  :\    put  on! .       Sfutiii    v.    (fiintNi\ 
MS.  ^App.  C.is.)      MousMi,  .1.;   I>.  ('., 

S20.  Wlicro  tlio  utility  ol'  a  ili.iii^i', 
mill  llio  oons«<ipi(MH'OM  rosiiltiiijx  llicii'- 
iVom  (ill  !»  niiioliiiio)  :in>  such  .'m  to  show 
lliiit  tlio  iiunitivo  t';nMiIt\  liiis  Item  «'\- 
oivist'il.  tlioiiixli  in  point  ol'  l;ict  the 
oli;»nvr<'  >>;!**  tlio  iistill  ot'  ;i('«'iil(Mit,  tin' 
ro<piisito  tosi  «>f  !i  Mitlit'iiMit  iinioiml  of 
inviMition  inny  ovist.  AV,  >•.<(>;<  «(^  li>i',ir</, 

/•>   p,l!ti,   MS.    (App.   1";|S.)        MOHSKII, 

.1.;  !>.('..  is:>:>. 

'JI.  Wlu'tluM- ini  iinoiKion  is  putcnt- 
aMo  is  :i  inixotl  tpiostion  ot'Imv  iiiid  f:\oi, 
juiil  should  not  in  onliiiiiry  cusi's  ho 
«Usposotl  of  ou  tloinunor,  iiinl  without 
tho  intor\ oiition  ol'  •»  jury.  7V( .«*'  v. 
7V/< //>.<,  1  ^lo.Mlis.,  li>.— MrAi.i.isTKH, 
J.;  ('ill.,  Is.-t.N. 

'2''2.  If  tho  invontii»n  nvpiiroil  no  nioro 
"skill  or  insxouuity  than  that  possos.sod  by 
an  oniinary  moohanio  skilled  in  thohiis- 
inoss.  thoro  is  an  ahsonoo  ot'  invontivo 
faoulty,  and  tho  patont  is  invalid.  Ihhf., 
ft-:. 

2;l.  An  aooidonlal  ooinbination  of 
parts,  or  invontion,  but  undor  suoli  oir- 
oumstanoos  that  the  public  obtained  no 


know  h'lj^o  ol  tho  pi  ill!  ipio  or  irmili  ,„. 
<  iVrol  of  Niit'li  ooniltiiiiitii<n,  iiiKJ  till' 
pitttioM  thonisohi'N  who  niiido  it  nut  un 
dorHtiindiii^  niioh  piiiioiph>,  dm  >«  ||,,| 
iiiako  iiiMiition.  Tho  iiniiiilon  i^  ||„| 
initdo  iiiiiil  iho  pailioM  roiiliixin^,  oi' 
I  bono  ob"»oiviii>j;,  dinoovolod  how  it  ihiiM 
bo  iiiiido  iiMiihiblo  Tor  ilN  piiiliniliii  iiin 
poso.  /i'.i/ixont  V.  MiiijoVy  it"!'.,  <)/'  All.' 
York\  MS,      Ilvil,  .1,";    N.  v..  IH.-MI. 

'i\,  Mot'oro  M  piitont  otin  lsmii<,  |||,, 
tiling  piitontod  niiixi  iippfin  to  In.  ,,| 
siioh  II  ohiiiiiotoi'  Its  to  inxolvo  onoiiiiiio 
"  inxoiilion"  I'or  its  prodiu'tion,  iiijnii,. 
tho  oxoiiiHO  of  tho  ^I'liius  nl'  nii  iimn 
tor  tiM  i'oiitriidistin)xuiMhod  iVoni  llii>iii 
diiiaiy  skill  ol*  a  nioohanio  in  ooiisiiui 
tion,      lliiif. 

'J.">.  If,  willi  tho  knowlodm'  Iwul  In 
tho  publio,  it  roi|iiirod  no  invontion,  lnit 
simply  tho  ordiniiry  nkill  iiinl  iii|ri>iiiiil} 
ol'  tho  incohaiiio  lo  prnduro  tho  rosi|l| 
oll'ootod;  ill  otiioi'  words,  if  lhi<  imi'iil 
ivo  laoiilly  was  not  put  into  aotion,  Mini 
was  not  iicodod  to  prodiioo  tho  ;illri;id 
invontion,  Ihoii  tho  patinl  is  void,  In 
oaiiso  ihoio  is  no  iiivontioii  to  bo  sriiirKJ 
to  tho  patoiitoos.      l/iiif. 

LMt.  Invontion,  in  tho  Hoiisoof  llio  |>!il 
out  law,  is  th(>  lindiiift  "Ml,  oonlriviii<,', 
dovisinij,  or  oroaliiif^  soinolhiiij,'  ik'H 
and  iistM'iil,  whioli  did  not  o\is|  liitiiri', 
by  an  oi  I'ration  of  iho  intdlool.     Ilt'ul. 

'll.  Tho  ri;j;lit  to  an  invent  ion  ihiti'^ 
Troiii  tho  tiino  of  disoovory,  ami  lln 
patontot>  is  si'onro  with  his  patnii,  it' 
his  niaohino  or  maniil'aotiiro  w.'is  noi  in 
publio  uso  at  tho  tiino  ho  tiiado  his  wy 
plioation.  Wiiitenimtv  v.  linlimjloii, 
MS.— Wilson,  J.;  Ohio,  jH.^ti. 

'JS.  Tho  iiioro  dis«'ovory  of  a  fart,  as 
in  Sioklos'  invontion,  doriviiiff  pow  or  for 
tho  trippinj»  of  tho  valvo  from  tho  occcii- 
trio  strap,  or  from  any  othor  iiioviii;j 
j>.irt  of  tho  engine  not  controlled  by  tin' 


ife4^ 


*%■ 


^C   i 


INVKNTION.  A. 


4«l 


riur   IN,    Atll    MMKN   IMtll>«r%HI.R, 


lining  rnt 


t    ilni'M  lltil   i'iiIimIiImIi'   till'    Mill) 


J' 


I  III  i»  |>iil<'iil,  tlii'iiuli   IIm«   iii)>n  iiiiiv 

'I'llC  IM«W    HV\   III'   illl'ltN,  ill  onli'l 


Im'  IH'W. 


|l)  Ihm'OIIM'  |Mllrtlllllll)',   miiimI     Im>    rlllllinl 

ii'il  iiitii  uxiKiii)!  iiiiirliini'i  V  iiinl  iiili)|il 


.SnAV. 


fii  \ . 


//on/i 


lit. 


,.i|  I'l  |(llirtit"lll  IIHf 

;i   llliilflif.,    ft.'lH.— Nki.hmk,   .1,;     N     \ 


IHftll. 


■Jll.    Il    i''   llli*^   t'IMlliiilillM'lll    IIIhI    (>|ii<III 
limi  orilllH'ltilM't  \    !'••    |>l!l('(iril|   |ilM|>nMi>M 
>(|iii'li  riirni^<li   liKiH'lli'iitl    rt'MiillH   In   ||m> 
ililii',  mill  ri'iiilcr  lli*>  i|iM)<tivt>ry  |)iiti>iil 


r 

iililf.     //'/</..  ft:iH. 

:iii,   Il  iM  iiitl  iin|iiii  liitil  w  Im'IIh  r  nil  ill 
\«'iilii>ii  ri'i|niti'i|  iiiiirli  m  lillli' lliniii'.lil, 

hIMiIv,     III'     l>X|M>rillll<lll      Im    lllilkc     il,     III 

niinli  or  lilli)'  i>x|i<>nMi>  |m  ili'vim'  iiml  i<x- 
(M'Ul)<  il.  II  il  i^  Di'W  mill  ihi  I'lil,  il  \h 
mil  11  li'ifiliiiiiili'  HiiliJiM'l,  id'  iiii|iiiiy  nl 
wliiit  i-iist  Id  |Im>  |iHti>iili<(>  il,  wiiM  iiimliv 
I'Urlni.^/i  V.  f'o,)f,\  10  Mm.  Law  Ui'|i,,  IIOV. 


-(VllllH, 


.1.;  M 


IMM, 


I  Mr.'/. 


:il.  Wlii'iM'Vcr  till'  i'limi|r<'  ill  |Im«  in 
raiiiri'iiii'iil  MJ'  II  iiiiH'liiiii'  Ml'  iiivnilioii, 
ami  ilH  (•iiiiMi'i|iii>iin'H  hikrii  iMj^t'lliri  ini- 
cimNiili'nilili',  llirif  iw  Hiiniririn'y  i>\'  in- 
vi'iiliiiii  III  sii|i|iMil  II  |iiit<'iil.  Wlini  tlii< 
clmnCi',  /nmunr  ininiili\  IiiuIk  Im  imii 
m'i|iM'iirrs  mill  ri'HiillH  mI'  ^riuit  |iriti-ticiil 
iililily,  llii^  CMinliliMii  is  MiiliHtii'il  Imt 
lidl    wiiril    IIm'    I'oiiHrt/nriiiTH   uii<   iiirMii- 

Kllll'lillllr,   Jiml    III!'   ••llJlllJ^I-   illsM    illCMIIHill- 

ciiilili'.  Wuhfi,  Ex  piirh.,  MS,  (Ajip. 
(:uH,)-MoiiHici,i,,  .1.;   I).  <'.,  IHf.V. 

Wl.  'V\\v  !i|)|iliciiliMn  (it*  i\  (tiMljiiii  roni- 
liiiiiitiiiii  mill  ('Miii|MmitiMii  mI'  i'iiIimI  cmI- 

IIIIIIIH  ill   HCrliollH   (m  IKICMIItllM,   tO  hIiMW   U 

roMHtiiiil,  li:ilaii('(f  tlii'nior,  with  Hliito- 
iiR'iiln  of  iishi'Ih  ami  liiiliilitii'H  on  ovcry 
pagi'  Iff  iJio  journal  wIUimiiI-  n'fi'n.'iKr*' 
to  iIk'  Ird^cr,  \h  not,  an  iiivont.ioii  of  an 
art,  niacliliiis  inanuraclun',  or  (;oin|>oHi- 
twn  of  niuttcr,  witliin  ^  (t  of  llio  act  of 
1830 ;  it  is  nolliiii^  nion^  llian  a  nioih; 
of  prcHcntlng  tlic  journal  entries  of  a 


•  •I'll 


Im  I 


iiiMiiiiw-4  in  II  liilniliii    I'liiiii,  mil 


lliiTi  liii)'   iimI    |iitl)'nliilil 


in 


r>>H, 


A> 


/»<»r/<,  MH    (  \|i|).   Cii...)     Mii|iH|i;i.i.,  ,1.  ; 
h.  <'.,  iHiin. 

:i:i.    'I'll!'  ri'ini'ilviii);  of  «|i  (irH  In  it 


iiiinliiiM 


II 


>  I 


Hill 


linil 


nun  I"  III!'   WMil 


of  till'  iiii'iliiiiiii',  of  llit<  Inti-lllt^i'iit  oiM't- 
iilor,  mill  liiH  iiM  riiiini'iiiMii  with  InvMi* 


II 


Mil    Ml    ilini'MVi'i  V 


H 


liiUlin    V. 


II 


iin- 


Jnri/t,  MM,     NiiHMN,  .1. ;  N,  v.,  \miK 
III,   An  •■x|M'iiiiii'iil  MM  Im  ||ii>  |irMi|iic*- 

tinll  III  II  lllllrllillt',  wllirll  WIIM  IIIINalill- 
liw  iMiy  iiii'l  liiul  I II  iiIiiiimImim'iI,  \h  not 

Mllrll    nil    illM'llliMII    IIM   I'lllilli'M  II   |II'I'4MII   to 

till'  iM'iiilit  III  ||m>  |iiitMil  lawM,  mi'l  Niicti 
iiliiinilMninent  reiiiMvi-H  nil  iiii|ii'irniii>nt 
ill  llii>  way  Mf  any  future  invntor  wlio 
iiiiiy  I'mIImw  ill  tln«  Hiiiiii'  liiMv     ////»/, 

;ir».  'I'Im-  Milaryi'iiifiil  m(  iIp' Mrj^aniirii- 
tioii  of  II  niai'liini',  cMiiiiiiiri'il  with  A 
fiiiiniT  Mill',  iloeH  not  afforil  any  ground 
ill  IIm'  hi'Iimi'  mC  <|ii'  piilMil  l.'iw  lur  a  pat/- 
t'lit.     l7iil/if>H  V.  l'iif/>,  'Zi  I  low.,   l»iV.— 


N  I..I 


HMN, 


.1. 


;iiii,  (1.,  iMCio. 


.'111.  'I'lif  inminer  of  I'Mlilini^  '»"'l  f'»'^- 
ti'iiiii^r  llie  Niili'M  of  an  envilope  to  tlio 
l»ai'k,  or  till'  lia<l<  ilowii  to  tin-  hI'Icm,  in 
not  a  |iati'iitalili'  Hiil»ji'(t.  'I'liire  !><  no 
I'XiTi'ise  of  the  inventive  fa'-uHy  it  i« 
a  imri'  matter  of  iii(ilrn"<K  aiel  fininh. 
.ini»t,l,  V.  I'nttrr,  M.S.  (A|.|..  CiiH.)— 
Ml.imiiK,  J,;    I).  C,  I  MOO. 

.'17.  h  i »  flinii'iilt  to  (li'liriiiiiie  whero 
oriliiiary  iiiei'hanii-al  Kkill  en'ls,  aii'l  in- 
vriition  lief^iriH.  The  hest  frrnrfirfil 
prinrift/f.  Ih,  that  where  the  eonihina- 
lion  of  known  elenufitH  proiliiecH  t\i-w 
arnl  useful  results  to  the  piihlie,  not  ho- 
fore  attained,  then  the  person  who  iWn- 
eovem  ami  applieM  tfie  comhifiation  is 
an  inventor,  wilhiii  the  true  intent  and 
Mieaninj^  of  the  patent  laws.  tSmii/iy 
Kx  pitrtr.y  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Dunlop, 
J.;  \).  C,  IHOO. 


'WWVi. 


;7 


i^\ 


-'^ 


W1 


L     I    A 


i    ill 


;*,.-.  *...#'! 


,^--*tei_ 


H!« 


J 
^ 

^ 


I 


■til 


494 


INVKNTlihN,  H. 


tPmrVltlNil      «iUr  III   IMIhlliNl'tl  IHi    MMMMirt   or 


n.     PkHI-'Ki  n>il,     Olt      UKIMinit      TO 

I'HAiiirK;  wiiu-    ih;  nkimniiv  or; 

m  K    1*11  lilKNi  K    IN. 


I.  Tlio  llrMi  iiiv«>iili«r  iH«>iHilli>i|  lit  llii> 
hi'MolilM  of  lii>4  iii\ I'll! ion  il'  In*  ii'iliii'o  il 

|o  prili<tii't>  :illil  oliliiiu  ;i|>iliMll  tldTi'lnr, 
itiiil  II  "iiUxf"!!!!'!!!  itunilor  ••niuml,  l»y 
oltliiiniii^  Il  piii'iii,  oiih|  iIio  IliMt  invi'ii 
for  ol*  \\'\n  li^lii,  or  niiiiiiltiin  nil  tiolioii 
H!(,'iin'«t  liim.  ]\',u\,i,;t,k  \.  I\n'f>r)\  I 
iJall..  i;ii>,  Si.<i;\.  .1.;  Mux^.,  ihi;i. 
'i.  t'lilil  ;in  iiiNi'iilioti  \<*  iti'ii'fi'lt'tl  itixl 


ni):i|*lt>il    i>i 


»!•.,< 


it    is  till    I 


tlt(>lll!lMl<, 


I\,f,f  \.  i'litf.r,   I  S|.tr\,  MH).     SioiM 


.1.;  M 


iss.,    ISH. 


iiMi*  tlillKtiiii'ii  In  ii<lii|itiii^  mill  |ii>ii;i,.|. 
liiM  lli«>  Niiiiii*.      /A»)/.,  Mtii, 

V.  NiMH'  III'  till'  piitiMit  ItiWH  ri'i|nirii 
lliiil  nil  iii\i'iilii>ii  •«ImiiiIiI  III)  ill  iiNi,  or 
roiliii'iil   III  lilt  mil   |iniriit'«>  lii'iuio  ih,, 

iNMllill^    of    II     |llll«>lll,     lltlll'lHixi'     tlllMI     |,y 

Il   iiioili'l,  iliiiii  iii^i,  mill    N|ii>i'illi'ittiHii, 
iMiitMliiiiii!;  It  wiitli-n  ili>'<i'ii|iiiiiii  uf  tlm 
iliM'iillnii,   Mini     lii)\\     iiiii<li'     iMiil    iimij. 
IhUvtth  I.  //..i/A,   MS.  (,\|i|i.  CiK) 
CiUNiii.  V\\.  .1.;   l».  r.,  IHil. 

H.  'rii«>  ri);lit    of  II   |<iili<iili r   ii|)|i|i 

I'llMl  i|iii"4  itiil  ili'|ii'tii|  ii|iiiii  till'  liicl  III' 
llio  iiixi'iilinii  Im'Iii^  ri'iliu'oil  In  lU'iicil 
|inii'lii'<>,  i<\i<«<|il  ill  llii>  I'liHii  of  mi  uIiom 
|i;ili'iili<««  rtiiliii^  to  |iiil  williiii  ri^^liirni 
IliniitliM  liis  iiiM'iilinii  nil  Niilr,       lhi,l. 


U<    I'MUl'MHIIIII    "  lI'llllCI'l 


I  I 


II    |i|; 


lU-l'       lloCM    lint     llll|llirl     IHIII^IIKr    III)    |„. 

MMitioii  into  ||M«>,  hill  iiiciiim  I'i'iliii'iiit;  it 

ititll    Nlll'll    llMIII    llllll     it      IIIIIV      III'     Ijll'll,  NO 


iH  not  to  III'  a  iiii'ii'  tlicinv, 


//././. 


10.  'I'lio   tloi'ltiiu>   llllll    III'    wliii  lir<«t 


i>iii> 


;i.  All  ii'i|»i"rr»'»'i  mill  iiii*iiin|il<'lo  iii\  I'll        i'.  'I'l 
tion,  nwiiinj  in  iiu'iv  llu'orj  .«i  in  in! el     lii-i'"  il 
l«>«'liiiil   notion,  or  in   iini'i>ii:iiii   t>\|i«M'i 
tnonN,   mill    not     iirluiilly    n'«lni'i'il    to 
|>r.i('li>'«',   mill    I'lnliKiliiil    in    snnii'   ilis 
liui't     iMiii'liinovN,    iip|i:ir:it<i><,    inminrn*- 
tiiii'  Of  t'liniposiiioii  i»r  inaiiiT,  is  nol, 
mill  iiitlioil  oaniiot  In*  |viii'iilalili'  niiiK'r 
till'  |viti'nt  \:\\\'*.      I!>l<i,  .Mt".>. 

t.  lie  is  tlii'liist  iiiv  I'litor  in  till' M(MiM> 
of  th«'  |iati'nt  :u'l,  anil  ontilli'il  to  a  put- 
out  lor  liin  invention,  who  han  lirsl  por- 
iVrti'.l  mill  ailapti'il  tin*  sanu'  to  nsi' ; 
llllll  until  till'  iiui'iitioii  is  so  porli'i'ti'il    rii,f|il  is  saxnl   1>}-   };    Ift   ol"   {\w  iirl,  nf 

1  s;l(».      /A/,/. 

I  1.   >\'lnit'vt'r  llrst  pcrli'i'ls  a  iiiMfliiiic 
mill  ni:il\i's  it  capaMi' III' nsi>riil  itpi'nil 


I'oniiniinii'ali's  an  nivi'iilinn  in  iln 

lii',  mill  puts  it  in  pi  n'tirc,  ninf />•  .i„/i/. 

is  I'lititli'il  III  a  pali'iit,  is  imt  Nitppniii'il 


to  it .  I'lilli'sl   I'vti'iit   hv   till'  i!i 


Niw,    Mill 


iloi's  not  apply  to  a  liixl    invi'iilnr  wim 


IS  iisin^  ri'asnnalili'  ilili).r«'iii'i<  in  ail:i|il- 
iiiiX  aiiil  pel  li'i'liii!^'  liis  invi'nlinii,  wIhwc 


mill  ailapti'il  to  usi',  il  is  not  iiati'iitahU 


M 


In   a  raiv  of  ililic'in'*'    hctwcon 


HMI 


Ill- 


two  imloprnili'iit  invontors,  lie  who  is  iiitilli'il  to  a  palnil,  ami  is  ihr  icil 
lirst  roiluii's  his  invontinn  to  a  li\»'il,  |  M-iilor,  thniiyli  ollu'is  iMa\  liave  lucvi- 
positivo, aiiil  praetioal  lorin,  wonhl  sooiii  oiisly  had  tho  idea,  and  inade  snmc  cx- 
to  bo  ontitled  to  a  priority  ot'  riixht  tna   periments  toward  putting  il  in  pnitlifc. 


1 


latent  theret'or.      if>hf.,  Mi'.i,  (UUI. 

An  inventor  who  has  lirsI  aetually 
vrleeted  his  invent  ion.  will  not  lu'deeni- 
od  to  have  surreptitiously  or  unjustly 


I 


]\'in>/ifiiin)   V.    (ioii/tf,  .•!    Slnry,    l;t;i. 


Sioiiv, 


.1.:  M 


ISS. 


IMII. 


I'J.    StiiiNr,  that  he  would  he  cntitli'il 
to  :i  patent,  alt lioujj;li  tlui  itnteeedeiit  I'x- 


ohtaino'l  a  patent  tiir  that  whieh  was,  in  i  periments  of  nthi'rs  were  kiinwn  to  ami 
laet.  Inst  imented  liy  another,  unless  ^  used  by  him  in  perfeetiiijjf  his  niaeliiiie. 
the  latter  was  at  the  time  usitii'  reason- !  Iliul,.  i;J3. 


«W^, 


INVI'NIION.  II. 


4M 


PHNriH'riMii:  wiur  m;  DM.Mii'oi'n  iNi  Nfi'iMMirv  »^. 


|:l,  |(t'tlii<'iti|{  nil  liivi'iiliiiii   Id   |)riii'     |ilii'iilii)ii  til'  n  |)iitii'i|)li>  In  |iiiM|iii'ti  mi 
tii'c  ilill'i  It   I'loni    III  iii|;iii|r   il    iiilii   iHt'.    rlli'i  I,  N  iiiil  milH<  ii'iil  to  i'litilti'  II  |iiiily 

III  II  |iiili'iil  ;   lull   till'  iiiM'    ulm   III")    ri>  • 
«ll|i'i"4    lllii  iilt'il   Id   |i|-||i'flrill    il|)|ilii  iilinii 
mill  iiNii  \h  riilltlml   I'    il  |iiit)  iil        f'UuIti 
\..S/^Ai/,  I  llliil.lir.,  4)11.      NiMMN,  ,1.} 
N.  v.,  I  Mill. 

til.  'I'll  I'liiiMllliiitt  II  jiiiiir  iiivi'iid'Hi, 
lltK  |iiirty  tilli'U)"!   In  liiivn  |iiiMliiri'il   II. 

IIIIIhI     I|I|\I<    |IHM<'I>|||>||    MM     I'lir     UN     III    llllVII 

n  ijlli'i'ij     liJH    iili'it    III   |irilrlirt',  iiliij    I'lii- 

IkhIIi'iI  II  ill  Niiiiir  (lixiiiici  I'liiiii.  Ciinln 
mill  iiii|M'iri'rl  i>ii|M>i'iiiii<iilH,  i'i|iiiviiriil  In 
llii'ii'  ii'miiIin,  mill  llii'M  p[\\t'n  up  lor 
>iviiM,  (111111111  |in'viill  iitniiiiwl  nil  nriij'miil 
iiiv  i-mIih,  w  Iiii  Iimm  |in I'i'I'Ii'iI  Iih  iiii|iiiivi' 
iiniil  mill  iililiiiiM'il  II  |iiili>iil.  f'lirk' 
fmrif    V.    h'iiiHinim,    I    ISIiili  liT.,    KM.    • 


'riicii' il  II"  1'*^^  ii'i|iiiiiiiM;  nil  ii|i|ilii'iiiil 
to  ii'iliirx  liU  Iliti'iilliMi  In  iii'luiil  iiMi<  Im>- 
li  ri'  III*  ■'»"  <*lil'>i*i  It  |Mlh'til.  Oil  llii> 
nihil  liiiiiil,  llii'  •i*«i>  ••!  nil  iini'iiliiiii  lie 
Inri*  nliliiiiiiiiu  II  |i'ili'iil  it*  mil'  nf  llii' 
1,'ii'oiMN  •'"•'  ••'•"""iiiiC  '••  /'•»■/■// \.  for 
»,.//,  MM.  (\|'|'  <'iiH  )  ('ij,\MrM,  I'll.  .1.; 
!».('.,  IMIV. 

II.   .\m  iiivi'iilm    liiiM  ii'ijiiri'il   Mm   in 
M'liliiiii  !<•  |)iiii'lii'i'  uIm'ii  Iii<  Iiih  mm  <!•' 
Hi'illii'ij  it  iMi  |iii|M>i',  mIiIi  niii'Ii  l|lll^vill^N 
:iti)|  niiiij)'!  Il**  III  •<iitilili>  miy  imtnimi  itfiil/ 
,(/('»»  t/if  lift  III  iiiiilii'  mill  iHi'  II.     Ihiif. 

|,t,    III'  IIIIHI    hIiiiW   IiIm  itlM'tlliiill  In  III' 

|iriii'lii'iilili'i  iiikI  IIii<  iiimiiii'i  in  uliirli  il 
MiiiV  Ik*  IInimI,  lull  Im<  inrij  iml  iju  iImh 
tinlil  hit  inM'tiliiiii  i>i  pn  I'li  li  i|,  mnl  In- 
is  niiily  !•>  >i|>|>l,v  I'lii'  II  |iitt)'Ml,  III'  iiiiiy 
|iiiM<  i'iiiiri'i\t'il  IIh'  iili'ii  yi'iii'^  iijrii,  iiiil 
is  lint  olili^i'ii  III  riii'iiiHil  iJniwiii^M  or 
iihmIi'I    tiiilii    III'   liiiiki'4    IiIm    ii|i|iliriiliitii. 

HI.  Wliiii'ViT  liiiiilly  pi'ili'clM  II  mil 
rliiiic,  mill  ri'inli'i'M  it  i'iipiilili>  nl'  iimhI'iiI 
i>|ii'riiliiiii,  In  I'lililh'il  to  ii  piilml,  iIhmi^Ii 
olhi'iN  111,'iy  liiiM'  li.ni  I  III'  iiji'ii  im<l  mmji' 
i'\|i('iimi'iils  litwiml  pulling  il  inlo  pnir- 
lii'i'  iiihI  iilllimii'li  III!  ||ii<  ciimpiiin'iit 
|>iiit'4  limy  li.'ivo  Im'i'ii  kiinwii  iiimIit  u 
iliU'i'K  lit  nmiliiiiiiliiiii,  or  iikiiI  I'm-  n  ijif- 
I'tit'iil  iimpiiMi'.  Itiill  V.  Mitrnj,  In 
rciiii,,  112. —  Koiii.;uH,  .1. ;  Slip.  (!l.,  I'.'i,, 
IS48. 

IT.  It  iH  not cnmi^li  to  roncrivc  llir 
i'li'U  III'  a  iii'W  nianiit'ai't  lire,  or  of  ;i  new 
:tiiil  ilsciul  iiisli'illiHiit.  Till'  new  iilrii 
must  lie  rcijin'cil  to  hoiii<>  prnrliciil  iisn 
lirjon'  it  ciin  Ik'i'oiiiu  tlin  Hiiliji'ct,  of  w 
[lali'iit,  or  lie  si't.  up  iiinl  relied  on  to  il<!- 
Iiiil  a  |ial(;iit..  All  iiliortive  cxperiinent, 
i'<  not  siilHcieiit.  jlninj  v.  •hujijii\  I 
lii;it('hr.,;tK:t..-NKi,HON,J.;  N.  Y.i  IH4H. 

\*.  The  ide.'i  or  Hiigj^iiHtioa  of  un  ap- 


N 


.1.;   N.  v..  IMIII. 


li'.l'lllN, 

V!ll.  Till'  liiw  iklloWN  mi  invi  nlor  ii 
reiiMontilile  tiitii'  lo  perl'tiet  liii  inviiilion, 
iiikI  iiHi't'i'lttiii  itM  utility  lii'l'me,  in  oriliT 
to  MiTilii'  to  liiiiHeir  In  ('iieliiNivi'  IImi>,  it, 
olilij^reM  liini  to  tiiki'  out  ii  piitinl.  It.  in 
till'  ijiily  o|'  ihf  jury  to  liike  into  eon 
Kiileriilioii  the  niiliirn  ol'  llie  invfiilioii 
mill  till'  eireiniiHtiiiM'iw  oCllin  niMc.     Wl- 

u,M  V.  S./n,,,:  ,fT  7'rn,/  /,'.  /.'  ,  ',!  IMaMiC, 


tn 


MM.  .too. 


Nl-.l 


HI 


IN,  (loNKM.M.,  .1.1.  :    N. 


v.,  iHr.i. 

'Jl.  Ill  till'  ciiHii  of  mi  im|ii'ovi'tiK!rit.  ill 
till'  eoiiMlriirtion  of  cms  (or  railroailn, 
/A/'/,  that  Hiicli  I'vpi  rinn  nts  eoiild  not, 
lie  mtidn  I'.xeepI,  liy  piitlin;^  the  eur  into 
t  lie  M(<rvi<!H  of  liiK'H  of  niilroiids,  mid  t  Imt 
till'  iiNi'  of  nirH,  for  Hiieli  purpose,  from 
iH.'lt  II.  |k;i|  did  not.  render  tlu'  p.iterit 
olilained  in  IH.II  void.      //>/V/.,  u'll. 

2'^.  lint  if  mi  inventor  iimii-eeHsarily 
defeiH  liis  iipplieation  for  u  p.alent.mid 
HiillerH  his  invention  to  f^o  into  use,  ex- 
eepl  for  Hiieli  piirpoHi'H  mid  lieyond  what 
lie  liiiH  reason  to  lielieve  neeexsary  for 
HiKrIi  [itirpOHOH,  liJM  patent  i.H  void.  Ihid.^ 
2WI,  .'JOO. 


(Ml 


.•^1 


W-,il( 


inri 


■■•HWA 


J^«H,i 


**►' 


V'^.-' 


A^ 


<m>\ 


ii/Ui>w^ 


uu^ 


.,  l« 


I 


4tM^'i 


Ill 

I 

I" 

«4 


r  %  m 


J-;:  'I   « ' 


»    pi  I 


['III' 


"*1I 


4M 


TWKvrrov,  B. 


MM^aonilUt  WUAf  W;  nairtHNrH  in;  HKiKiwiTT  or. 


2.1.  In  nnlrr  to  ontitln  n  |M'ni»»n  tnthp 
I'liiirmlrr  of  iiii  invt-iitor,  nml  IiIm  iiivfii 

tloil  tt)  lH>COt||C>  till*  Mllhji'ft  of  II  |Mlll*lll, 
llO  lUIIMt  ilof    NtOpIlt  UIIHUCCtiNNflll  «>k|li<ri- 

nit'iilN,  lint  coiiiiiiiu'  iiiiiil  Iic>  hiH  liroii^lit 
uul  u  iiiiu'liiiif  |)rotlii('iti){  u  u<«rriil  ri<- 
itiili,  iukI  \nthoiit  tliiM  Ii'm  iiivt'titiuii  will 
liu  wmililt'HH  to  (lit)  foiiiiiiiiiiit)',  tiiitl 
iiii(|i'Ni'r\iiig  lliu  protfrlioti  of  tin*  liiw. 
MfCiirinirk  V.  Stt/mour,  MS.— Nklhon, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  IH.M, 

24.  It  IM  wlioh  H|i(>('uiiilioii  litiM  hvvu 
nMliici'il  to  |irii('ticf,  wtit'ii  (>x|ici-iiii('iit 
tins  r«>Hiilii>tl  ill  <liHcov«>i'y,  ami  wlit>ii 
tliitt  tli.tfovi'iy  liiiN  l»f»'ii  |iiTt'(<(t(>i|  \ty 
]iiiti(>titaiiil  i!<»iitiiiiit'<lt>x|ii>riiiit'iilM,  wlii'ii 
Hotnit  new  roinpoiiiDl,  art,  iiniiiitUctiin', 
or  iiiiK-liiiic,  Init  licoii  lliiiH  protliu't'il, 
wliirli  is  iiMffiil  to  tlic  piitilic,  thill  tli«> 
party  iiiukiiij^  it  litu-oiiics  a  piiiilic  Ihmu- 
faotur,  aii<l  cntitlnl  to  a  patoiit.  (inuil- 
i/ciir  V.  />(///,  'J  Wall,  Jr.,  2ltO. — (titiKu, 
J.;  N.  J,,  Ih:)2. 

'.'5.  Wliciv  an  invention  in  not  of  a 
iiioru  pliiloHophit-al  Hpociiiation,  almtrac- 
tloii,  or  ihi'ory,  Imt  of  Hoiiu>tliiii}{  cor- 
porf:il,  (o  he  iii;iiiiifnctiirf<l,  tlio  apjiji- 
caiit  lU'i'tl  not  t<\u>\\  tliat  lu'  has  rciliu-tMl 
it  to  practici',  othorvviso  than  by  a  <K'- 
Hcription,  and  *lra\viii;;H,  and  a  model, 
if  the  casi'  admits  of  a  dra\viiij.j  and 
modfis.  N.  K.  Strew  Co.  v.  Sloon,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — MoKHKM.,  J. ;  I).  C,  lHr,:\. 

'JG.  The  patent  laws  do  not  require 
that  an  invention  should  he  redneed  toae- 
tiial  praetiee  before  the  issiiiiij;  of  the 
p.itent,  otherwise  than  by  a  model,  draw- 
ings, and  spcoilications,  so  describing 
the  invention  that  a  skilful  person  could 
make  and  use  it,  ;;nd  verified  by  the  oath 
of  the  party.  iSi'ili'i/,  Ex  parte,  MS. 
(App.  (Jas.) — MousKLL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1S53. 

27.  An  imperfect  and  incomplete  in- 
vention, resting  in  mere  theory,  or  in 
intellectual  notion,  or  in  uncertain  ex- 


pt»Htm»tit,  nnd  r\ni  nrtttnlly  ri'ducid  (,. 
prailiee,  mid  tiiibiMlifd  hi  "oiiu' ,|i,ti„,, 
niiu'hiiiery,  apparatii**,  niaimtiii  iur«>,  „f 
eoiiipoMiiion  of  niHlter,  In  not  iKiti'nt 
able  under  our  lawn.  Afurnfin/i  \,  ,)/„ 
MS.  (App.  Ciw.) — DuMLui'^  J.;  D.  t'.^ 

IM5.1. 

!2H.  He  1h  tlitt  flritt  hivi'iitiir  in  i||, 
MeiiM«>  of  the  patent  iietM,  nnd  entiilnl  t,, 
a  patent,  who  haN  llrsl  perfnttil  ;tri4 
adapted  the  in\eiition  to  unv,  iumI  iiniil 
th(>  in  vent  ion  is  so  perfected  and  udii|>tii| 
to  iiHc,  it  is  not  patunlable.       f/iid, 

'2U,  Itiit  this  poNitioii  iit  Hnbj«>('t  tn  tl 
tiuililieatinii  that  he  who  Iid'hiIh  tir^f 
shall  have  {\\v  prior  right,  if  he  in  i.mh,; 
reasonable  diligence  in  adapting  mni 
perfecting  the  same,  although  tli(>/ic>'ii/i</ 
ini'vntor  has  in  fact  Jirat  /Mr/irted  the 
same  'd  reduced  it  to  practice  in  a 
posit  )rni.     J  hill. 

lU  /elbre  if  A  llrst  cdiki.-vciI  mh 

invention,  and  used  reasonable  ililij^rcun 
to  perfe»'t  it,  and  did  p«rte<'l  it,  tli(Mi;r|, 
siibseipieiit  to  U,  A  is  entitled  to  li  |i;it- 
ent,  even  if  H,  a  subsetpient  and  oii;,'i. 
iial  inventor,  Jlriit  perft'cted  it,  aiut  re- 
duced it  to  use.     J/ti</. 

31.  A  long  course  o(  mere  fniitlm 
experiments  to  reduce  a  priiiciiilf  to 
practice,  will  not  be  sunicient  to  |iitv(iit 
a  subse(pient  original  inventor,  \vlii>|i;i< 
perfected  his  invention,  withniit  kiidwl- 
edge  of  the  prior  invention,  from  iT('ci\- 
ing  a  i>atent.  jri'(Ji>r>nick  v.  lutduim, 
Ms.  (App.  Cas.) — MoiiHKi.r,,  J. ;  I).  C, 
1853. 

32.  Hut  where  u  prior  inventor  li;i> 
been  using  due  ililigenco  to  perfect  liii 
invention  and  adapt  it  to  practical  use, 
his  right  AvlU  be  preserved  and  protect- 
ed, although  luH  sucoesB  may  not  be  per- 
fect.    Ibid. 

33.  A  machine  in  order  to  anticipate 
any  subsequent  discovery  must  bo  per 


'^^ 


INVKNTION,  H. 


437 


fnntfffiti'i;  Mii«r  m,  Dii.iiiiiiii  ■  i^i ,  nk<  krmty  or. 


fn'ti»«l,  tlmt  is  ii»inl«'  •«>  «w  l«>  *M»  of 

iirftiti'nl  iiiility,  iiml  n<»f  ln»  iiiiTily  <•< 
i,i.riiiniitiil,    iiihl    iihI    in    fX|M'riiiMnl. 
Ji<»rt  V.    t'mtiTteuutl,    MS.     SrUAdl  K, 

J.;  Mil**.,  Hft*. 

.•14.  Tilt'  ma'iitijf  «»r  «  ilrjiwiiitf  of  an 
|ii>i'iiti'»>  iiilllt ii'itliv  plain  to  rnikldi'  u 
nlkilfiil  iiiTMiin  to  niaki>  tlii<  tiling  iVnni 
till*  ili'iiwin^,  ix  Niiflicii'titly  rfilnciii^  llii> 

illM'lltion    In    priU'tiiM'.         Sti/i/lniMnH     V. 

/A»y^  MS.  (A|»|».  I'liH.) — Minihi-;i.i.,  J.; 
I).  I'.,  IM.\». 

,'15.  An  invention  !m  cnni|ilrt«>  whon  it 
In  cn|isil)l(<  of  niu'cumnIuI  o|i('i'ittioii.  It  U 
not  n»'<'«^!<!«ry  tliat  tin*  luhl  inutlii  nr 
iiiuniitT  of  f.irryinj;  tut  or  a|>|il)iii;,'  tin- 
i)riiii'i|>lt>  ftlioiiM  litkvo  hct-n  ilrtiTmiiicil, 
(ir  that  tliM  invt'ntor  Mlioiild  In-  aware  of 
lilt' full  v.'iliu'  of  Ills  iiivfiit'  11.  Jlun-iiirn 
V.  HW//»r///,MS.(A|>|».  ('  I  .)— Moi{m;i,i., 
J.;  I).  ('.,  IH.VI. 

ao.  TluTi!  iH  no  oxproNH  n'(|iiiri'nu'Ml 
ill  tlu<  statute  that  tli(<  applit'iitit  nliall  ri>- 
iliu'o  liin  invention  to  actual  use  lielure 
he  ran  olitaiii  a  patent.  ShjiluiiH  v. 
SitUnliiiri/y  MS.  (A]>p.  Cu.«t.) — Mok.sk.i.l, 
J.;  I).  ('.,  IHftO. 

37.  It  in  not  tlio  person  wlio  1i:im  only 
produced  the  idea,  that  is  entitled  to 
|iroltcti«>ii  as  an  inventor,  but  the  per- 
son who  has  (>ni1)odit>d  th(>  hlea  into  n 
|priu'tit.'al  niiichine,  and  redueed  it  to 
Itriictiic.  He  who  Iijih  first  done  that, 
is  the  inventor  who  is  entitled  to  jiro- 
tettioii.  Wituins  v.  N.  V.  td  Jl.  Ji.  li., 
31  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  322. — Nki,son,  J. ; 
N.Y.,  1H.-55. 

38.  Where  two  persons  are  botli  in- 
ventors of  the  same  thinj.?,  the  one  who 
lierfected  his  invention  first,  is  i)roteeted 
by  the  law.  Alkn  v.  Hunter,  0  Me- 
Leim,  :V22.— McI;.;ax,  J. ;  Ohio,  1855. 

39.  If  an  inventor  does  not  use  rea- 
sonable diligence  to  perfect  his  inven- 
tion, after  the  idea  of  it  is  conceived, 


and  III  lli«i  nifttii  lime  tiiiolher  coiiorivM 
the  ideii,  and  pcrfeelH  thi' iiiveiilion,  iilnl 
praetieally  iipplii't  it  to  uoc,  the  latter  Im 
the  tirnt  and  ori^iiiiil  inventor,  ami  n 
jMiti'Mt  |j;ranled  to  the  furnier  will  he  void, 
Its  not  issiieil  to  the  lirxt  inventor. 
limiHiiin  v.  Min/i>r,  «t«'.,  of  X>  w  1'>»/'X*, 
MS.     IIaii,  .1.';  N.  Y„  IH.-Kl. 

40.  Although  an  invention  has  not 
Keen  redileed  to  aetnai  praetieal  iinv, 
yet  if  it  appears  to  lie  rapaMe  of 
lieiiijir  HO  rediieed,  it  \sill  lie  sitllleient 
(other  thiii^^M  not  opptmin^;),  to  eiilillo 
a  p.irty  to  a  patnil.  C/nnii/lrr  v.  I.mld, 
.MS.  (.\pp.  CuH.)— .MoitsKii.,  .1.  ;  I).  C, 
lHfl7. 

41.  Although  an  inventor  and  paten- 
tee may  not  havu  redueed  to  praetieal 
use  and  operation  his  invention,  lieforu 
the  time  the  same  thin;;  iiiav  have  heen 
invented  Ity  another,  if  at  the  tinu!  of 
Hiieh  siiltsetpient  invention,  tiu*  first  in- 
ventor witH  \\m\\*  reasonalile  diligence 
(^  1.'.  of  lh(!  act  of  \H-M\)  in  adapting 
and  perfecting  the  same,  and  did  ath'r- 
ward  in  a  reaHonahle  time  adapt  and 
perfect  the  Haine,  such  Niilisetpieiit  in- 
vention will  not  deprive  him  of  the  ben- 
efits se<'iir<  I  by  his  patent.  /Inrt/iolu- 
mew  V.  Smni/irt  MS.— Inokusoi.i.,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1H50. 

42.  The  p<'rson  who  is  the  first  to 
conceive  ami  give  expression  to  the  idea 
of  an  invention,  in  such  clear  and  intel- 
ligible iiianner  that  a  person  skilhil  in 
the  business  could  construct  the  thing, 
is  entitliMl  to  a  patent,  provided  he  uses 
reasonable  diligence  in  perfecting  it. 
Eamcs  V.  Jifr/iiii'ifs,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— • 
Mkuhick,  J. ;  1).  C,  1H59. 

43.  hy  being  perfected,  in  the  eye  of 
the  law,  it  is  not  meant  that  an  invention 
should  be  carried  to  a  |i()int  where  there 
could  not  be  any  subsetiueiit  improve- 
ment, but  that  it  should  be  completed 


s-w 


iP  r^-*' 


^wUwwCf^ 


■'ii-^^ 


A^t 


429 


INVENTION,  n. 


I'Kio'KciiNO;  WHAT  m;  kiiuiknck  in;  nkckwity  or. 


'im 


ii 


Ml 


»•  '>  !•■ 

It!  '*  1- 


HO  as  to  l>t'  of  .soiiif  nr.'icllcMl  ulility.  It 
need  not  l)f  of  tiuy  \uii\\  dcj^roi' — if  it  is 
of  (tui/  practiciil  utility,  ultlioii^li  of  a 
low  (It'i^ii't'  -and  lias  Itooa  roiiipli'tt'tl  s«» 
as  to  Ik-  of  |)i;n'tical  utility,  then  it  may 
1)0  Naitl  t»»  1(0  |U'rfi'«'tt'tl  in  tin*  I'yi'  of  tim 
law.  Johimon  v.  Hoot,  AIS. — Sn{.\i;iK, 
J.;  Mass.,  1858. 

44.  itnt  it  is  not  sulllcii  lit  tliat  sonic 
part  lncor|iorat(Ml  into  an  invnitioii 
t<Iioul(l  liavt-  lurn  thus  ju'rfi'rli'd,  iinli'ss 
that  ])urt  could  he  :i  machine,  so  as  to 
he  of  some  practical  utility.  It  must 
hecmhoilicd  and  oomiected  with  a  ma- 
chiiio,  which,  as  a  whole,  takiiifjf  that 
jiart,  must  W  of  some  practical  utility, 
ill  order  to  pre\cnt  others  coininj;  atlcr- 
ward  from  havinsj^  tlic  heiiefit  «.f  an  in- 
veutioii  which  t'mlir;;c»'s  that,      llthl. 

45.  To  constitute  a  perfecteil  lUu- 
chiiic,  mIiicIi  will  entitle  h  party  to  ;v 
]iatent,  it  is  not  net'cssary  that  he  should 
h;ive  actually  constructed  the  uiachiiii' 
Avhich  is  tho  siihject  of  his  invention. 
If  having  conceived  a  valiiahle  idea,  he 
has  maiiit'csicd  it  hefore  the  world  in 
any  form  which  evidences  the  complete- 
ness of  the  idea,  and  which  is  sullicienl 
vhon  cominuiiicated  to  others,  tt)  ena- 
ble those  skilful  in  the  particular  art  to 
reproduce  his  invention,  he  has  done 
eiiouLjh  to  entitle  himself  to  a  patent, 
and  this  whether  such  evidence  consists 
of  written  description,  ilrawings,  mod- 
els, or  a  complete  machine.  Parley  v. 
Nut.  Stm.  Gmujc  Co.,  MS.  (.\pp.  C'as.) 
— .Mkkkuk,  J. ;  1).  C,  18.')!). 

40.  And  it  will  make  no  ditferencc 
that  the  inventor  was  not  fully  aware 
of  tho  extent  of  the  value  of  his  hiven- 
tion.     Ibid. 

4V.  Though  drawings  of  a  machine 
or  invention  jiro  made,  from  which  ma- 
chines could  be  constructed,  or  oven  if 
models   are  made  such  as  may  be  ca- 


pahh'  of  operation  for  the  purpose  of 
experiments,  yet,  unless  a  uiacliin,., 
which  is  capable  of  bring  nst-d  and  (.p. 
♦•ralt'd  as  an  actual  working  inacliiiic 
is  conslructed,  then  as  matter  of  law 
si!i  h  invent  ion  is  not  <'oniplci».(|.  {j„_ 
hocu  V.  liiiiij,  MS.— t'MKKoKlt,  J.;  Ml',, 
I8r.(). 

48.  The  making  «>f  drawings  i^\'  ,.,,|,. 
ceivctl  idi'asisnot  such  an  emliodjimut 
of  such  conceived  idciis,  into  prac'lcaj 
and  useful  form,  as  will  del'eat  a  palciit 
which  has  lu'cn  granted.  hUlKhoriv  \. 
liithtrtiiony  MS. —  Inukusoii,,  .1. ;  .\,  y. 
I8r)i). 

4i).  \n  iivention  is  not  patcntalilo 
until  it  is  perfected  and  adapted  to  use. 
In  a  race  of  diligence  helw«'eii  two  in- 
(l;'pt'ndent  inventors,  he  who  fust  ii>. 
duces  his  invention  to  a  fixed  positimi, 
and  practical  form,  has  a  priority  nf 
right  to  a  patent.     Ibhl. 

.')().  ^VIlere  A  conceived  the  idea  ol' 
an  invention  in  1847,  and  made  a  draw- 
ing thereof,  but  did  nothing  fmtlur 
toward  reducing  his  invention  toapiac- 
tical  and  useful  form,  and  made  no  ap- 
plication for  a  patent  until  lsr)8;  ami 
in  the  mean  time  15  had  invented  the 
same  thing,  and  hail  obtained  a  patent 
therefor  in  J 854,  but  not  in  fiaiid  ol' 
A,  JldJ,  that  such  alleged  prior  iiiviii- 
tion  of  A  would  not  defeat  li's  patent. 
Ibiil 

51.  AV^hore  an  inventor  descrihcs  his 
invention  to  a  mechanic,  and  dirci'ts 
him  to  construct  it,  he  is  eiititKil  to  a 
reasdnable  time  for  making  expcriinentu 
in  order  to  perfect  his  invention,  and 
such  description  and  experinifiits,  it' 
successful,  will  be  considered  as  sulli- 
cient  ovidonco  of  an  assertion  of  his 
right  at  the  time  he  made  tliini, al 
though  a  subsequent  inventor  may  iirt^t 
perfect  the  invention  ami  obtain  a  pat- 


INVKNTION,  (.,  1>. 


420 


ORIUINAUTY    AMU  i'lllOlUTV  ur.      NOVKI.TY   AND   l' 111.11  Y    Of. 


(lit  lIuMi'lur;  iiH'l  siicli  prior  'nvt'iilor 
will  111'  lillf'i  I"  :i  pilt'iil.  I>l>fs  V. 
Ihini/iiii'i,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)  M..usi.:ii., 
J,-  l).  ('•■,  iwr>n;  (iif>fm  v.  .lolmsoit. 
Jhi,f.,  1H(K). 

r)j,  Siifh  ilrscnplioiiH    tiKiy  1m>  oral, 
iiiul  ni'ftl  ii«»t  iHTi'Msariiy  he  in  wriliiiir, 

or  afi'"iii|''"''''''  'O' " ''''''^*'"'K'  /'''''• 
.i:!.  'Hit'  ioadiii;^  rule  is  tliat  a  person 
will)  is  I'lilitifd  to  a  patt'Ml  ai  il  lo  l>c 
iiidtfctcil  in  l>i^  [iropt-rl y,  inusi  not  on! , 
conceive  llio  iil*'!i  "I'  iii>  invmiion,  i>nt 
mnstiniliiiiiy  it  in  a  niacliinc  or  in  sonic 
workint,'  arr:in;^i'im'nl,  l»y  wliicii  it  may 
be  hIiowii  llial  his  new  i<i<'a  is  ad.-iplnl 
topniclifal  ami  siicci'ssl'iil  nsc.  Wlnnnn 
\.  J),iiijoii/i,  .MS.— Nki.son,  J.;  N.  V., 
18110. 

5t.  Tlio  party  who  first  conceives  the 
idi'ii  ur  conception  of  iin  inv(ntion  is 
c'lilitlcil  to  ii  patent,  provided  he  pur- 
sues liis  idea  or  conception  and  reduces 
it  to  practice)  within  a  reasonable  tinn-, 
though  .mother  may  h.ave  first  aclnally 
reduced  the  invention  to  practice.  /A/t. 
Piuh.  Co.  v.  Win,/,  IMS.  (.\pp.  {'as.)— 
DuNLor,  J. ;  D.  C,  IHOO. 

r)5.  Tii(!  first  inv«'ntor  is  entitled  to  a 
reasoiiahle  time,  to  lie  jndj^ed  of  accord- 
lug  to  the  circninstances  of  the  particu- 
lar cmsc,  in  wliich  to  ])erfect  his  inven- 
tion, without  impairiiiir  his  claim  to  pri- 
oiity.  If  he  is  usinj^  reasonahle  dili- 
gence, ho  will  not  lose  his  rii^ht,  thontjh 
auotluM"  first  making  a  working  inven- 
liou.  ApplctoHS  V.  C/i<nnher,%  MS. 
(App.  Clas.)— MousKi.L,  J. ;  I).  C,  18(50. 
50.  An  inventor  who  first  perfects  an 
invention,  and  applies  for  and  obtains  a 
patent  fur  it,  will  not  he  deprived  of  his 
right  to  such  patent  by  a  more  tardy 
luul  negligent  inventor,  who  may  have 
iiist  conceived  the  idea  of  the  invention, 
but  did  nothing  toward  reducing  it  to 
practice,  or  applying  for  a  patent  for  it. 


Wonrr  V.   Fnrfwa,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
Di  Ni.oi',  .1.;  I).  ('.,  iHdi. 

TiT.  Where  A  conceived  the  "iilea" 
of  an  invention,  but  made  no  drawing 
of  It  for  six  or  seven  months,  and  in  the 
im-an  time  It  had  conceivetl  the  same 
invention,  and  had  node  a  model  of  it, 
thus  giving  />/ii/.iiriil J'nrni  oiiil  s/ufpr  to 
hid  conception,  //ii<f,  that  15  was  to  lie 
considered  as  having  first  perfected  IiIh 
invention.      Ifihf. 

t)H.  If  a  penon,  siHler  having  the  con- 
ception of  an  invention,  is  nsing  due 
diligence  to  perfect  it  and  retliice  it  to 
|iraetice,  he  will  still  be  dee:ned  the  first 
inventor,  though  another,  whoconceive<l 
the  id»'a  later,  miiy  have  first  perfect«Ml 
th(^  idea  1>y  mamifac^turing  th(>  thing  in- 
vented. Jlirks  V.  S/iKvcr^  MS.  (.App. 
Cas.)— Di/Ni.op,  J. ;  I).  (;.,  18(11. 

C!.    OltnilNAl.lTY    AND    ruIoUITV    OK. 

SeeiilsolNVKNTOU,  H.;  I'kiouKnowi.- 
KIMiK. 

As  to  evidence  in  res))pct  to  original- 
ity, see  Kvii)KN(;e,  II.  4. 

U.    NOVKLTY   AND   UtII.ITY   OF. 

As  to  evi(h'ncp  in  respect  to  novelty 
and  utility,  see  Evidknck,  II.  5. 

1.  If  tlie  principles  of  a  machine  are 
new,  ('ither  to  produce  a  new  or  an  ohl 
effect,  the  inventor  is  entitlecl  to  the  ex- 
clusive  right   of   the   whole   machine. 

Wldttcmore  v.  Cutter,  1   (iall.,  480. — 
Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

2.  The  intrinsic  difficulty  is  to  ascer- 
tain in  complicated  cases  the  exact 
boundaries  hetween  wli.at  was  known 
and  nsed  hefore,  and  what  is  new  in 
the  mode  of  oper.ition.     Ibid.,  481. 


r  ItkMI'f ^»^W'WV wWk*!' 


430 


INVKNTION,  n. 


NOVKI.TV    AND    ITIMTY   OV, 


m 


lil. 


;',  Till'  iliscovory  iinist  not  only  lit' 
u>-'ful  liiil  now,  and  must  not  liavf  bron 
known  or  usi'<l  hi'loii' in  imy  piU't.  ol'tlic 
world.  Ami  tlu'  title  of  tlio  patontrc 
may  III' iniitcaclu'd  by  sliowinjjj  that   he 


to  Ibc  «b»i;n'o  of  utility.     Jt,ilf,>r,f  ,^ 
Jliiiit^  1  Mas.,  yo;j. — Stoky,  .F.  ;  M;isy 

1817. 

7.   An  inv(>nti«)n  tot'iititlo  the  inventor 
to  a  palriit,  must  not  only  be  uscjui,  Imt 


was  not  the  first   inventor,  an«i  this  too  '  it  must  also  be  new;  it  is  a  tjood  (Iclcnc,, 
whetlier  the  patentee  was  aware  of  such   in   an  aetion  of  infringement    tlial  the 


prior  tliseovery  ov  not.  J'jrann  v.  /\<ttoti, 
IVt.,  C.  C,  ;<4'2.— NVAsiiiN.iToN,  J.; 
Pa.,  1810.     [.\trirnie(i,  ;>(>.«((?  S.l 

4.  If  an  invention,  in  the  form  in 
w hiih  it  eame  from  the  inventor's  liantis, 
was  so  inferior  to  other  machines  as  to 
<Jei>rive  it  of  all  intrinsic  value,  yet  if 
another  person  can  superatM  to  it  some- 
thing which  will  remove  its  defects  and 
vender  it  useful,  it.  1  "comes  valuable, 
because  of  itH  eapaeity  to  receive  such 
improvements;  and  the  inventor  of 
Kuch  improvements  has  n  )  right  to  avail 
himself  of  the  original  discovery  on 
which  to  engratl  his  own.  (jfr<ti/  v. 
J(unvs,  I'et.,  C'. C,  4S0. — Wasiiinuton, 
J.;  Pa.,  1817.     [IJut  see;^rw/  21.| 

5.  The  patent  law  recpiires  an  inven- 
tion lobe  new  and  useful,  but  all  that 
the  law  re<iuires  is  that  the  invention 
should  not  be  frivolous  or  injurious  to 
the  well-being,  good  jiolicy,  or  sound 
Tuor-ils  of  society.  The  word  "  useful" 
is  used  in  contradistinction  to  mischiev- 
ous or  immoral.  AVhelher  the  inven- 
tion be  more  or  less  jiseful  is  a  circum- 
stance of  no  importance  to  the  public. 
JLotciU  V.  TjcicIs,  I  Mas.,  180. — Stouv. 
J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

0.  By  useful  invention  is  meant  sncli 
a  one  as  m.ay  be  ai^plied  to  some  bene- 
ficial use  in  society,  in  contradistinction 
to  an  invention  which  is  injurious  to  the 
morals,  the  health,  or  the  good  order  of 
society.  But  it  need  not  be  of  such 
general  utility  as  to  supersede  all  other 
inventions  in  practice  to  accomplish  the 
same  purpose.    The  law  does  not  look 


thing  patented  was  not  origiii.illv  ilis- 
covered  by  the  patentee,  but  h;ii|  li,.,.i| 
beftu'e  discover«'d  and  put  in  actual 
use.      //>/(/. 

8.  If  the  thing  patented  had  been  in 
use,  or  described  in  a  public  work,  an- 
terior to  the  supposed  dis<'overv  df 
the  patentee,  his  patent  is  void;  ami 
this:dthough  the  patentee  had  no  knowl- 
edge of  sucii  previous  use  or  previous 
description;  the  l;i\v  supposes  he  niav 
have  known  it.  JiJratis  v.  J-'afon,  ,1 
Wheat.,  514. — JMausiiall,  Ch.  ,1.;  Siip. 
Ct.,  1818. 

{'.  In  respect  to  the  utility  of  an  in 
vent  ion,  the  law  only  requires  that  an 
invention  should  not  be  frivolous  or  in 
jurious  to  the  well-being,  go«)d  policy, 
and  sound  morals  of  society.  The 
word  nxcfid  in  the  act  is  used  in  con 
tradistinct  lou  to  mischievous  or  inunoial. 
JuK'dss  v.  Sc/iin/l.  Jiiwk\  4  Wash.,  J2. 
— Wasiii.vcton,  J. ;  Pa.,  1820. 

10.  An  invention  or  improvement,  foi 
wliich  a  patent  has  been  obtained,  nnisi 
be  ..seful  within  the  meaning  of  tlic 
patent  law,  or  the  patent  will  be  void 
LangJon  v.  De  Groot.  1  Paine,  'J04- 
200.— Livixc.STON,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1 S22. 

1 1 .  To  what  extent  an  in  vent  ion  must 
be  useful  to  render  it  the  stihjcet  of  a 
patent,  "\\  ill  depend  upon  the  particular 
circumstances  of  each  case,  and  for 
which  no  general  rule  can  be  given,  but 
it  must  in  some  small  measure  at  least 
be  beneficial  to  the  community.  Ihid.^ 
204. 

1 2.  An  invention  for  folding  thread  or 


INVKNTION,  I). 


431 


*^^^' 


NOVKI.TT   AKII  lITIMTr  OK. 


odttoii  ill  a  iiion'oniJUin'iitiil  tnaiiiicr,  l»y 
which  till'  artifl*'  \v«»iilil  hcII  <|iii<'k»'r,  and 
at  11  liiji'i*'''  l>r'<'<S  ''"'  wliicli  niinhi  no 
j,|,.,i,^(.  ill  tlin  j'lticli',  is  not,  u  nscl'iil  iii- 
vciilion  witliiii  the  patent,  laws,  thoiii^li 
hciii'iiciiil  to  the  pati'iilci'.  /AAA,  20rt, 
i;i.  Till'  thiiij^  palcnti'tl  must  he  new 
anil  not  bofort'  known  or  tiHcd  ;  tiiat  iw, 
till'  I'iii'ly  nnist  have  fonnd  ont,  creatcfl, 
or  constriu'teil  some  art,  niaeliiiu',  &e., 
or  imiuoveineiit  on  some  art,  inacliine, 
&i\,  wliit'h  had  not  lieen  previously 
found  out,  created  or  const  nulled  l»y 
any  otlior  person.  AWfe  v.  fSntri/cr,  4 
Mas.,  6.— Stoky,  J. ;  Mass.,  IH'ir.. 

14.  It  is  of  no  eonsefpn'nce  wlietlier 
the  tliiiif.^  J)c  simple  or  compliealed, 
whether  it  be  by  accident  or  by  lon<^ 
liihorious  tlioiifj;lit,  or  by  an  instanlaMe- 
ous  lliish  of  mind,  t  li.'it  it  is  tirst  doiu^ 
The  law  looks  to  the  fact,  and  not  to 
the  process  by  which  it  is  accomplished. 
Jliid.,  0. 

15.  All  invention  must  bo  useful,  that 
is,  not  n(»xious  or  mischievous,  but  ea- 
piihle  of  beiiifi  .applied  to  js<'>h\  purposes; 
and  perhaps  it  may  also  be  a  just  inter- 
jirctation  of  tlio  law,  that  it  meant  to 
I'xclude  things  .absolutely  frivolous  and 
foolish.    Ibid.,  G. 

10.  The  question  is,  whetlier  the 
tliiii<?  has  been  known  before.  In  ease 
of  a  machine,  whether  it  has  been  sub- 
Ktanti.illy  constructed  before ;  in  case 
oi'an  improvement  of  amachine,  whether 
tliat  improvement  lias  ever  been  a))plied 
to  such  a  machine  before,  or  whether 
it  is  substantially  a  new  combination. 
Ilnd.y  C,  7. 

17.  The  word  "useful"  in  tlic  p.atcnt 
law  is  well  settled  as  being  used  in  con- 
tiadi.stiiiction  to  frivolous  inventions  or 
inipvovements,  or  such  as  are  injurious 
to  the  public.  Whitney  v.  JiJmmett, 
Baldwhi,  300.— Baldwin,  J. ;  Pa.,  1831. 


IH.  The  w.'Uit  of  utility  may  be  a 
good  reason  for  not  issuing  a  patent, 
but  is  no  cause  for  avoiding  it.     /A/*/,, 

11).  The  novtrlty  of  an  invention  is 
either  the  numufacture  produee<|,  or  thu 
mimner  of  producing  an  old  one  ;  if  the 
patent  is  for  the  former,  it  must  be  foi 
something  substantially  new,  dilferenl 
from  what  was  known  before;  if  tho 
latter,  the  nKxlu  of  operation  must  bo 
diiVerent,  not  a  mere  change  of  the  form 
and  proportions.  If  both  are  tin*  same 
in  principle,  structure,  mode  of  opera- 
tion, .and  produce  the  same  result,  they 
are  not  new,  though  there  may  be  a 
variaiuHt  in  some  small  matter  for  tho 
piu'pose  of  evasion,  or  as  a  color  for  a 
pat(;nt.     ffnit.,  311, 

'JO.  The  invention  must  be  new  sis  to 
all  the  worhl,  not  tin;  abstract  dis(M»v- 
ery,  but  the  thing  invented,  not  tho 
secret  principle,  but  the  mainifacturo 
resulting  from  it.     Ihitf.,  Mil. 

'21.  The  ingenious  reasoning  of  tho 
learned  judge;  in  (Jlray  v.,  Jatuiin,  IVt., 
('.  C,  4H0,  is  not  H.atisfa(;tory.  It  is  not 
evident  how  the  owner  of  a  thing  which 
is  worthless,  and  which  has  been  thrown 
jiway  as  useless,  can  sustain  any  dam- 
age by  the  use  of  such  thing  made  use- 
ful only  by  being  condnned  with  some- 
thing else,  or  so  changed  in  its  opera- 
tion by  an  invention  to  which  the  own- 
er of  tho  Avorthle.ss  thing  had  no  elaiiu 
or  title.     Ibid.,  328. 

22.  An  invention,  in  order  to  be  the 
subject  of  a  patent,  must  ))e  uscfful  for 
some  beneficial  purpose,  in  contradis- 
tinction to  pernicious  or  injurious. 
Dickinson  v.  Hall,  14  Pick.,  220.— 
SiiAW,  Ch.  J.;  Mass.,  1S33. 

23.  Under  the  provisions  of  g§  G  and 
7  of  the  act  of  183G,  a  patent  is  to  bci 
issued  only  to  a  person  who  has  discov- 


ir^i:. 


?!"; 


t 


*^-4. 


.    'I  • 


<4 


•t  ■ 

>■-  ♦ 


if  ■ 


'Ifl 


lir- 


4.12 


INVKNTION,  I). 

KDVKMV  AMI  nii.irv  or. 


ori'il  i»r  iincnli'il  sn 


lU'l , 


ini<  >'>«*  tiiKl    iiMt 


fill    nf  willli'NNOM.      ir  |1»>    ICNiiIl 


'<   "Tf  tllfllT- 


or  r«iint>  lu'w  iiiiil   iiNi't'iil  ill)     t<iit,  il    iirf;iii>s  u  NiiliNliiiitiiil  il 


lllll.ro 


III 


provoiiuMH  oil  nil  iirt,  »li'.     h'liHjwr,  /•',>•  \  llif  mo(li>  oroptMiilioM  ;  iIh'  ichhIiv  loiiiil 
}uirt<\    Ms.    ( A)i|>.  Cms.)     (.'n  \N(  ii,  t'li.    iioI    Im>   .lill'(>n-ii(    il'  tin-   mciiiiM  ;m>  ihr 


.1.;  1>.  ('..  isil. 

'J  I.  .Vs  to  iIh<  iililily  of  .-in  iinciilioii, 
tlio  <|iu's(i,in  is  no!  wlu'lluT  llu>  iiivrii- 
lioii  is  UNcl'iiI  hoyoiiil  :ill  ollicrs  tor  t'lVci-l- 
iiiix  llu'  olijci'ls  lor  ^vliii'ji  it  wjis  (li>sijr 


Mine.      />(/»'(»//  V.   Ih'otnn^  M  Wcsl.  |, 


ti- 


ll w 


our. 


i:.l.      W 


oonin'HV, 


Al 


nsN,, 


iHir., 


.M>.    Il, 


IS  iiol    lUM't'SKiirv,  lo  iniiitil 


nil  II 


III 


pjilcnl,  or  llio  ri^lil  ol' llic  iiivciiiur,  th 
t'll,  bill    whollicr  il    is  cmiciMc  in  some  !  iIic  lliiii-!:  iiivcnliMl  nIidiiM   lie  ||,(.  V('i\ 
ih'^it't'   of   ln'iu'liciiil   use,  or   woiiltl   in  I  lu'sl    iirlicic  lor  llic  use  lo  wlijcli  it 
soiiii'  (lojxrt'i'  sul(Si"\«'  the  |)im|ios«'  oI'    lie  Mpplii'tl.      Il'il  iNiil  nil  Viilimlilc,  jf 
ils  tli'siijii;  or  wlu'llior,  on  llic  coniiiirv,    iiso  lor  llit>  purpoM(«  lor  wliicli  it  i 
il  w  :is  nn'it'ly  inisi'liiovous  :iiitl  injurious, 
or  ptMuivioiis,  oi    IriNoloiis  aiiil  worlli 


t'.'iii 
ilH 


-<    coil 


OSS. 

no. 


l>\n)hiH'\.  }fin'ifi  »,  l:t  N.  Iliiini). 


W 


o«>os. 


.1.;   N.II.,  ISIJ. 


i'j>. 


inju'liiiu'  or  ;ipp:iriiliis,  or  ollu'r 
in«'i'li:ini>';il  (•oittriv.iiu'c,  in  order  to  ;viv«' 
a   ]i;irty    a   claim   lo  a   palcnl    lIuMdor, 


innsi  III  I 


Isoir 


lu<  siihslanliallv  iii>\v. 


ir 


Nlrnctctl  is  praclicaltif,  tlial  is  MiiJliciiMii 
loHiistaiii  il  MM  a  iiscrni  iiivniliun.  ,1/,, 
III/  \.  ./iti/;/, i\  I  lUali'hr.,  ;tH|.  Nh.isiiN, 
.l".  ;   N.  v.",  IHJM. 

HO.  A  iiovclly  ill  principle  niiiv  con 
sist  ill  a  new  and  valii:iMe  mode  of  an 
plyiiiu'  an  old    power;  alleeiinu  ji  n, 


II 


S)H(tlliriU)if,  '2  Slorv,    111. — Srouv,  .1. 


:m 


ISS. 


ISl. 


merely  l>y  a  new  niMlriiiiieiit  or  liirin  of 
il  is  old,  :ind  applied  imly  lo  ,i  new  piir-  llie  maeliiiie,  or  any  mere  ei|iiivjilciit, 
pose,  llial  does  not  make  il  palenl.'iMe.  ImiI  Ity  sonielliinij  }j;i\in;.^  it  a  new  or 
The  iiiaeliine  must  lie  new,  not  merely  ,i;ri>aler  advaiilaij*'.  //i>i'ii/\.,Sf,r(iix, 
the  purpose  lo  which  applied.     /!i<ni  v.  i  I  Wood.tV:  lMiii.,'Ji>T,"JltH.  -  Wooihii'kv, 

.1.;   MasH.,  IHtO. 

;tl.  To  he  paU'iilabh',  an  iiiveiition 
niusl  he  iisel'iil.  Ihit  in  ascertaiiiiie' llii' 
iisetuhiess  of  an  iiivenlioii,  it  is  not  im- 
p«)rlaiii  thut.  it  should  be  more  valiiulili' 
ihaii  any  other  inodoH  of  lu'eoinplisliiii!,' 
I  he  saim>  resiill  ;  but  i|.  must  he  a  piac- 
lieable  iiielhod  of  «h)in;.j  llie  lliiii!,'  dc- 
sijjfiied,  ill  which  its  utility  will  iiiorc  or 
less  consist.  liobevts  v.  Wurd^  4  iMo- 
licau,  ,'>0(». — McIiiCAN,  .1.;  Midi.,  IH4!l. 
\V1.  The  riglit  of  llu'  inventor  docs 
not   depeiul  upon  the  qiiesliou  wlictlicr 


'ICi.  \  purpose  is  not  patentable  ;  but 
the  machinerv  oiilv,  if  new,  bv  which  il 
is  to  be  aci'onipiished.  In  other  wonis, 
the  tliintj  ilsell' which  is  jialeiiled  iiiiisl 
be  new,  and  not  the  mere  applic.alioii  of 
il  lo  a  new  ]>uriH)so  or  object.  IMif.., 
411. 

'27.  It  is  not  A  now  invention,  if  .'ill 
the  parts  of  a  combination  had  bei'ii  ap- 
jilicd  to  a  ditVcreiU  object  before,  and 
they   were  now  only  applied  to  a  new 

object.     Jfoiri/w  J/oin/,  W  West.  Law   the  ni.aclilne  is  more  or  less  perfect,  or 
Jour.,     15.^. — Wooimruv,  ,1.;      Mass.,    whether  sliglit  iiiodilic.'itioiis  in  the 
1845.  j  raiiLjemeiit  of  llie  machinery,  or  in  tlic 

'2^\  A  combination  which  has  any  new  i  linishiiit?  of  the  i»urts  composing  it,iii;i}' 
mode  of  operation,  is  to  be  considered  or  may  not  bettor  uccoiiiplish  liic  oml 
as  new  ;  to  dotermino  this,  it  is  bettor  souglit  to  be  attained;  but  upon  llio 
to  look  at  results  than  to  the  ojiinions  question  whether  tho  inachiiicry,  cou- 


L**^*., 


INVKNTION.  I». 


4.'lil 


NovHi.iT  AND  iiiiLnr  or. 


Hiniolt'd  as  (li'Mfiilifil  ill  ilii>  pult'iil,  wil 
ill  111)1   iii'i'iiiiijiliNli   tlii>  <>ihI  |iriirli 


or  wi 


(•:illv  11" 


rliiiiM,  luiil  Ih  ill  ilMi'ir  iiiiHM'ciit.    II  iv»><l 


inn 


Im>  II 


l<<  I't'NM 


ll   nl- 


^iiiiiliii)^  It  |iiiti'iit, 


I   iis*'t'iill\  ill   till*   u  iiy  |)i>iiili'<l  I  Mini  )'vil  i-iiiiiiol,  it  nii<^r|it  in  li<>  ^'jutiliil. 


tint. 
411'; 


I'lii'hhin-st  V.  Kiiiximni,  I   lilrtlclir. 


Nkihiin, 


.1.;   N.  v.,  IHIU. 


iiiii'* 


;i;i.    An   iiivciiliDti,   In    lti<   |i:ili'iiliililt< 
I  iiiil.  only  III' iiin<  lii.'il  <>:iii  lir  iciliir 


,.,1  to  jiriK'lin',  liiil  iiniHl  Im>  <iiit<  nl' ituiiii> 
iilililv.     n»l  't'*  I"  tl"'  iililil y  of  nil  in 
vriilion,  tlio  i|ii<<>i|iiin   is  mil   uliclliri'   il 
is  llii'  Ii*'h|.  <iiii<  kiinwn  III  lln>  |iiililii',  nor 


Jii'llicr  il  il*"'^  ilf*  NViiiK 


lii'll 


cror  liislrr 


lliiiii  niiv  iiliii'i'  nini'liiii)'  in  llii<  Hnini'  ili< 
iiiulinciil  ot   Inlmr,  Iml  il'  il  lie  In  n  wy 


;iiii  di'^trrt" 


iiMt'l'iil,  it  in  Hiillirii'iil.     117/ 


A//r  V.  Itii'i'liii',  'i!   Illnlrlil'.,  i:iV.     Ni;i, 
.1.;   N.  v.,  IH.M). 


miN, 


;M.  Ill  ili'ciilin;^  n|ioii  iin  n|i|ili('nliiin 
fur  !i  |i,il<'nl,  lilt'  <|iu'sli(in  in  iml  wlicllicr 
tli(<  invciilioii  is  ni(ii'<<  nNi'l'iil  limn  uilicrH, 
Iml  wiit'lliii'  il  is  new  nml  HiiHicit'iilly 
useful  Id  jiislil'y  il  jinli'iil.  J/Zv//,  /'> 
p„rk  (rio|i(.||.Ts),  iMS.  (,\|i|i.  Cns.) 


CuAiNlil. 


V\u.\.\  I ).('.,  iHr.o. 


;i:i.  IfiiiltT  55  7  of  ilit«  net  (if  |H:i(t, 
ii|Miii  nil  ('xiiiiiinntiiin  (if  nn  n|)|ili<'nliiiii 
fur  il  jintcnl,  it'  il  a|i|i(*iirH  lliiit  llio  nitil^ 
ter  i'or  whicli  lln*  piiliuit  ih  (;liiinit'<|  lind 
mil  'u'l'ii  invcnlcd  or  discovered  liy  iiny 
|u'i'S(iii  in  lliis  eoiint.ry  |irior  to  (he  in- 
vctirKiii  or  dis(M)very  liy  tlie  a|i|)lieiinl, 
or  liiul  Mol  lioeii  putented  or  di-Hcrihed 
in  luiy  prinled  piil)lieiilion,  or  IddI  not 
liccii  ill  jMililie.  nse,  or  on  side,  willi  the 
consent  and  iillowiiiKH;  of  the  iippliennl, 
it  is  thv  diitij  of  IIk)  CoininisHioner  to 
^Munt  il  jiiiteiil,  if  in  his  opinion  the 
tliiiitj  is  nitjfiric/ifli/  u HI  fid  or  iniporluiit. 
Aikciis,  /'>  parte  {Vaw  \Vheels)t,  MS. 
^A]l|l.  Cas.)~CHAN<ii,  (Jh.  J.J  J).  C!., 
1850. 

;iO.  lUit  the  (It'j^roi)  of  nsefidness  or 
importiiiioe  is  not  descrihoil  or  liinitod 
by  the  Btatute  ;  nor  w  it  materiiil  if  the 

raalter  intcrforca  with  no  prior  right  or 

28 


Ihiil. 

'•\'i.  Novelty  and  nlilily  in  nn  inven- 
tion are  nil  llml  llx'  slnlnli'  leipiireH  ih 
n  rMiidiliiiti  for  ).',i:iiirni)r  a  pnlcnt.  It  in 
liol,  llieieliire,  n  ^llod  olijertioll  to  ii 
paleni  llml  the  urian^einent  ntid  eoin- 
liiimlion  einiined  wan  no  Hiinple  niid  oli- 
vions  lis  not  to  he  Hiilijeel  of  a  paleiit. 
Mii'itrniii'l'  V.  Si  i/nmiir,  2  lilalrhl'.,  2  IM, 
211.     Ni;i,soN,  .!.;   N.  V.,  IHr.|. 

:\H.  As  III  the  ipiestion  of  novelty,  ihe 
ini|iiiry  is,  whether  ihe  alle|rrd  piinr 
nmehiiies  are  idenlienl  willi  ihoseof  |||«^ 
jilaiiiliir, 


or    will 


III 


er, 


has     iiiaile  II 


ditVerent   one,  involviiif^   a  new   opeia- 
lioii,  nnd  producing  n  new  elfert.    /A///., 

•/in. 

;i!t,  Any  decree  of  nlilily  is  snnicient 
to  Hiipport  u  pnleni,  the  word  iiHifiil,  in 
the  pMleiit  law  lieiiii;  used  in  oppoHilinn 
\t>J'riiui/iiiiN  or  iinjriintH  y  it  is  not  iieees- 
sary  II  at  the  Ihin;^  invented  Hhoiihl  l»e 
the  Itest  of  its  kind  -as  that  iin  iniprnve- 
inent  in  tho  Htrnetnre  of  railroad  v;wa 
Hhniild  rendi^r  them  entirely  safe  for  pas- 
sengers, WiiiiiiiH  v.  Si/iiiiii'.  cfc  Trny 
Ii.  /i.,  '2  Kialelil'.,  2W),  '2iH. — Nki.hon, 
OoNKiiNo,  .1.1.;   N.  v.,  IH5I. 

■to,  'I'he  degree  of  the  utility  of  an 
invention  \h  not  a  Hiilij(!(;t  of  considera- 
lion  in  deterininini^  whether  an  inven- 
tion is  jiiitentidile,  Sinhy,  l'].r,  jmrfc,., 
IMS.  (App.  CiiH.)—MoiiHi;i,i,,  ,1, ;  \).  (',, 
\Hr,\\. 

4  I,  A  nuuhine,  in  (irdor  tf>  iinticipatc; 
iuiy  HiihsefjiKMit  discovery,  must  he.  per- 
f(!cted,  thiit  is,  uiJide  so  as  to  Ix;  of  juac- 
ticiil  utility,  and  not  be  irnirely  experi- 
niontal,  and  end  in  ex|ierinient.  Until 
of  pniotieal  utility,  the  public,  attention 
is  not  called  to  the  invention ;  it  doen 
not  give  tu  the  public  that  which  the 


*^n: 


r.-W\ 


J 


,«..  w^W^ 


ilK^I^^Jt^ 


■^-:^ 


::,■-  *K' 


484 


INVKNTION,  I>. 


NOVKt.TY    ANI>   I' Til  \V\    of. 


puUIlo  lays  lioltl  of  ns  lu'in'licial,  /A»(r» 
V.  I'/nfcnroinl,  MS.  Si'UA«iii:,  J.; 
Mjim.,  is:. I. 

•J -J.  WluTo,  in  II  jtatoiit  for  iinprovi'- 
inontM  in  fookiiii;  sloxcs,  ilu>  flaiiu  was 
"tho  |tlnfinix  tli»«  lin«  i-haiiilu'r  in  tlu' 
initl«lU>  of  the  oven,  ho  that  the  latlrr 
limy  rt'coivo  tin'  lu'ut  on  thr»'o  KitU's  at 
onoo ;"  '•»'  thrro  was  no  ju'culiarity  in 
till'  ovon  or  llri'  cliaMiluT,  and  tlu'  invrn- 
tioii  a|)|irai't'(l  to  hi',  tlial  instratl  of 
I'orniin^j:  thn'i^  ovons  or  foinpartinonls 
around  thv  lir»>  chainluT,  as  usual,  the 
iiwintor  rnnovod  tho  partitions  holiind 
tlu'  (ill'  I'hamhi'is,  and  niado  a  sini^lc 
oookitiix  s|)a»'»'  insti'ad  ot"  thn'o;  '/"» /•.'/, 
WhcthiT  tho  «'lianjji'  is  a  ])at«'iitahh> 
ihsiMViTv.  Wilson  V.  Joiifx,  ;\  IMatihf., 
•J:9.— KKfTs.  J.;  N.  v..  ISal. 

4n.  It'  a  n»\v  and  usotiil  result  is  pni 
duood,  iioithcr  the  simplicity  of  tho 
siruoturo  nor  t!iO}»ro;itor  or  loss  amount 
of  invent  ion  or  intolloot  employed  as 
an  element,  are  of  iinporlanee  in  tloter- 
niinin;;;  the  validity  of  tho  patent,     '/'usi' 

^■.   P/ulj>l*.\    MoAllis.,  :.0.— M»A|.I.ISTK1{, 

J.;  Cal.,  1855. 

44.  'riio  patentees  need  not,  j.rovo 
their  diseovory  to  he  useful  to  any  emi- 
nent or  larjve  decree.  It.  is  suflioiont  if 
it  produces  an  improved  artiolo  at  loss 
cost,  or  with  more  expedition  than  any 
other  known  methods;  that  ri'udors  the 
dise«)Vory  useful,  within  tho  meaning  of 
the  patent  laws.  Carr  v.  Itioe,  MS. — 
JJkits,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

45.  The  rtord  "  useful,"  in  g  0  of  the 
act  of  1'';}G,  and  as  used  in  i^  1  of  tho 
act  of  170;i,  is  not  used  for  tho  purpose 
of  establishing  general  utility  as  the 
test  of  a  sufficiency  of  invention  to  sjij*- 
j>ort  the  patent.  It  is  used  merely  in 
contradistinction  to  what  is  frivolous 
or  mischievous  to  the  public.  It  is  suf- 
ficient if  the  invention  has  any  utility. 


Whiti  rtnntv  \.  fixfint/fitn,  MS.—W,,. 
HON,  tl. ;  tHiiii,  iH.itl. 

4»l.  'I'ln*  utility  «if  an  invention  u  ;ii, 
OHsenlial  reipiisilu  t<»  the  validity  of  |||,, 
patent.  A  nsi'less  invention,  e\».|i  \( 
patented,  is  not,  and  will  not  lie  of  imy 
profit  to  the  public.  Hut  a  ^ciicr.'il 
utility  iH  not  proseriltod  by  the  Htnliitc  an 
tho  tost  of  tho  Hutlieioney  of  the  iii\,.|i 
tion.  The  word  is  used  in  roiiii;i,|is. 
tinetion  to  what  is  tViv«)lous,  or  wUm  js 
niisehievons  to  tho  public.  J',/,/,'  \, 
Arm/,  MS. — Wii.iiiNs,  .1. ;  Midi.,  |h,'.;. 

47.  An  invention  not  obnovioiiH  lo 
those  objections,  wliolhor  more  or  !^s^ 
useful,  if  it  be  4if  <i/ii/  use,  is  eiiiliiaicii 
within  tho  spirit  of  tho  law.  A  Nlii^Jn 
imnrovomont  of  an  old  inaeliinc  is  ji 
nseiul  improvement.      //'/(/. 

4H.  It  is  not  necessary  thai  tin-  ntilitv 
of  an  invention  should  bo  great,  it  i> 
sutlieient  if  tho  invention  is  an  iiiiprovo 
ment  at  all.  If  it  is  of  a  diU'eniii  cuii 
strui'tion  from  former  .'irticlcs  el"  iIk 
same  kind,  and  of  any  use,  lliat  is  siiffi 
oiont.  Clitnidlrr  v.  l^uld,  MS.  (Apii, 
Cas.)— MousKi.i,,  J.;  1).  C,  1857. 

41).  In  tho  allowance  of  a  palciit  tlio 
(piestion  of  noM-lty  should  not  lie  Iod 
rigorously  qiu'stionod,  l)ut  the  liomtil 
of  any  doid»t  should  bo  given  to  tli( 
:ipplio:!nt,  as  if  his  application  is  reject 
od,  anil  his  invention  have  real  iiatcnt 
able  novelty,  irronu'diable  injury  woiilil 
be  i>roduoed,  but  if  a  patent  is  ailnwnl, 
the  novelty  can  still  be  impiirtd  iiiti)  liy 
a  jnry.  C(>U\  J'Jx  juirti.,  MS.  {.V|i|i. 
Cas.) — Mkkiih;k,  .1. ;  I).  ('.,  IS;);. 

50.  It  is  no  ground  for  tho  njectioii 
of  an  api)lieation  for  a  patent  for  a  ('(im- 
position of  matter,  that  the  tliinjr  in- 
vented is  an  imitation  of  a  real,  exist- 
ing substance,  or  material — as  an  artili- 
cial  honey.  If  tho  artificial  is  a  <rood 
and  whoiesoine  t?ubstitute  for  the  real, 


«i»^W 


INVKNTION,  K. 


4n5 


IDNNTITT  or. 


bo  iim«io  iiiiil   Hii|i)ilici|   III  n 


,.l„.!U»"i'  nil.',  ll>«'i'«'  IS  II- 


jIiv  il  hIiouIiI  not  Im>  (ItMMiK'.l  ii  lu-w  iiiul 


WM'M  iii^«'" 


tioii.     <\>rltiii  «C   Miirthtt, 


A>/ 


itrii' 


MS.  (.V|»i».  CiiH.)     Mttusiii.i,, 


J,;    D.C,    IH.'.V. 

51.  Tlio  ilt'f^n-"   <»f  I'l"  iitilily  <"i'  im 

i„v,.|ilion,  in  ii«»(,  ii  iimtltT  of  cniisi.lcni 

ir  it  w.'tH  iis(>r(il  lit  tlit>  titiic  tlir 


til 


ijiti'iit  was  }^raiil«'il,  tlic  i»alt'iil  is  valitl. 
iliit  if  it  •'«><  l»»'«'«»in»'  iiN«'l«'>'f*  Hiticf,  liy 
liscoviMV  orHomi"  ntlitT  tliin;^,  wliirh 
,|„.,isi>s  willi  it,  lliiit  ^iv«'s  III)  lijriil  to 


till' I 


ill 


iillll'IH  III  »'*•' 


7V 


HUlU'llHtn    V. 


)'.  II.  /'.  ('»i»t>  ('"■■,  •    lllalclif.      Iniikii 
M.1.1..I.;  N.V.,  IM.^s. 
■);!.  It   Hri'iiiN  lliat    wIutc   mm   .•illf^cil 


iiivi'iiliiiii,  iipoii  n'«'iiv«'il   ami 


well    <'s 

l;ilili>lii'il  |triiici|ili'M,  is  in  fact  wholly  iii- 
,.,.i|i,il,l(.  of  aiiswfrii.j,',  practically,  tin* 
]iiir|Misi'  lor  wliirh  iiitcnili'ij,  or  claininl, 
ihiil  till'  C'lHiimissioiicr  (if  ratciils  will 
li,.  juslilicil  ill  n'riisiii^  {\n\  ap|ilicHtioii 
nil  ilifjzntuiiil  of  waul  of  utility,  (htnh- 
w,»*,  S.  I).,  A>  juftc,  MS.  (App.  Ciis.) 
-MousKi,!,,  J. ;  I).  ('.,  IBr.H. 

'1:1.  .\ii  iiivciitioii  must  \w  of  hoiiic 
iitilily;  11  p.'iU'iil.  cannot  be  j^rantiiil  lor 
;itliiiij,'alto;ictlicr  frivolous,  luittho  pr«'- 
siiiii|ilii)ii  on  the  fa<H>  of  the  |)alcnt  is 
lliat  il  is  of  soiuf  utility,  for  the  appli 
cant  is  ohii^cil  to  swear  that  the  inveii- 
tiim  is  useful  beloro  the  secnration  of 
tlic  |mt(!iit.  ('(ilrtHdH  V.  Liesor,  IMS. 
— liKAvirr,  J. ;  Ohio,  iH'il). 

.'i4.  The  stalnti^  makes  utility  essen- 
tial to  the  valiilily  of  a  patent,  but 
wiictluTit  exists  in  a  jj;iven  caso  h  to  be 
ikciiled  by  the  jury  upon  the  evidence 
siibjocl  to  the  decision  of  the  court  upon 
the  law.  [Imce  v.  CtntipUU,  MS. — 
Lkavht,  J.;  Ohio,  iH.'if). 

55.  birei^anl  to  utility,  it  is  well  set- 
tled that  the  court  will  not  be  very 
rigid  as  to  the  degree  of  utility ;  it  will 


not  impiire  into  tlio  precise  <|uanliiin  of 
value,  but  if  tlie  invention  be  iisi  I'ul  in 
any  i|e;rn>c,  and  not  alisolutely  worth' 
less,  the  patent  will  be  sustained.  I  hid. 
Ml.  The  decree  of  utility  ill  an  inven- 
tion is  not  iinporlanl.  If  (he  invention 
is  ust'fui,  though  it  docH  not  reipiiro 
^^real  inventive  power,  it  will  entitle  the 


inventor  to  a  patent. 


I4KI1 


A,  A' 


r  futrti\ 


MS.  (.\pp.  C.'as.)     MicuuicK,  J.;  I).  0. 


iHtlO. 


r»7.  If  an  invt'iilion  be  both  new  am 


1 


USI 


\\\l  it 


can 


not  I 


le   ini|ieac|ici|  lircausii 


I  b 


it  does  not  accomplish  all  that  a  san- 
).(uint«  inventor  has  (claimed  for  it.  I'!iimc» 
v.    f/oo/r,    MS. — Si'iiAdiMO,    J.;    Mans., 

iHdO. 

K.     Ikkn-iity  op-. 

See  also  (/oi.oKAhi.K  Vauiaiionh; 
h'.iitnvAi.KNiH;  Form;   Inikiikkhkni'kh. 

].  If  tho  Name  efleets  an;  produced 
by  two  machines,  by  the  same  mode  of 
operation,  the  princi|iles  fd'each  are  llio 
same.  If  the  same  eU'ects  are  produced, 
but  by  condtinutiotiH  of  machinery  opcr- 
atin<^  Hubst.antially  in  11  ditl'erenl  m:iu- 
lu-r,  the  jirinciples  ar<!  dilVerent.  Wliit- 
ftnioir  V.  (,'iitfi.r,  1  tJall,  IHI.  -  Sroitv, 
.1.;  Mass.,  IKI.'J. 

'J.  'riitt  samo  eleijieiits  of  motion,  and 
the  same  powers,  must  be  i-inployed  in 
iilinost  all  m.'KtIiines.  'IMie  mateiial  ipies 
tion  therefore!  is  not  whether  the  same 
I'lements  »»f  motion,  or  the  same  com- 
ponent p.'irts  nro  used,  but  whether  tho 
f^iveii  eflect  is  produced]  Hubsl.'mtially 
by  the  s.amo  mode  of  opc^ralion,  and  iIk! 
same  combination  of  powers  in  both 
macliine.H.  Mere  color.able  difl"eren(!eH, 
or  Hli^ht  improvements,  cannot  shjikii 
the  ri;^ht  of  tlu;  orif^inal  inventor.  Oifi- 
itrnv  V.  Winklf')jy  2  Gall.,  54. — Stouy, 
J.;  Mass.,  1814. 


■vu,/ 


ttl^ii* 


\^<^ 


't^^\ 


!**'--.< 


4.1ft 


INVKNTU)N.  IC. 


iKMMnrT  ttv. 


i 


^t 


'-M 


^' 


:i.  Whiil  (<iiiiMiiiiili<i4  II  ilinVmii't'  in 
)ii  itii'i|ili<  ln'lwi'i'ii  t«i>  nil.  ItMH'H,  in  iVc 
i|iii'nllv  II  i|iii'.<tiiMi  ul' tlilHi  iill> ,  iiiiitc 
(<x|>i'<  i'ill>  il  till'  <lil)'i  Mint'  ill  liHiii  Ih 
«>oiii«iil«>riil)|i>.  mill  llii>  niin'liitii'r>  I'ttiit- 
|>li. •:»(«'. I.      f»'riM/  v,i/.m;».,«,   I'l't.  ('.  <'.. 


;n>', 


>v 


VslMNulO 


\..I     i     I'il..    I  HI 


4.  .\i  il  )',i'iiri!tl  mil',  >\lii<ri<  iiiiirliilii'M 
nvo  siiliNiiiiiiiiilly  ilio  N!iiii«>,  iMiii  «i|it<nit«* 
ill  llu<  N:tiiii<  iiciiiiii'i,  to  |ii'iiiliii'i>  llii< 
|t:ilUO  I'i'Niill,  llh  V  liliisl  III  |iiiiii'i|>li>  Im< 
tlu'  n.iiiu' ;  J^»«^.«^PJ/»^l//l/,  in  »irili>r  In 
i<\(  lu>lt<  till  I'oiniiil  ilitViMi-nci"!  ;  miil  liy 
10  N!iin«>  n'siill    '\H  iiii'.'inl    llic    nnnio  in 


tl 

Kinti,  tli<nit;li   il   niii\    ilitVii    in   i<\ti<nl 

llu' ii'siill  H  iho  s;nin'.   il"  i>iif  ni:u"liiiu' '  llio 


|>li<;  mill  llio  otii*  IiimI  iliNCtiMii  ,|  | 
nllii'i    nioi'il    lliuii  lli.il   i>r  II 


IJIx  II. 


'••lilt  nil 


|n-ti\i'tl  iniil:ilii<ii  <>!'  ilii<  ,,||,.  |„,|; 


iiii 


I'lH  t'lt'i 


I  mill 


in  iiif.  {'»v  ulih'li 


IV, I,, 
«:ll|,| 


piili'iil  nin  !>«»  gninltil   in  my  iiiii>;  |„ 
I'liiiMo  lilt  t'liiinnl    lu<  t'liii-iilni'il  n,  ||„ 
iMii>iniit  iiiMiilDi'  kI'iIh'  uiiirliiiii'. 
(»*(»\.  /•.\i(,<ii,   M  \N  ii'.li ,     liii,     \\ 
INuTON,  .1.  ;   Ph.,  IHIM. 


/ 


IMI 


Tin'   o|iinii>n   of  skilful  juifH, 


Mil 


iill.««  iilili-  in  It  |itil)'iil  i«iiN«>,  UN  IouImiI 
IT  lln>  |iiiini|.|iM  nl"  t\Mi  nijiiliiii,.,  „, 
llio  Niinio.      Iliil  i'nn<  hIiiiiiI.M.c  Mkiiii , 


ilisliiiixuiNli  uhiit    ix  inriinl   I 


'}  11  |iriii, 


I'll*,  llio  lnu»  lt<»;iil  ini'iiniin'.  ..I'  hI,,,  | 
pKt'iiliiir    slnnliini    ..r    .•..hsiiin,,,. 


IS 


IVH. 


»roi«v, 


.1.;  M 


pii'ilnri's  niKi'o  iiilii'li's,  ill  ill  nuii'liinrs    pmis    of  u   intirliiiii'.      /liirntl  \.  Il,i,i 
iW  lh«<  nniniiruotiiiv  ot'  iiaiN,  in  ii  };i\«<ii    I  M 
•»|>iU"«'   nt'limi-    (l\:iii    tlii'   i-lliiT.       tf>hf., 
JIliS. 


isi.,  Isl-i 


'rin<    prini'i|i|«'M    nf  iw..  niii.lin:, 


in;n   111'  llii'  NHiiit',  nllli.Miii^li  tlh>  |',, 
.^.    In  two  in:irliini<s  I'or  inaKiii^  n.iils,  '  piuiMirtion  ni.iy  lii<  ilillricnl.     Tl 


'i'MiT;;: 


|)n>  ono  iisoti  !(  \  ii<o  will)  luo  jiiw^,  llic    Ml|llN|!)nli:lll^  i<ni|ili>y  llii>  smiii>  i 
li>\\i'i  oi\i'  piMin.nu'Hl  Mini  llic  n|'|i('ioin<    llic  sniin«  wiiv,  lliony;h   ilic  cMcrn.il  i 


nn 


>\!il>Ii',  iiiiil   llio  \\\o  t'oin|in'Nsoil  l«y    I'lniniNiu    l»o   ilillVronl.      On   tl 


11' 


i\  li'vrr  »>r  tho  Ufst  oiili-r,  ni'iinj:  upon  :i  InunI,  lln«  priiii'ipli'M  ol"  two  iiii.ln',, 
t>\'".il'«' joint .  I'onni'i'toil  wiili  llio  n\o\in;j  ni,»\  lnMorv  ililVi'iiiil,  !illliou!;liihi'iru. 
J!»w  ;  iho  olhor  tilso  nso.l  ,i   >  iio  w  illi    loniiil  s|nn'lnn<  ni;iy  lm\o  i^roMl 


Niiiiilr. 


tw>>  j;i\\s,  iho  tipper  oin'  ol'  wliioli 


WUH 


Ity  ill  iniiiiy  I'ospootH.     /A/.A,  i; 


ti\otl.  mill  tl\o  two  w  iMO  i'onipir>M'il  lo- 1      0.  Tlio  jury   iiro  lo   iiiili;!',  l>v  nii  in 
jVilluT  l'\  :\  loviT  ol"  tin'  M'l'onil  oiiNt,    sp«>i'tion    ol'  tlio   inoilols,  mul  I'nmi  \\t 


iW 


Iniuini;  tl\o  jiiws  with  i\  iViotioii  rnllor   oviili'iiiM',  whctlior  I  w  oniMcIniu-siliti: 


iKoil  I'ot  w  orn  tl\o  torks  ol'  tlio  lovor. 
rtUil  iU'lin.i;  on  :in  inolinoil  smrai'o  ot'iho 
vin-rj;iw.      r»nt    it   \v;is   pro>o.l  tli.it 


mo 


niin'ipl 


Sill  if  ft  V.  / 


iiinr 


•J  M.I 


,i'.iii, 


170.-  Mrl.vvN,  .1.;  Ohio.  isio. 
10.   ir  tln<  prini'ipio  on  w  liicli  ilu':' i. 


liitV 


Oli'lh'i 


s  ;»«;  to  tho   h'vor  Jind   tlnvohincrv  works  is  tho  s;n 


iVii'tion  vi'IUm"  wimo  iho  nooossiirv  oonso- 1  tVvl  Im  siniihir  in  both,  in 


no.  .•iiul  tin' 
«'ontoiiipl:i;i 


ononoi 


s  of  tho  n»;»oliino  hoinij  invoitoil.    ol'    law     iho     iniiohinos    mo    iilciitid, 


JitlJ,    thai   it' thoir  opor.ition   was  tho'  Urooksw   Hii'knilt,',\   Mol.o 


"1. 


samo. 


tho   ilitVoroi\o>-   m  I'onn  iliil   not  McI.kan,  .1. ;  Ohi«>,  lsi;i. 


anuMuit  to  an  nnontion. 


//•I./.,  ;il>S. 


11,  Thoro  innst  bo  an  ossonli;i 


•:\'\ 


m: 


lie  \wAx 


('».   If  two  tnaohinos  ho   suhstantiallv  I  onoc  in  tho  anplioalion  ol' tl 

*  I . 
tho  sanio,  atnl  oporato  in  tho  s.'uno  man-   ioal  powor,  to  inako  (ho  inaoliiiios  ti;>- 


lU' 


r.  lo  proilnoo  tho  saino  rosnlt  -  th«>nijh    similar.      If>iif.,  '2&2. 


lUlSWit 


thoy   may  tlitVor  itt    form,  proportions.'      l'.\  Soionoo  alono  Ih  ahle  to 
Mu\  luilitv,  thoy  aro  tho  .samo  in  ]uinoi- !  tho  timstion,  whothor  or  not  a  partiui 


S!"«|.^ 


».   »-~v, 


Vw 


'^C 


INVrNI'lnN,  |.; 


4IT 


iDHNiirt  iir. 


l„r  iiiiu'liin''  "♦ 


Hiili^liiiiliiill)  ill  ilN  mkmIi' 

Iii'i,  iiIiImmihIi  «iili  ii|.|iiin'iil  .hlVti 
i|    roi'iii    1111*1    xliiii'lini',    Mliit'li 
III    iiiiHii'iKl    llii<    iiiiNtii'iililt)'    iiiiiiil. 
lUiitit,  ;•  MCoiy,  VIH.     Sioii», 


tlU'l 


I'lll't'X 


iiiii: 


ii'*". 


I  hi;.. 


i;i  'I'lii' \i'iy  liinln'Hl  wIIiu'hhi  m  li»  hh 
(viliiiii  '»'«'•  *'''"'>  '•'"  ""*''''.>  "I"  nil  •'• 
vi'iili "" 


im'< 


iimi 

IK'II, 


I  |lii<  iili<iitily  nr  iIivi'inIi y  nl' 

liiiiiii'il  !i|>|>itittliir4  mill  I'litilrix.'iiKTM, 

I  ('.iiiiMilt'iil'*!  '>''«'.  ''••><>ii'l   itll  <|ii'"< 

,,11  ..iIht  I  in'iiiiiHliiiK't'M  lioiii^  i*<|iiiil, 


Smith   \.  nnirniiif/,  MS.      VVotiiiltlUY, 
.1.  ;   MiisM.,  iM.'iO. 

|H,  III  nmrs  III'  n'iMKiii<,  llif  iit'linn  of 
till'  ( 'iiiiiiniNMiiiii«<r  Iiiim  itioi'i<  iIiiim /»r///ifi 
j'lH-iii  iiiiliii'ii<M<  ill  lliiitlly  tliM'iiliii)^  lliii 
i|ii<'siiii    nriili'tilily  iit'iii\  I'lilioM.    /•)'<  ixh 


llClill 


lie  itii'cliuiiirH. 


ff>i,/.,  V  111. 


II.  Il  is  lilt'  prox  iiii'i'   )>|   till'  jiiiN   III 
lii'llii'i  llii'it'  \s  ii  hiili  <liiiil:iil 


(lili'iimiii-  w 


uiiiiil"' 


II  (ir  (lilVfifiici'  IhImi'i'ii  till'  iiiii 
liiiio  iimmI  liy  llif  •l<-l«iiiliiiil'<,  nml  lliiil 


lltill^ 


III'  u  jii'llii  I   llii<  ilillfr 


ilV. 


ii>  |>liii 

is  KiniM'i'  I'di'iiiiiI  iilli'iiliiui. 
Sl.hk   Miuiitf'.  Co.   V.    ir./n(f;',    I 


///, 


(iii\ 


8,  It 70.      Ni:! 


;(r', 


NON, 


.1.;  ('«. 


i.r  1 1 

I'lii'i 

(itiil 

I'llali'lil'. 
IS  111. 

1,1,  'Pill'  i|iit'slii>ii  ol'  iiliMitity  or  ilil' 
l,n'iii'(>    til"  l«"    tiilit'li'^     railminl    tiir 

hIii'cIs       is,    uIu'lluT    lIuTl'  is  II  Slllisttlll- 

lial  ililli'it'iici"  Im>|\vi'i'ii  llii<  Iwii  ill  llii'ir 
iiii'iliaiiifal  ^^^U(•lll^^  mill  wlirllirr  iIm' 
iKri'iiiiaiil's  iiivolvi'il  mi\  lliiiiur  wliicli 
icjuiii'tl  niiiiil  iiikI  iiijit'iiiiily  nv«T  aiiii 
lu-ymiil  liiiil  ••!'  iIk"  liluiiililV.  'riic  «|u»<s 
limi  (if  iiloiilily  is  (iii«<  «)!' I'lirl.  Miiiti/ 
\.,l,i,/ilii',\  lllatflil",  ;tS(l.  Mklhon,  ,1.; 
N,  V.jslS. 

111.  A  fliaii^jf  o{'  form  will  not  hosuf- 
liiiout,  uiilossyi»nu  is  it  part  of  (lif  tliiiin; 
iiivi'iiti'ii,  and  is  cssi'iitial  to  ils  v:iIih'. 
Tlu IV  must  l»o  a  siilistaiitial  iliHi'micc, 
;iml  tlu'  oiu'  claiiiii'il  to  In-  (lin'cn'nt 
must  (Mulnnly  ii  tlitl'cmit  principle  from 
Iho  otluT.     //>iif.,  ;!S(V 

IT.  It  (Iocs  not  t'oiistiliito  :m  itioiitily 
of  invontioii  ln'twocn  two  iiiat'liiiit's,  or 
muko  oilcan  ciu'roafliiiuMit  on  tlu* other, 
tl;;it  tlii'ir  gononil  iibjcot  is  tlio  sanio. 


/»' 


>!/'  '*''. 


MS.     (i  1(1  IK,    hwi,   .1.1. 


I'll.,    JMftl. 

ID.  Ill  I'xaiiiiiiiii^r  ipicNiioiis  of  ii|i<ii- 
tity  or  iiifi  iiii.M'inciii,  it.  \h  lo  lie  first  un- 
rcilaiiiril  \>  lii'iriii  i'oiir<islM  ||ii>  Hiilistail- 
tial  pi't'iiliarily  »liirli  ilisliti^riii.<|ir'i  tliii 
ail  or  iiivnilioii  putriilttl.  Wlioivcr 
Hiliipts  or  iippiopriuti'H  nih-Ii  iliMlinrlivo 
piTiiliarily  or  principle  withoiil  liiiiiMi 
III'  till'  palciilcc,  approprialcM  llic  iiiMii- 
lion,  ami  infiin^cN  tlio  piilctil,  il  llio 
NpciiUcatioii  lie  correctly  ilriiw  11.    fiomt- 


i/i)ir  V. 

IS.'i..'. 
•JO.    I 


/>. 


'.'/. 


MS.     < 


iiiiicii. 


J.;   N.  .1. 


II  ev.'iininiiifjr  ii   iiiacliine,    In 


cerlaii.  wliellier  or  not  il  \h  an  inlViiii^o- 
iiieiil  of  :iiiotlier,  llie  Hiinilarily  or  iliH- 
sitnilarily  of  the  nii<cliaiiical  const  met  imi 
iH  not  necessarily  «'oinliisi\c  or  contrnl- 
linj.^  /Ifittii'/iiinl  V.  //rrr«,  'J  IJIiilchf, 
IKt,  IIH.    -Nklho.n,  .1.  ;  ("t.,  IHA'2. 

'Jl.  It.4  Kinictiire  may  lie  apparently 
very  similar  in  form,  mid  yel  ils  princi- 
ple, operation,  and  resiilt  may  he  very 
dilferenl.  Soon  the  otli(>r  hand,  its  striic- 
liire  and  appearance  may  he  very  diHer- 
ciil  lo  the  eye,  and  in  point  of  fad,  and 
yd  il  may  in  reality  and  in  primiple 
lie  the  samu  a»  tliu  previous  machine. 
//'/(/.,  I  m. 

'J-'.  'I'lie  mere  mechani(*a1  «'onstnui- 
lioii  and  form  of  a  machine  art^  not, 
therefore,  always  il  U'st.  of  its  idi'iility 
or  want  of  iili'iilily  with  uiiother.  Tho 
priiiciph'  emhodied  in  a  machine,  and 
which  j^ives  il  all  ils  ulilily,  may  he  put 
in  successful  operation  hy  <lilferent  me- 
c.ianical  coiitrivance.s,  depeiidin<{  morn 
on  the  skill  of  tliu  mochanic  than  tiio 


%■', 


^l 


■^^' 


^w^W 


'v.. 


15 '" 


p. 


ii>4ii« 


A  J 


A>: 


ma^ 


» f  • 


i'v, 


■•I  ,,,, 


'-}'v^- 


Sts^. 


438 


I\Vr.NTI(»\,  K. 


IDKMTITV  or. 


gt>n\»n  of  tlio  Inventor.    Tt  U  nnfuife  to 

ri'ly   ii|)iiii  tilt*  iiHTc  ililVi'ifiic(>  ill   till' 
intvliaiiii'iil  coiiMtniftioii.     Ifml.,  (Ul. 

'i.'J.  Tlif  Hiiro  It'Nt,  :unl  tlu>  niic  t\\» 
jury  xIhmiIiI  Ito  ^iiidctl  liy  in  all  ciisi'h,  \h 
wln'tlitT  or  not  tin'  ili'ffinlaiil'H  iDiicliiiic 
(wliatovi'r  may  Ik'  itii  form  or  niivliaii- 
U'ltl  ('oiistni('tioti),lia!4  iiicor|H)ral('i|  with- 
in it  the  ]irinci|)l(>  or  llu>  foiiildnalion, 
or  till'  lutvi'l  iilras  wliicli  coiistitiiti'  llio 
im|trovciiu>nt  to  bo  foiinil  in  the  plain- 
lifV'H  machinp.  It*  it  «Iih'h,  llii'ii,  no 
matter  wlial  may  ho  its  nioolianicai  oon- 
Htructioii,  or  its  form,  it  in  an  infrin<^o- 
moiit.     Ifuif.,  H<1. 

"H.  No  ]»or»on  can  apprnpriato  llio 
bonolit  of  tlic  now  iiloas  wliioli  anollior 
ha.H  oriLrinatoil  ami  ]mt  into  praclioal 
TiHo,  lu'causu  lio  may  liavo  lu-on  onal)UMl 
by  Hiiporior  nioolianical  hIuII  to  oinlio<ly 
thoni  in  a  form  ililVoront  in  a|i|ioaiaiico, 
or  tlirtoront  in  reality.  Altliou;|li  lie 
may  not  have  prosorvotl  the  oxti-riiT 
apitoaraiu'e  of  tho  provioiis  iiiaohiiic,  ho 
may  liavo  appropriated  the  ideas  wliioli 
give  to  it  all  its  value.      I/)iif.,  418. 

'J').  The  fpiostions  of  idi'titity  hetwoon 
two  opposiiit;  inacliinos  are  froipiontly 
excoodiiij^Iy  diftioult,  ami  often  the  most 
diniiiilt  (piostions  involved  in  patent 
cases.  Thoy  are  iiltiinatoly  (pioslioiis 
of  faot  for  tho  jury  to  dotorinino.  Tii- 
t/idin  v.  Ze  li<>>Ji  2  Jjlatohf ,  485. — Nki,- 
80X,  N.  Y.,  1  8jL>. 

20.  A  olianjjfe  in  form  or  proportions 
from  the  constriietion  of  an  e\istin<^ 
maohino,  is  not  a  Hubstantial  ohange  in 
tho  eye  of  the  p.itent  law.  So  also  the 
substitution  of  a  mechanical  ecpiivalent 
in  the  construction  of  a  machine  is  not 
a  Bubstantial  change.  Formal  and  me- 
chanical changes  are  nothing.  Ibid., 
485,  486. 

27.  Any  machine  may  be  very  con- 
siderably changed  in  its  mechanical  ar- 


mnjjPinMit  nnd  f^»»tnirtloM,tho.hMri|. 
tion  «»f  it  may  bo  very  niiicli  t|i|i;irti,| 
iVom  in  tho  oonNtriiotion,  and  yet  it  tniv 
aoeoiiiplish  tho  ol)|o<'l  aii<l  piirp«»M.  i',', 
whioh  it  was  dosi^nod.     //»/(/.,  is;. 

28.  A  dirt'eronoo  in  tho  liii'.|ii,iii,  ,1 
arran^omont  und  oonMtruolion  ttf  twn 
maohinoH  iii  not  nuooHsarily  n  tent  U 
whioh  to  detormino  that  they  nr»>  „  • 
idontioal.  They  may  be  appan  iitiv  i|i|. 
foroiit  oxtornally,  and  still  einbriKT  tin 
Hamo  Hitbstantial  identity  in  priiicihl, 
aiKi  mode  of  operation.  So,  on  \\^^ 
other  hand,  tho  cotivorso  of  tlii«  iir,,!, 
ositioii  is  o<pially  true.  They  m.iv  L 
very  Miinilar  oxtornally,  and  still  in  i.ln 
oipio  and  mode  of  operation  hv  \v\\ 
dilVerenf.     //>/»A,  4sh. 

29.  Tho  <piO'<tioii  is,  whether  the  im. 
ehaiiical  arranjjjomont  an<l  coiistntiliini 
of  the  two  omliraeo  the  same  wi  uf 
ideas,  tho  same  loiiding  features  or  idii., 
whieli,  in  practical  operation,  pnnlmv 
tho  uset'iil  result.  In  other  words,  wlicl;. 
or  tho  arrangement  and  oombinatidiioi' 
the  parts  of  machinery  found  in  ci,!, 
are  substantially  tho  same,  ami  r)|i(i;iii' 
in  substantially  the  same  way  in  pru- 
duoing  the  result.     Ihiil.^  488. 

ao.  Whore  a  change  from  a  patents  1 
machine  produces  an  elli^  t  diUiicm  in 
kind  and  highly  beiielicial,  siuli  iffiTi 
retlocts  back  upon  the  niecliaiiical  ar 
rangemont  and  construction,  and  may 
authorize  an  inference  of  a  substantial 
change,  Avhioh  the  arrangcniont, (lisnn. 
nected  from  the  new  and  dillLMoiit  I'tlivt, 
would  not ;  and  when,  without  coiinect- 
ing  the  new  effect  with  the  cliaiij,'e,  'In 
change  might  be  only  formal  niul  dd- 
substantial.     Ibid.,  1852. 

31.  Such  now  effect,  however,  to  give 
materiality  and  importance  to  the  ap 
parently  formal  change,  must  not  con 
sist  in  doing  more  work  in  a  given  time, 


1^„  * 


INVKNTION',  K. 


43» 


lOMTITT  or. 


or  with  !i  r«'<lii<'«>il  iiiiiontil  of  |MMv«'r,  Imt 
thi*  iii'^<  ('ir>'i't  nitiMl  I)(m1U)it«'IiI  in  kiiul. 

Ibiii,  41'-'. 

:r.'.  Tlit>  iiu'i'**  Tui^t  that  a  iii!U'hint>, 
con»tni«««'<l '""•  arriuiKc<l  iiii|»!ii»iilly  or 
exttTimlly  lilt*'  !*  pifvioiiH  oiu',  piodiu-fs 
n refill  i"<»'*'  In'm-Hriiil,  <li»«'«  mil  d.tfr- 
iiiiiic  that  |Im«  two  aro  HubHtaiilially  (lit- 
t'cri'iit.  Thn  iit'W  rcwiilt  iiiUKt  b«  out' 
(lcri\<''l  •'■'""  "  'liirfit'iil  iiit'cliariloal  o|>- 
(.riition  !»ii<l  I'lVi'ot.     /A/</.,  4U;i. 

an.  'I'iu'  jury  aro  to  ili'lormine  wlidth- 
er  two  murhiiu'H  nro  iiliiitit-al,  (*«•  un* 
con'*tnir'''<l  an«l  art  ii|m»m  ilitVt-rciit  priii- 
I'jplt'M.  li'iKhi  V.  Tiiijiini't,  17  Il(»w., 
8r).-M<  I^KA.N,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1H.V4. 

a».  Till!  i<U'iitity  that,  is  to  1m'  looked 
to,  ill  an  iM'tioii  <>t"  iiitV't.ijxtinu'iit,  rt'siKH-ts 
tlmtwliivli  constitutes  tlio  I'ssi'ncc  of 
till-  invention,  nanu'ly,  tlif  applicalion  of 
thf  primiplc.  If  tlio  mode  of  «!arryin;,' 
llii>  saiiio  principle  into  ftlttt,  adopted 
by  till'  dffi'iidant  shows  that  the  princi- 
ple ailmits  of  the  same  application  in  a 
\aricty  of  foiins,  ,  by  a  variety  of  :ip- 
imriiaiH,  such  nuKle  is  a  piracy  of  the 
invention.  W'inttrmute  v.  Itvdhiyton, 
jIS_\Vii.soN,  J.;  Ohio,  lH.>ll. 

;J5.  But  if  the  defendant  has  achtpted 
viiriiitions  which  show  tlnit  the  applica- 
lioiiof  the  principle  is  varied,  that  some 
otliiT  law  or  rule  of  pr.netice  or  scien<'e 
is  uiiiilc  to  take  the  place  of  that  which 
the  patentee  el-ums  as  the  essence  of 
his  invention,  Uicn  there  is  no  infringe- 
ment.    Ibid. 

aO.  The  (piestion  of  identity  is  one  of 
fact  to  be  determined  by  the  jury  upon 
the  evidence,  under  the  instructions  of 
the  court,  as  to  what  in  law  constit\ites 
a  substantial  identity.  Smith  v!  Jlig- 
(//«»,  MS. — Beits,  J.;  N.  V.,  1857. 

37.  One  machine  need  not  bo  a  i)er- 
fect  transcrijjt  of  the  other,  nor  corre- 
spond exactly  in  arrangements,  maimer 


of  action,  «)r  results.  Hut  a  |ialenli'e  \* 
prot<>cled  against  any  use  of  his  inven 
tion  by  the  employment  of  means  ap- 
parently dinsiniilar  to  his  own,  if  they 
posseas  the  same  fifnctiiHis,  are  employ- 
eil  for  the  same  purpose,  and  embody  a 
commnn  principle.      //</</, 

:IH.  A  chan);e  in  (li«<  forniH  or  propor* 
tiotirt  of  instrnmentalitieH — a  ttubsiitu- 
lioi)  nf  one  motive  power  for  another — 
a  dilfereiit  position  or  };eariii<;  ot  the 
working?  apparatus — a  superior  .'inish  in 
aiiv  other  particular,  restini;  in  mere 
nu'chanical  skill  or  taste,  and  not  involv* 
in^  invention — does  not  render  ma- 
chines, appearing  to  the  i-ye  ex(>cedin}{- 
ly  mdike,  substantially  ditl'erent  in  ju*lg- 
ment  of  law.     Ibid, 

;I0.  Nor  is  the  substantial  identity  of 
two  machines  established  by  proof  that 
they  bring  out  the  ^amo  products,  and 
use  the  same  mechanical  powers,  and 
have  <itlier  r»'seniblances.  Ibit,  in  such 
«;ase  the  evidence  must  show  that  thu 
two  aro  of  the  saiiu'  nature  and  charac- 
ter, and  constructed  and  operated  upon 
a  common  principle,  and  to  the  Hamo 
purpose,     fhid. 

40.  "Substantial  identity"  excludes 
iminateri.al  variations  or  fraudulent  eva- 
sioin.  That  is  a  substantial  identity 
which  comprehends  the  application  of 
the  princijdf  of  the  invention.  If  a 
party  adopts  a  different  moth  of  carry- 
ing the  »<un(i  principle  into  efTl-ct,  and 
the  principle  admits  of  a  variety  of 
forms,  there  i-i  an  identity  of  principle, 
though  not  an  identity  of  mode.  I'o'je 
v.  Ferry,  MS. — WiuiiNS,  J.;  Mich., 
1857. 

41.  The  H.anie  principh;  may  bo  used 
without  an  exact  identity  by  mechnnicul 
e(piivalents  or  contrivances ;  and  if  so, 
there  would  be  a  substantial  identity, 
or  such  an  arrangement  of  mechanism 


i-« 


|p,.„  wW«w;w^4.<' 


i 


'WL-/> 


11  ft 


i'! 


IiJlk^ 


N  <*!»'•' 


••'"Ill 


'■'i ., 


410 


nrVBNTIOKt  I. 


lOHNTtrf   09, 


^i,iii 


widih  |triMl«UT«  the  muw  »«rvw»«»,  or 

proilucVPl    tll«>    MIIIMI*    cfTl'I't     ill     lll<<  NtlllU* 

way,  or  »n/n>tiui(iiilly  tliw  miuik*  wiiy. 
Am  m  <|iii'MtiMii  of  thi-t,  it  Miiltlfctli  il'  tli«< 
lifiiifiiilt'  liiiM  Im'i'II  \iMtttfil.      fhiU. 

I'J.  Ah  to  tlu<  <|iii'wiii)ii  of  iiji'ritity, 
iiiihIcIn  itro  not  u  liviiij;,  but  ii  *urv  iiml 
tnit'  wiliK-NH — tliiiiil),  but  yet,  liko  liii- 
liiiiiii'M  Iti'iiMt,  Npi'jikiii^  t<toi|iifiitly,  UN 
you  may  iiilt'iprtt  tin-  liiii){ii!k;;t>  liu'y  i>ui< 
ploy.  To  curh  part  u  vtticu  poU'Ulial 
it  ^iv«'ii.      //ill/. 

4M.  Wlii'ii',  in  two  (h'vl«*«'t,  tli«'  fti'l 
tn  l)u  accoinplislit'il  it  llic  .saiiic,  unit  tlic 
HiihNlaiitial  imaiiM  to  Mi'i-oinpliHli  tho  cikI 
Jiff  iln'  Himi',  the  i«o  (iivifi'H  iiri'  Ulvn- 
tii'.'il,  thoik^h  oiii>  may  an  otiipliMlt  tlio 
t'lnl  more  ctriTtiially  tliaii  tlit>  o||u-r. 
/ml<nj  V.  A'.y.  <(j   W'or.  Ii./:.,  .MS.  -1n- 

UKUSOI.I,,  .1.  ;   C't.,  iHftH. 

41.  On  tlu'  huiiji'fl  of  the  iih'iitity  of 
two  m.'icliitu'H,  wv  nvv  not  coiwIinU'd 
by  tlii'lr  UHTo  form  or  appcuniiict' ; 
tlio  (pu'>li<»fi  i**,  art!  tlicy  tin-  Hamc  in 
Riibstant't' ?  I.>4  tli(!  machine  u.s«><l  by 
tlu>  <li'ft'tiilant  a  mi>cliani«>al  (<|uivalcut 
for  tlitil  p:iltiitt  '  by  tlic  pl.iintitr'i'  Mor- 
riHY.  /Jun't.(t,itx^. — Li:,v\  rn,  J.;  Ohio, 
1H5H. 

45.  Any  muohino  p)t  up  by  tiio  pat- 
ontc'o,  or  those  olaimiiij;  untU-r  him, 
•whose  eonstruction,  .irranLfiMnent,  prin- 
ciples, and  mode  of  operation,  are  siib- 
Htantially  the  same  as  the  one  deseribed 
in  tlie  speeifleation,  tliougli  tlifVeriiiL,'  in 
size  and  proportions,  is  as  irnieh  wiliiin 
the  protection  of  the  pati'Ut  as  t lie  struc- 
ture therein  described.  (Jii/ioon  v.  liing, 
MS. — Ci.iFKOKi),  J. ;  Me.,  1H50. 

40.  In  determining  (piestions  of  in- 
fringement, the  jury  are  not  to  judge 
about  similarities  or  differences,  by  the 
names  of  things;  but  are  to  look  to  the 
machines,  or  their  several  devices  or 
elements  in  the  light  of  what  they  do, 


or  whnt  offltw  or  Ainctton  !!»py  perform, 
tind  how  tlicy  pttrform  it ;  und  to  tiuil 
that  »  thing  is  Mulmtaiiliiilly  the  w.mw  •^^, 
luiotlter,  if  it  perform  Midmtantiuils  i|„ 
Miime  function  or  otilce  in  the  xiiiiii'  u  iv 
to  ntlain  the  Name  noult  ;  iumI  ili,,t 
thingt  are  NitbMlanlially  dilVcniit  nju'ri 
they  perfoiui  dilVcrent  duticM,  or  in  ^ 
dillcreiit  way,  (»r  produce  a  dillircm  re 
i«ult.     //>/«/. 

47.  For  the  name  rennon  they  nrc  not 
to  judge  ubout  HiindariticN  or  dilltTi'ti- 
ees,  merely  lu'cause  tbingM  an-  apparmi. 
ly  the  sanu',  or  a  dirt'ereiit  HJiaiic  nr 
form,  but  the  true  test  of  Hiniiliiiitv  or 
ditVcreut'e  is  the  Manu>  in  regard  tn  '«|i:i|ii' 
or  form  hh  in  reganl  to  names ;  in  Imili 
caHeM  they  are  to  look  at  the  ninilc  i,|' 
operation,  or  tho  way  tlu>  p.nis  udik, 
and  at  the  residt,  as  well  as  the  nii  ;iii> 
by  which  the  result  is  attained.   l/iiU. 

4h.  Althoiigli  two  machines  may  lie 
similar  in  appe.'iraiice  and  arraiigeniiiit. 
if  the  conditions  under  which  tin  y  miv 
to  act  are  not  alike— if  the  Hanic  stivin' 
is  not  tt)be  performed — if  their  y*»//'y"W( 
is  different,  and  llicre  is  iu>  idc?ititv  (if 
object  or  effect,  they  are  not  idenlicnl, 
Kiito'yy  Jvx  i>iirft\  M.S.  (App.  C'as.)  - 
MoHSKU.,  J.,    1).  ('.,  iH50. 

41t.  On  the  (pu'stion  of  identity  tlic 
law  regards  subst.'Uice  and  not  foim,  ;iiil 
the  re.al  (picslion  is  whether  the  macliiiic 
ust'd  by  the  defeinlants  is  in  prhifijid 
the  same  as  that  patented  to  the  plain- 
tiff. Jj<i(t(i  V.  iS/iawk,  MS. — LiOAviri, 
J.;  Ohio,  1850. 

50.  The  identity  of  machines  does 
not  depend  u[»on  form  or  {(roportion,  so 
much  as  u])on  the  principle  of  ai'tioii, 
and  tfio  operation  of  the  two  things. 
Jik/soh  v.  MoorCf  MS. — Lkavht,  J.; 
Ohio,  1800. 

51.  As  to  identity  it  is  not  a  tpiostioD 
as  to  the  precise  form  or  size  of  twc 


m 


INVKNTOU,  A. 


441 


WHO  »|  M9  MO«n  or,  Jk»  MnM. 


ty  tlir 

II.  11' ll 

lU'llilM' 
tiirljili 

l.lllill- 

,  A  VI 11, 
(    iloi'S 

idii,  ^0 
iicliiin, 

n;  J.; 

Iit'stion 

3f  tWC 


iiiiM-liini'M ;  lli(<  t'oiiit  In  whi'tlitr  tin* 
iiriiii  ipl<'  of  ll'*'  1^"  ^'''''K**  '■*  tlio  nanic. 
Till-  |.iih'Ml»'«'  It  |ir«i|«'«l»'i|  ajjiiiimt  any 
oiluT  Jtj*i'"«'  wliit'h  iti\iilv«<M  Hiilmiiiiiliul- 
Iv  thi'  •HIM*'  |>riiMi|'l«'.  /.ft<  V.  Iliinihjy 
j||i^._>IrI,KAN,    I.KAVirr,   JJ.  ;    Ohio, 

,1.'.  Iliil  U  aiiidlu'r  parly  pi'ndiuM't 
th)'  Kiiini-  I'i'Miilt  Ity  iiHtaliM  i|ilVfri<iil  in 
priiD'ipIt'  aihl  o|ii>ra(ioii,  tlit'ir  in  no  in- 
|rin;,M'iiii'Mt,  for  it  would  Iw  altroinl  to 
mivlliiit  fli«'  j^runtiiiK  of  a  pad'ht  civcrN 
nil  |ii)<«Milil(<  wiiyH  of  |ii'oilucing  llut  Huniu 
ri'Milt.     /A/'/. 

03.  It*  tlu'  Jury  flixl  n  Nul>Hlaiitial 
lijcntify,  tliv  ili'lt'iulantH  cannot  nay  that 
till-  iiiiirlihic  tiny  ii*t«'  Im  of  no  ntilily,  aH 
tin-  nn'nt  liii't  that  thi>y  have  a|>|)rn|iri- 
ntftl  it  \*  cvidi'ticu  i!i.«b  iia>y  rt'^aidt'd 
it  iin  (tf  iilility.     fhitl. 

,M.  Tilt)  ohjfct  and  pur|)((st'  of  two 
iiivcntioiH  may  1it>  taken  into  conHiiji't-a' 
tiion  in  di'tcrniinin^  thu  qucMtiuti  uf 
idi'iitity  hi'twi'i'n  thi'tn.  When'  tlioir 
ulijoit  ami  piM'posi'  art'  I'lilin-ly  ditU'rent, 
aiiil  material  advantaj^i's  n'siili  from  ono 
invention,  it  iH  patcntalilo,  though  it  han 
Homo  n>s(>nd)lan(M)H  to  u  fornuT  one. 
Hiirxfoir,  Kjf  jxtrtr,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
MoiisKi.i,,  J. ;   I).  ('.,  1H(K). 

55.  Tlie  purpoMo  or  object  had  in  view 
Ipysin  inv«'ntion  may  be  foiiMidered  in  de- 
tirniiiiih,i(thi'<|m'stion  wlu'therit  in  idiMi- 
licil  w  itii  anotlier.  Jf>;/f,  /iV  ft<irU\  MS. 
(A|.|).  Cas.)— 31oitsKM,,  J. ;  1).  C.  1800. 

50.  In  duterinininj^  tin;  <pu>Kti(>i)  of 
iilintity,  the  jury  are  not  to  inquire 
wliftlitT  the  two  things  are  identical 
ill  stnu'ttire,  form,  or  dinu'usions,  but 
wlii'tlier  they  involv(>  substanti.'iily  the 
same  principles.  Judnint  v.  Cojte,  MS. 
— Lkavitt,  J.;  Ohit),  1800. 

5".  In  determining  whether  the  me- 
iliuiiisin  of  one  machine  is  the  H;ime  as 
thai  of  another,  we  may  not  only  look 


lit  till'  nuM'haniHiu  ilMelf,  that  iw,  thu 
di'vici't  and  thu  arrun({i'meiit  of  ihcni, 
but  iiNo  itt  their  mode  of  i>|ieniiiiin,  ami 
their  elVicIs  or  rebuilt.  Kiuhh  v.  (Utuk^ 
MS.     Si'ii.viii  K,  .1. ;  MiiwH.,  IHHO. 

AH.  If  the  mode  of  operation  be  dif- 
ferent, it  Im  e\idence  that  the  niechatl< 
i><m  in  dilVerent.  If  the  re<«tilt  bediiVer- 
eiit,  reaM<inin;{  from  eltects  to  causes, 
we  may  presume  that  xome  new  instruo 
mentality  Iuim  been  introduced,  although 
the  me<-hanisin  nniy  apparently  be  huIh 
htaiitiully  thu  mime.     J  bill. 


INVKNTOU. 

\.    Who  IS;  ASH  Hmins  <»■,  as  sccir...  441 

II.      FniST    AM)     OhKUNAI.)     Hl'IMKgUKNT; 
llKIIITH    Ok' 444 

\,     Who  IH  ;  ANi>  Kkiiiih  ok,  ah  Hi-rit. 

1.  The  eonstitiition  and  the  law  to- 
H;etlier  j^ive  to  tlu'  inventor,  fidin  the  mo- 
ment of  diwcovery,  an  inchoate  property 
therein,  wliich  in  eompleted  by  sniii)^ 
out  a  patent.  This  inchoate  rii;ht  is  e.\< 
elusiv«>.  It  can  be  invaded  or  impaired 
by  no  person,  and  no  riirht  can  be  ae- 
quireil  ill  it,  without  the  consent  of  tho 
inventor.  J'Jrd/is  v.  Jordan,  I  Ib'ock., 
i,':)2.— Mausiiai.i.,  C'h.  .1. ;  \'a.,  Ihi:j. 

2.  Whenever  then  any  person,  previ- 
ous to  a  piileiit,  constructs  a  mat'hiiio 
discovered  by  another,  he  eonstructs  it 
subject  to  tln'  rif^ht  of  that  other.  His 
rij^ht  to  use  it  is  <pialifie(l  l»y  the  para- 
mount rij^htof  the  inventor  to  prescribe 
the  conditions  on  which  he  shall  use  it. 
Iltid.,  252. 

3.  The  right  fieeure<l  to  the  inventor, 
is  founded  ou  considerations  of  public 
policy,  and  is  not  to  be  destroyed  by 
open  infraction,  or  more  colorable  im- 


/•^ww^l 


\f0V» 


mt^W 


'^^J>^ 


■-^tr; 


""^^WUkU 


%  m. 


4i'2 


INVKNTOH,  A. 


WHO    IS;    AND   WUUTH   Of,    AH  HlCll. 


■"^^ 


1  ,  '  ■ 
t:      1 

iilii 

H^^^ 


kil  '  >1H' 


■  v*  w 


j)rovcMiiMitH.  Siin't/i  v.  Pearri\  '1  Mc- 
jA-aii,  ITS. -.M.  Lean,  . I,;  Olii.i,  IkK). 

4.  WIhh'Vit  first  norfct'ts  u  inurliiiu' 
niul  null' OS  it  f:i|iiiMi'  of  useful  oporu- 
tion,  is  I'Mtitlt'il  to  :i  patrut,  and  is  the 
real  ii'> tutor,  thoiiuli  others  luay  have 
|>revi  lusly  had  the  idea  and  uiaile  some 
expu'iuu'Uts  toward  putting;  it  iutopiac- 
liee.  Si  nihil  y  that  he  woiiM  l»e  entitled 
to  !>  patent,  althongli  the  auteci-dent  ex- 
peiinieuls  of  others  were  ixuown  to  and 
used  hy  him  in  perfect  in^j  his  ina«'hini. 
Wdnlihuni  V.  O'uiilif,  3  Story,  I'M, — 
SroijY,  .1.  ;  Mass.,  1S4 4. 

;').  At  any  rate,  lie  is  tiie  invt-ntor,  and 
is  entitled  to  a  p'lteut,  who  lirst  l)n)U<;;ht 
tiie  niaciiine  tit  perfection,  and  made 
it  ea|ial>le  of  useful  operation.  ////</., 
Ki3. 

li.  If  a  eomhination,  the  efVeet  of  which 
had  been  ascertained  by  A,  is  reduced 
to  practice  by  a  machine  built  by  I>, 
but  at  the  retpu'st  ov  by  tlie  order,  and 
at  the  expense  of  IJ,  it  is  in  fact  A  anil 
not  IJ  who  reduced  the  combination  or 
iincntion  to  practice.  Wor/tvr  v.  (rood- 
2/eor,  .MS.  (App.  C'as.) — Ckancii,  ('h. 
J.;  J).  C,  IS  to. 

7.  To  conslitute  an  inventor,  it  is  not 
necessary  lie  should  have  the  manual 
Hkill  and  dexterity  to  make  the  drafts 
of  his  invenlion.  If  the  i<leas  are  fur- 
nished l)y  him  for  [troducini^  the  nsult 
aimed  at,  he  is  entitled  to  avail  himself 
of  the  mechanical  skill  of  others  to  curry 
out  practically  his  contrivance.  iSjxirfc- 
man  v.  Iliytjlns,  1  Blatchf.,  ^09. — Ukits, 
J.;  X.  Y.,  1840. 

8.  Where  the  plaintifts  devised  de- 
signs for  oilcloths,  which  were  carried 
out  by  another,  IIclJ.,  that  the  plaintifls, 
and  not  the  pattern-maker,  were  the 
inventors.     If>/d.,  209. 

9.  If  a  person  eonsli^uct  a  m:iehiae,  in 
the  absence  of  all  evidcuoo  to  the  con- 


trary, the  presumption  is,  that  he  is  ;ilsi, 
the  invi  iitoi\  and  «he  burden  of  pro(i| 
in  thrown  upun  another  claiming;  to  lie 
the  inventor,  to  show  that  he  sii<rjri..si,.,i 
the  idea,  or  made  the  invention.  ,1^ 
kinson  v,  /ionnfi/ni/i,  MS.  (App.  ('as.) 
— CiUNtii,  C'h.  J. ;  1).  C,  1SJ7. 

10.  He  who  lirst  discovers  that  a  law 
of  nature  can  be  applied  to  prodiKc  a 
particular  ri-sult,  and  having'  dcvlMil 
ma<'hinery  to  make  it  operative,  iniio. 
duces  it  to  the  knowledj^e  of  his  fellow 
nu'U,  is  a  discoverer  and  inventor  of  tlit 
hi<»hest  fM'adi' ;  and  this  title  .as  a  iliscm- 
erer  he  may  assert  and  secure  by  Icttirs 
patt'ut,  not  only  in  the  formal  devioo, 
but  in  the  essential  principle  which  his 
machine  w.is  the  lirst  to  embody,  to  ix- 
emplify,  ti>  illustrate,  to  make  ojicrativo, 
anil  to  announce  to  mankind.  ]\trhr 
V.  lluhni\  7  West.  Law  Jour.,  li.';].— 
Kank,  .1.;  I'a.,  isti). 

11.  This  is  not  to  patent  an  nhsti ac- 
tion, but  is  to  i)atent  the  invention  as  tlir 
inventor  has  ijiven  it  to  the  world,  and 
to  secure  to  the  inventor  the  exclusivi' 
rijiht  to  the  discovery  lie  imparted  lo 
the  ]mblic.     Ih'uL,  4'JM. 

12.  The  right  of  ;ui  inventor  does  not 
depend  ui)on  the  tpiestion  whether  the 
machine  is  more  or  less  perfect,  or 
whether  slight  moditications  in  ilic  ar- 
rangement of  the  imichiiieiy,  or  in  tin." 
finishing  of  the  parts  comjiosiiig  it,  may 
or  may  not  better  accomplish  the  end 
sought  to  be  attained;  but  upon  the 
question  whether  the  machinery  con- 
structed as  described  in  the  patent  will 
or  will  not  accomplish  the  end  practically 
and  usefully,  in  the  way  pointed  out. 
If  it  will,  the  inventor  is  entitled  totho 
protection  granted  by  the  governiiieiit ; 
and  any  one  using  the  principle  thus 
embodied  is  guilty  of  an  infringement, 
liowevor  he  may  have  perfected  the  ma- 


INVKNTOK,  A. 


r€- 


t^^ 


^c, 


443 


WHO  IS;    AND   Hit  I II 18  or,    A8  BVi'U. 


I'liiiii'i'v  l>y  siipi'rior  ^<KiII  in  tlu'  iiit'cliiiii- 
ic;iIair;iii.u;iMiu'iil  aiitl  constnictioii  ol'tln' 
iiart-*.  Siii'li  |ii'il»Tliii;^  is  hut  tlic  skill 
of  till'  iiu'ilianic,  not  llu>  goiiiiiH  of  tlu' 
itivonlor.  Pdrkfntrnt  v.  Kiiismmi,  I 
i;iatclif.,    41)7.— Nki.son,   .?.;     N.    V., 

18H). 

i;).  In  onlor  to  ontitlo  a  pi-rsoii  to  tlu* 
rlijinutiT  «»t'  an  iiivontor,  ho  must  not 
^lol>  at  imsuci'fxsriil  i'X|»t'riim'!its,  hut 
contiiiiio  until  \w  has  hroui^ht  out  :i  in:i- 
cliiru'  produriiig  ii  useful  result.  .1/c- 
Cormickv.  Si'i/moxr,  MS. — Xklson,  .1.; 
N.  v.,  1^51. 

It,  .V  piMSon  to  ho  I'lititli'tl  to  the 
cliaraiti'r  of  an  iiiwutor,  must  himself 
Iia\  0  conceiveil  the  idi'u  enihodieil  iii  his 
iinprovenu'iit.  It  must  he  the  protluet 
of  his  own  niiiul  ami  ufenius,  ami  not  of 
aiiotluT.  J'iff,'*  V.  //'iH,'2  Ulatehf.,  I>a4. 
— \i.:!,8o\,  J.;  N.  Y.,  isr.l. 

1,").  Ihil  in  onler  to  invalithite  :i  j.at- 
ciit  on  the  tjroumi  that  the  paleiite*' <liil 
not  eoiii'eive  the  idea  emhodied  in  the 
iMiprovement,  it  must  appear  that  the 
sinigestions,  if  any,  made  lo  him  hy 
others,  would  furnish  all  the  informa- 
tion necessary  to  onahlo  him  to  con- 
stniet  the  improvement.  In  other  words, 
the  suirtji'stioiis  must  have  heen  suttu'ient 
to  onahlo  him  to  oonstruot  a  comjdete 
and  perfect  machine,      fhhf.,  'J;U, 

If).  If  they  simply  aided  him  in  ar- 
livinj;  at  tlie  useful  result,  ami  if,  after 
all  the  sugfijestions,  there  was  somethinsjf 
lot\  for  him  to  tlevise  and  wo'k  out  hy 
his  own  skill  and  in<j;enuity,  then  he  is, 
in  contemplation  of  law,  to  he  ret»ard- 
0(1  as  the  first  ami  original  discoverer. 
Ilml,  2;t4. 

IT  On  the  contrary,  if  tlie  sugges- 
tions and  communications  of  another 
go  to  make  up  a  complete  and  perfect 
machine,  emhodyliig  ail  that  is  em- 
braced in  the  patent  suhsecpieiitly  is- 


sued to  the  parly  to  whom  the  sugges. 
tions  w»'re  made,  the  patent  is  invalid, 
l«'cause  the  real  discovery  helongs  to 
another.     /A/*/.,  'J:i4. 

IH.  SidM;  that  improvements  made 
hy  worknu'ii,  working  under  the  pay  of 
an  invi'ntor,  and  making  expt-riments 
under  his  direction,  are  to  he  consider- 
ed for  the  cretlit  ami  he  '■  '>f  such 
inventor.  Hittuhfiuti'  v.  /'  MS. — 
Dukkuson,  .1. ;  \.  J,,  1      .'. 

U).  It  is  when  speculati<  ■,  .uis  heen 
reduced  to  practice — wlu'ii  exp'riment 
has  resulted  in  discovery— and  when 
that  «liscovery  has  heen  ptrfected  hy 
patient  and  ct)nlinueil  experimi'iit  — 
when  some  new  compound,  art,  m.'uiu- 
facture,  or  m.-ichine  has  heen  thus  pro- 
iluced  which  is  useful  to  the  puhlic, 
that  the  party  making  it  hecomes  a  puh- 
lic henefaetor,  and  entitletl  to  a  |>:itent. 
(iiHuIi/var  V.  Day,  2  Wall,  .Ir.,  'J'.M).— 
(JifiKit,  J.;  N.  J.,  1H5'2, 

'J(t.  Where  a  person  is  engaged  in 
producing  some  new  ami  useful  instru- 
ment or  contrivance,  and  has  emhodied 
it  into  a  iiuichine  and  endeavored  to  riv 
diice  it  to  practice  hy  experiment — if 
those  trials  fail — if  he  fail  in  success 
and  ahandon  it,  and  give  it  up,  that 
consideration  att'ords  no  impediment  to 
another  jterson  who  has  taken  up  the 
same  idea  or  class  of  ideas,  and  who 
has  gone  (m  perseveringly  in  his  studies, 
trials,  and  experiments,  until  he  has  per- 
fectetl  the  lU'W  idea  and  hrought  it  into 
pr.actical  and  useful  operation.  Ho  is 
the  person-^— the  meritorious  inventor — 
who  is  entitled  to  the  protection  of  iho 
law.  WiiHim  v.  N.  Y.  <£•  Jltr.  Ii.  A'., 
;U  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  ;td.  Sen,  ;V22.— Niii.- 
sov,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1.^')."). 

'21.  If  a  person  having  some  vaguo 
idea  of  a  principle  make  numerous  tri- 
als and  experiments,  if  those  trials  and 


■•*»**  i-,:: 

ii'i 

^WR'ffl 

'f' 

t^ 

it 

■s*!  ;*!^ 

L.    i 

/4*'^ 

*« 

1 

1: 

■jj^pp 

-  I.. 

isi 

!ii5-^ 

>«iti: 


25 1**- ' 


i  .1 


Iff 


r^;*: 


444 


INVKNTOIJ.  i;. 


nuHT  \M'  iMihiiNM  ;  sriiHi;i;ri;M';  itUiiriH  hk. 


oxporiuHMitH  tlo  not  r««><»ilt  in  nucIi  a 
knowli'iloo  upon  his  puit  an  «<n:ililiw|iiiii 
to  put  in  NUtvosst'iil  pi':i('ti«'t>  (lif  idt'iiot' 
«  liifli  III'  lias  siicli  vajjiH'  iioi  ion,  ln<  docs 
not  lu'conic  an  inM'nIor  in  (lie  hciisc  of 
tin-  |)ali'nl  law.  Hidishhi  \.  .1/«M/iir,  lOiv, 
of  Xnr  }•..>•/•,  MS.     II  Ml,  . I.!   N.  Y., 

I  S.MI. 

'2'2.  Such  a  person  luis  never  etnliod- 
ied  the  principle  so  jis  to  ni.ike  it  avail- 
al>lc  lor  piaelit'al  ns(<  ;  and  the  p.artv 
who  emliodies  the  principle  :ind  tnakes 
it  avail.iMe  lor  practical  nse,  is  the  parly 
who  is  ciilillcd  to  u  paleiil,  :nid  to  pro 
leclion.      //)/</. 

'J;t.  If  a  person  concei\es  thi'  result 
I'lnhraeed  in  tln>  inveiilion,  or  the  jj;en- 
eral  idi'.a  of  a  tnachiiic  upon  a  particu- 
lar priiu'ipic,  .and  in  order  to  cany  his 
concept  ion  into  eirccl,  il  is  necessary  to 
employ  ni.anii.il  dexlerily,  tu-  even  in 
xcnlivc  skill  in  the  incchanic;il  tielails 
and  arr.aiiircinenis  rcipiisite  lor  c.arryini; 
out  the  original  conception,  in  such 
cast's,  the  lirst  person  will  lie  iheiincn- 
tor.  .and  the  other  the  mere  inslruincnl 
throuiih  which  he  rc.'ili/.cs  the  idea. 
]\'i Union  \.  /{foiui' :  l\!iiij\.  (rii/tu'i/, 
MS.  (.\pp.  Cas.)— MoKSKi.'i,,  .1.;  I).  (\, 
lS5f.. 

'J I.  In  order  to  const ilule  a  ni.an  an 
inventor,  it  is  <f('inr<i/fi/  necessary  that 
lu^  must  have  exorcised  some  invent ivo 
faonltv  or  exertion  t>t"  liis  own,  thout'h 
there  may  be  cases  in  which  an  inven- 
tion may  l.e  the  result  of  pure  accident. 
}/(it/iiipx  V.  Skatesj  MS. — Jonk.^,  J.; 
Ala.,  ISGO. 

25.  But  the  tact  that  an  invento"  may 
have  received  some  ideas,  hints  or  sug- 
gestions on  the  subject  tV'MU  others,  will 
not  prevent  him  from  being  considered 
an  inventor,  and  entitled  to  a  patent  as 
such.  To  have  that  oftect  it  must  ap- 
pear that   the   invention   was    substan- 


tially commnnii'nteil  to  him  by  s(iini> 
oilier  person,  so  ihiil  wilhoiil  the  rxcr 
ciHe  ol'nny  inventive  power  of  his  own  )ii< 
could  have  applicii  it  to  pnidicr.  //)/,/_ 
'...'ll.  Thoiigii  others  may  lia\  c  hail  sitn- 
ilar  ideas,  and  may  lia\e  c\|icriiMciitci| 
upon  I  hem,  I  he  person  who  liisl  iicrfecl. 
ed  the  iih'H  and  made  it  capable  of  |ir:ii'- 
lii-al  use,  is  the  invenlor  and  cnlilled  In 
a  p.ilcni.     Ifiiif. 

II.     I'^iKsr    ANP     OitniiNAi.;     Siiiihk- 
(ji'KNr;  KniirrK  ov. 

I.  The  right    to  a  patent  belongs  |o 
him  who  is  the  lirsl  inventor,  e\cn  he- 
Core    a    piiteiit    is    granted.       h'vuii.H  \. 
MV/w.i,  'J  W.'ihIi.,  ;i4r). — VV'AHiiiNiiroN, 
.1.  ;  I 'a.,  IHOlt. 

'J.  ir  an  inventor  snUcr  his  invcniinn 
l<i  bo  used  by  the  public,  his  paleiil  will 
not  be  protected  on  the  ground  that  Ii(> 
was  the  lirsi  inventor.  \\'/iiffi  nxnr  v. 
Citffrr,  I  (tail.,  IHJ.  Sr»»i!V,.I.;  Mass,, 
1S1:». 

;i.  The  tirst  inventor  is  entitled  to  tlio 
beiiclil  of  his  inveiilion,  if  he  reduce  it 
to  pr.aclicc.aiid  obtain  a  patent  tlicrclnr, 
and  :i  snbsc(|ucnl  inventor  cannot,  'ly 
obtaining  a  patent,  oust  tiic  lirst  inven- 
tor of  his  right,  or  maintain  iin  action 
against  him.  II  oof/coc/-  v.  /'iir/>rr,  1 
(J.all.,  4:t(».— Stokv,.!.;  Mass.,  jHl.t. 

•1.  The  origin.al  inventor  of  a  macliine 
is  exchisively  entitled  to  n  patent  for  il. 
(hfionif  V.  Wiiiklrif,  '2  Call.,  n;!.— Sto- 
KY,  .1.;   Mass.,  1814. 

5.  Tile  lirst  inventor  is  onlillcd  ex- 
clusively to  a  patent-right,  though  ;i  suh- 
secpient  person  may  liave  iilso  been  an 
original  inventor.  The  law  yives  tlio 
right,  as  among  inventors,  to  him  wlio 
is  first  in  point  of  time.  IjOwcU  v.  L(iri»y 
1  Mas.,  mo.— Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  is  17. 
(!.  The  fn-st  inventor  who  lias  put  tlio 
invention  in  practice,  and  ho  only,  is  eu- 


m 


■^y^^ 


INVKNTOIJ,  n. 


44n 


riiiHT  ANti  nntfitvAr,;  mrmRQtrNNT;  niMiiTH  or. 


titlnl    I"   .1    |illl<'"l.      Mvcry   HiiliHr(|iiciil 
iiatfiilt'c.  ;iltlM>ii!^li  nil  uiij^inal  iiiviMitor, 

IIKIV    )»>•     <l''l'<'!ll<''l     "'"      'I'f^     |lil(('Ill-li).tlll 

iiiMiii  |trn(>r  III'  siifli   |iiiiir  iiivciiliuii  he 

il|ir    |i||t     ill     ll^f.       'I'l'"      lllW     ;|i|lt|llM    lllf 


(Hi  III  J  l( I'l 

;i(H.    Sroitv. 


U,<lfnr,l  V.   Iliiht,  I    Mil- 


.1.;  .M 


ISM. 


I H  r 


(lint 


'I'll    nitillt'   u    person    tn  (ilit:iiii 


IICCCH- 


pali'iil  >iM  a  lii'st.  iiivfiitiir,  it  is  nut 

Hjiiv  I'll"  lii'"  •"  <"sl!ililisli  llial  lie  luis  |iiit 

liJH  iiivt'iiliiiii   into  ^^cinriil    use,  or  that 


ol'  any  HiiliH<>i|iirnt    |iatcnl    t'ur  tin'  naiiio 
iiiM'iilii'ii.      I  hill.,  ;i(l."i. 

II.  It  in  clcaily  inini.'itii'i.'il  \vli<'tlii-i' 
i'X|ii'riniriitH  iH  to  an  iiiM'iit  ion  air  inaili' 
liv  till'  invriitor  liiniHrH'  nr    liv  ollicm; 


tin'  i|inwtion  iM'ini^,  wlm  is  tin-  mi^ina 


invintiir 


/ 


I'll  II  ni 


'/•     V.     IHiil.tijiiv,     \ 


Wasli.,    t>\2.     VVahiiinoton,  .1.;     I'a,, 

iH2r». 

\'l.  ('onslniiiiL';  15  I  l>.y  g  (I  of  tlif  act, 
of  IVt)'!,  tlir  triK'  nii'anin!4  h,  lliiil  (Id- 
liist    inventor  has  a  lijjjlil,   to   a  |>at(nt, 


tliiiii 


lie  lias  inatlc  it   p'licra 


iiy 


iiiowii  to  ar- 
il 


tiMiiiiM  <>nL;a^rii    in    tliit    Haiiie  Iiiisiik'sh. 
Ihl,l.,  :in.-.. 

H.  'riic  iiilnit  of  llu'  statute,  diM-lar- 
ini''  it  to  lie  a  ^ooil  ilef'ence  to  an  aetioii 
t'or  an  iiil'iinfx<'iii<'ii(  ol'  a  patent  riiflit, 
that  tin  tliinif  secnreil  liy  the  patent 
\va^  not  orifrinaliy  iliseovered  liy  the 
|mt('iilee,  lint  hail  lieeii  in  use,  or  hail 
hi'i'ii  ileseiiheil  in  Koine  piiMie  work 
iiiilei'iiir  to  the  snpposeil  iliMcovery  of 
tli(>  patentee,  was  to  ^naril  aj^ainst  ile 
I'catiiii;  patents  liy  (he  wettiii;;  np  of  a 
prior  invention,  which  iiail  never  Iteeii 
ri'iiiiceil  to  practice,     fhif.,  .'101,  ;t(ir». 

11.  If  Hiich  prior  invention  was  the 
iiU'ic  spii  lation  of  a  philoHopher,  a 
nil  rlianician,  which  hiid  never  lieen 
liu'il  liy  tho  test  of  experience,  ami 
iii'vur  i»nt  in  uetniil  oper.-itioii  l>y  him, 
llu!  law  would  not.  d«'prive  a  Kiiliseipieiit 
inventor,  who  had  employed  his  I.'ihor 
aiul  his  t.alentH  in  pnttinj^  it,  into  prac- 
tico,of  till)  rewards  duo  to  his  ingenuity 
and  enterprise.     //>/</.,  'M)'k 

10.  Uut  if  a  first  inventor  reduced  his 
theory  to  practice,  and  put  liis  machine 
or  other  invention  into  use,  tlic  greater 
or  loss  use  of  it,  or  the  more  or  less 
widely  the  knoAvledgc  of  it  might  <'ir- 
cuhUo,  docs  not  eonstitiite  a  criterion 
by  which  to  decide  upon  the  validity 


gh  tl, 


ere    mi 


«y 


nave 


leeii  a    luiow 


edge  and  use  of  (lie  thing  invintid  liy 
otliei'H  before  his  application  fur  a  pat- 
ent, if  Hiicli  kiiowli'dge  or  use  was  not 
anterior   to  his   discovery 


M,U, 


tlH     V. 


Si'lufitr,  I  Mas.,  III.  Sioiiv,  .1.;  Mass., 
iH'jr.  ;  Tmiilwdl\.  Itiiilin,  4  Wash., 
7(IH.-  •WAHiiiMiioN,  .1. ;  I'a.,  IH27. 

I. 'I.  Ilnder  the  l.iugiiai^e  of  ^  (i  of  tin 
jiateiit,  law  «»f  I7!l.'t,  a  patentee  can  sns- 
laiii  his  patent  only  on  the  ground  of 
his  lieingthe  original  inventor,  'rintiinin 
V.  WV'/,."*,  '2  I'aiiie,  l»i(.  'riioMl-HoN,  .1.; 
N.  v.,  IH'J7. 

II.  Krom  an  examination  of  the  va- 
rious pi'«)visions  of  the  patent  law,  \\, 
ele.'irly  appi-ars  tli.at  it  was  the  intention 
of  the  legislature,  liy  a  eomjiliance  with 
the  reipiisiti'S  of  the  law,  to  vest  an  ex- 
clusive right  in  the  inventor  only,  on 
(viiidition  that  his  invention  was  not 
known  or  nseil  by  tin;  puMic.  Shttin  v. 
doopir.,'!  IV't.,  .'U!i.-— McIiioA.v,  J.;  Snp. 
Ct.,  1h:i!J. 

!  5.  ITiider  <inr  patent  laws,  no  person 
who  is  not  :it  oikh;  the  first  as  wi  II  as 
the  original  inventor,  by  wIkmii  tin;  in- 
vention has  beiiii  perfected  and  put  info 
ui^tual  use,  is  entitled  to  a  patent.  Jincd 
V.  GuWr,  1  Story,  590,598. — Srouv,  J.; 
Mas.s.,  1811. 

10.  A  snb.scrpient  inventnr,  though 
an  original  inventor,  is  not  entitled  to 


*«- 


/>! 


«•■ 


'^H<X 


\il¥'i 


'^'*'v  ^ 


^vw-i^ 


■f^-K  ta,,***  '(4^  '-wf'y^'. 


II    ! 


t4    ■*■ 


'■   '%il,      * 


440 


IWKNTOIl.  M. 


I'lllMI     \\|i   HUIillWl.i    HI  IINI'ltJUKM';    lllilMIN   Or. 


»ny  pJifi'lH,  iititl  III!  Milis»'i|iiciil  iiiM'iidM'  not  loxt  iiumcIv  Ity  Inpsi"  of  linic  In  I  wcini 
)i;is  ;i  ri^lit  to  il«>|tri\«>  iiii  oriirinnl  iiivtMi-  tli«>  iiivnition  iiiitl  .'i|)|)lii'iilioii  lor  u  |,.,|. 
tor  ot' tlu>  ri)j[lil   (o  )isi«  lii^   own   prior '  »'nl,  uiiU'hm  tlirro  lins   lircii  somr  iiii,.c. 


nu'i 
l.v   I 


li.'it< 


il.l 


<>  llllllllC  list' 


l*v  tl 


us    coiist'iit  ;  iiiiii 


)«>   a|i|)| 
■iiill 


ant. 


i<r 


\     W  lll'K 


iiUi'iitioii.      //>/(/..  M»tl,  M'l. 

IV.    Aiul  it"  till'  iiiMMitioii  is  iu'iIimIivI 
;iiiil  put  into  .•iclu;il  use  l»\  tin'   lirsl  :iti<l  '  lif  li:is  Immmi  fioini  Ji'iff  tiikiii;^^  iiuiiMircs 
oriuiii.'il  iint'iitor, it  isot'iio«'oiist'(jiu>iifo,    to  im|nd\('  or  poili't-t  his  iiiM'iilioii,mi,| 


wliftluT  tlu"  inxt'iilioii  is  cxti'iisivoly  !  to  pn-pjin'  lor  ii|i|il\  iiiu;  Cor  tMkiiiir  ;i 
known  or  \is,',l.  or  tlu>  know  I. '.Ju;,.  ainl  patent.  Ilil<h;,ilfi  \.  Il,,it/i,  MS.  (Aim., 
use  tlu'iool'  liinitt'd  tti  a  lew  pi-rsons,  or 
»'v«'n  to  tlu'  first  invoiUor  liiinsoll'.   //>/r/., 


)li(i 


VO.'^. 


IS.  Tlio  ilocision   in    Ih^llnuVo  t\t«c. 


I'lis.)      l"i;\\.  II.  I'll.  .1.;    I),  I'.,  isil. 


'.M.   A  patfiit  issnrtl  to 


HCCOIKJ    UIVl'lll- 


or,  lu'loro    tlii<  iippliratioii    lor  ;i  patent, 
by  tlu>  lirst  inventor,  uliicli  will  liar  tlio 
(J  n.  Illack.   K.,  ISV),  that   lu>  was  on- issuiiiix  ol"  ji  snltsctpicnt    patent   to  tl 


ii< 


lith'tl  to  :i  pjiti'iit.  as  an  inxonlor  «)!'  the,  lirsl  iincntor,  niiisl    In-,  tompaiihi^   ^  ; 
thiiij;    patontoil,   thoii>;h    tlicro    was    a 
prior  invontion  thcn'of  by  anothi-r  who 


with  5;,^  (I,  H,  :ni(l  l.'>  of  the  act  of  li 
a  patent    issiu'd  prior  to   his  hnunti 


kept  it   secr«'l  so  that  tlic  puMic  h:i<l  no'     id  not  iiH'ii-Iy  prior  to  his  ii/i/tfi,uifi 
hiMielit  thfrcot",  thonnh  perhaps  ;i  eorroet 


till. 


exposition  ot'  the  statute  of  monopolies, 
is  in>t    applieahle  to  tlie  patent   laws  of 


irie 


Tnil 


e.l  Mates. 


H'!,/.,  .'.US. 


l!>.  He  is  thi'  lirst  iinenlor  in  the 
sense  ot'  the  p;itent  law  ,  .Mini  entitled  to 
a  patent  lor  iiis  inxention,  who  h:is  lirst 
ptM't'eeted  .and  .idapled  the  same  to  u.se, 


'JI.  The  dietnni  of  SioKv  in  linlfoi;} 
V.  limit,  1  Mas.,  .'KM,  (^(^•  (I.  liial  "tlui 
lirst  inventor  who  has  p\it  the  invention 
in  praetiei',  uml  In  on/i/  is  entitled  to  h 
pati'iit,"  w  .'IS  I'onnded  on  tlu'  words  ''Imt. 
Iioif  lirni  in  iisr,"  in  }5  (I  of  the  act  ef 
IVOll,  hnt  ihesi'  words  h.ave   heeii  caic 


ill)  I 


1  nntil  tin*  inv»Milion  is  so  perre-'ledj  Inliy  evelnded  from  >$   l.">  of  the  acl  ef 


and  adapted  to  use,  it  is  iiol  pateulahle 
Ih'iL  o!>'.>. 


20.   In  tlie  raee  oi'  ilij 


i-i'dit'e 


hot 


ween 


ls:Ul.     If'iif. 

'J.">.   Hut    the    (h)ctrine    that    he   wlio 
first  eonnnnnie.'ites  an  invention  to  ilic 


piihhe    ami   puts   it  in  praelice 


n.l  /„ 


two  indepei\dent  in\entors,  he  who  tnst 
reduees  liis  invt'iition  to  a  lived  position  ;  mih/f  is  t'litilieii  to  a  p.atent,  is  not  su|i. 
ind    praetieal   I'orm,  uould  seiMU   to   he    porli-d  to  its  rnllesl  extent  Ity  llie  eMscs, 

and   does  not   apply  to  a  lirsl  invent 


entitK'tl  to  a  priority  ol'  rinht   to  a  pat- 
ent therel'or.     If>i\l.,  ■')•.>!>,  tiOO. 

•Jl.   Uul    this   riijht   is  (pialilied   hy  5; 
1,")  ol'  tlie  aet  ol'  1S;U>,  whieh   providi's 


ov 


who  IS  nsmy  it'ason.'ilne  Uili^-eiice  in 
adapt inij  and  perl'i'dinn  his  iinenlioii, 
whose  riirht  is  saved  by  55  15  ol"  the  acl 


that  in  sneh  cases  the  lirst  inventor  shall  1  of  IS.'Mi.     .//>/</. 

have  the  ]irior  ri«j;ht,  if  he  is  usimi  rea- j  -Jt.).  If  an  invention  bo  the  moro  spoc- 
sonablo  diliixeneo  in  adaptinL;  and  jier- j  ulation  of  a  ])hilosoj)her  or  nieclinni- 
feetin<x  the  same,  allhoULxh  the  soeond    eian  in  his  eloset,  and  ho  takes  no  stt'i) 


invent lU"  has  in  faet   first   perfeeted   the 


amo  and  redueed  the  same  I 


o  practu'o 


in  a  positive  f»>rm.      f/u'if.,  (lOO. 

•22.  The  riLrht  of  the  first  inventor  is 


toward  seeuring  a  patent,  bill  keqts 
his  invention  a  soorct,  and  another  poi- 
son, who  is  also  an  orijjjiiial  but  siihso- 
quent  inventor  of  the  same  thing,  obtaiu 


INVKNTOU.  n. 


•H7 


KiuNi    vMi  imiiiiNAi.;  NuimKiiUHNi';  iiiiiirm  or, 


n|' 


lilciil  r<»i"  ••  •""'  l»ii">?  ••  '"•'•  iisr,  |lu»  I  I'hdi  of  tlic  inviMitioii.      Str>'it  v.  Sifi'rr, 


Kitcn 


l('(<  in  ii  Hiiil  lit  liivv  will  lie  i-oiHitl- 


t'Vt't 


I  (lie  liiHl  inv»Mil(»r. 


\N 


HM'Vt'r 


tirsi  I 


/  A/./, 
•(•rft'i'ts  II  iiiiii-liinr 


,1  iiiiikcH  it  «'ii|'iililn  <•{'  iiHt'lul  <i|M>riilioii, 
lilli'il  to  II   imlt'iit,  tiiiil  is  tlii>  n 


IS  en 


'III 


III 


viiilor,  lln>ii;^li  olIuTs  iimv  li.ivc  IiikI 
ill,' itlf.i,  Mini  minlt'  Ht»im»  i>\|M«riiiH'iilM 
towiiitl  piilliiiK  '•■  '"  I'liiflico.  W'lm/i' 
hum  V.  (u>iihl,\\  Sioiy,   i;i;t.   -Stoiiy, 


M 


ISS., 


IHII. 


mm 


2H.  Tlu'    I'lifl    tliMt    H    |i!iity    iniulf  ii 
liiiic,  is  priimi  J'lifii'  rviflfiicc  tlinl 


lie  w.is  (lif  iii'^t    mvfiitnr  ( 


.r  it. 


II 


III' 


lliit^lillv,  t>H.  |{».ui;us.  .1.  ;  \'.\.,  |H|(i. 
.'i:t.  'riif  |trM\isinim  ol"  ^;5  il  iiimI  I.'»  of 
lli(<  iicl  «ii'  |m:i<(,  iiitro)liii'(>i|  nil  iiii|ior- 
liiiit  iiioililiralioii  into  llif  law  nl'  |iiil- 
nilM,  (li'Hij^iicii  to  |iro|<'('l  llir  AiiH'iii'iiii 
iiivciilnr  ti^iiiiiMt  till'  iiijiislii'c  ol'  lM'iii|r 
llirowii  out,  of  llit>  tViiits  oi'  IiIm  itiiri-iiii- 
ily,  liy  llio  rxislriicc  of  ii  m-cii'l  iiiM'ii 
lion  or  ijiscovi'iy  iiliroinj  Ihiit  is,  ii  iMh- 
t'ovcry  not,  |>!ilciil(')|,  mnl  not  dcsciiliril 
ill     liny    |ii'inti'i|    |iiilili<-:itioii.       .Iz/o//., 


>■■ 


I  It'll, 


;»T  V.   (t'lxxfi/iiii;   MS.   (A|>|i.  Cjis.) 

CliANrll,  CIl.  .1.;    1).  ('.,    IHIC. 

'jD.  Siii'li  nil  inrcrcnci^  is  liowt'Vi'!'  rr- 
liiiiii'il  liy  tlu«  I'tictH  lliiil  in  nuikiiiL,'  tlic 
iiiiU'liiiH'  lie  w:is  workiiii:  in  liis  tiadr  as 
•I  iiiai'liiiii^^t  in  tlif  t'in|>loy  anil  I'oi-  tin' 
lictii'lit  ol'  allot licr,  I'or  waives,  and  that 
li,>  iliil  not.  riaiin  lor  sonic  time  to  lie 
tilt*  iiivciilor  of  siK-li  niai'liini',  and  stood 
liv  ;iii«l  saw  Ills  finiiloycr  apply  lor  and 
olilaiii  a  palt'iit  lor  it  willioni,  oli'n'clioii. 
JhiJ. 

;i().  If  A  make  a  niacliinc  for  W  at  U'h 
n'niicst,  lor  liis  ln'iu'lil  and  at  liis  v\- 
|i('iis(>,  llii<  pn'siiinption  is  ilial  it  was 
iuikIc  ai't'ordinjjf  to  U's  dirt'clioiiN,  ami 
tlic  liiinlcn  of  ])n)<)r  is  on  A  to  sliow 
lliiit  it  was  not  niad(>  ai'conliiig  to  IJ's 
ilin'<'ti()iis.      //>i</. 

;il.  Tlio  first  inventor  is  entitled  to  :i 
|);it('nt,  mill  will  jirevnil  over  ii  sulise- 
i|ii('iit  one,  though  the  siihst'tpieiit  inveii- 
tiiiii  niayhe  inadeand  used  hefore  letters 
|i;iti'nt  are  taken  out  for  the  (irst.  Alhut 
V.  Itlitnt,  2  Wood.  &.  Mill.,  140.— 
WooniuniY,  .1. ;  Mass.,  lHt(5. 

32,  If  a  ])ateiitee  is  not  the  first  or 
oriLjinal  iiivi'iittu",  in  rc^ferenec  to  nil  tlie 
world,  lie  is  not  entitled  to  a  patent, 
even  nltlifiugh  he  liiid  no  knowledj^e  of 
the  previous  \isc  or  previous   deserip- 


n    Opiii.,     'l\.     'I'oi  «ii.:v,     All 

IHIH. 

;U.  A  A(i//(f  //(/»' Inventor  in  this  eonn- 
liy,  mill  who  Itelieved  hinisell'  In  In-  the 
original  and  first  inventor,  at  the  tiiiio 
of  his  application,  and  did  iiol  knuw  or 
liclieve  his  invention  had  hefnre  hcen 
knov.'ii  or  used,  is  entilled  to  a  patent 
for  his  invention,  thoti;^di  the  same  in- 
ventioii  may  have  hecn  known  and  used 
in  a  foreif^ii  country,  provided  it  had  not 
heeii  patented  or  desciihed  in  any  print- 
ed piililiiatioii.      Ihiil. 

',\t>.  In  Hiieh  a  (mihc  t  he  Aineriean  invent- 
or is,  in  contemplation  of  law,  under  tho 
provisions  ol"  the  aetr  <»f  ('on^nss,  the 
orii^inal  and  first,  inventor,  'riie  fact 
that  an  invention,  not  patcntid  or  de- 
Hcrihed  in  any  printed  pulilication,  has 
heen  bei'oi'o  known  and  iisi^l  in  any  for- 
eij^n  country,  is  iminaterial,  e\cipl  so 
far  as  it  may  have  (lome  to  the  kiiowl- 
j'd^e  of  th(!  American  inventor,  and  (;on- 
lliil  with  the  oath  lie  is  reipiired  to  tako 
as  an  orii^inal  inventor.     Ihld. 

;i(».  If  the  applicant  is  ;in  original  in- 
ventor, and  is  in  a  (condition  to  take  tho 
oath  reipiired,  the  actt  requires  the  Coin- 
miHsioner  to  issiu!  tlii!  patent,  the  courts 
to  dec^lare  it  valid,  and  est.ililisli  tho 
Aineriean  ri<;ht,  to  the  exclusion  of  tho 
I'orei}:;!!  discovery,  which  has  not,  in 
either   of  the  jriodos  indicated  hy  tiie 


m 


liii 


I,. .» 


iiw; 


111 
foil 


±i. 


*^  %>f.  .  Hill 

III 

llD    lip.».'  ' 

si-air 


'*^ite^ 


V«lir»«ii 

II 

iiMl|||i 


44fl 


INVENTOR,  n. 


riimt   AM)  OldillNAI,;    Hl'IIMKgl  KNT  ;    KHillTH  OF. 


net  of  (*>iii;n'ss,  Ih'cii  coiiiiininicatod  to 
till'  |Hllilir.      ffiiil. 

'M.  Cnitlt'  .-iiiil  iiiiporfcct  i>\|u'i'iiii(>iits, 
<'(liii\(tciil  ill  llii'ir  ri'siills,  aii<l  llicii  ;;iv«'M 
ii|»  lor  yt-ars,  raiiiiot  l>i'  iicniiitlcd  to  pre 
vail  aj^aiiisi  an  (iiii,'iiial  iiiNfiifor,  who 
lias  lu'rlt'ctrd  liin  iinprovi'iiu'iit  and  ob- 
laiiiiMl  Iiis  palciit,  Parkhiirnt  \.  Kins- 
man,  1  Mlaldif.,  404. — Nkijion,  J. ;  N, 
Y.,  1H4I>. 

38.  Till'  patiMiti'o  must  bo  tlio  orijj;- 
iiial  and  lirst  invontor.     The  invnition 


must    be   oriijfiiial    with    liim,    and  not 


known  to  others.  'J'he  only  exception 
exists  in  the  ease  of  :i  party  obtainiiijjf 
II  jiatent,  believing  himself  to  be  the 
original  inventor,  and  his  invention  is 
shown  io  have  been  Anoirn  in  n/oreh/n 
eounlry,  but  not  patented  there,  or  de- 
scribed in  any  printed  publieation.  Pur- 
her  V.  Ht'des^  5  3IeLean,  01. — Leaviit, 
J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

yf).  Although  all  the  parts  going  to 
constitute  the  plaintirt"s  invention — a 
CIV  wheel — may  have  been  known  be- 
fore, and  developed  in  i)rior  wheels,  if 
the  patentee  first  brought  them  together 
into  a  whole,  and  that  whole  is  materi- 
ally different  from  any  whole  that  exist- 
ed before,  ho  is  the  original  ami  lirst  in- 
ventor, and  entitled  to  a  patent  therefor. 
Many  v.  Sizcr^  MS. — SruAouE,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1849. 

40.  The  presumption  of  law'  is  that  a 
patentee  is  the  first  inventor  of  the 
thing  patented  to  him,  and  the  burden 
of  pi'Dof  is  on  the  party  denying  it,  to 
disprove  the  fact.  Pitts  v.  JLtll,  2 
IJlatchf.,  231.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.Y.,  1851. 

41.  The  question  as  to  who  is  the 
first  inventor,  is,  not  wlio  constructed 
the  first  machine,  but  who  conceived,  and 
gave  practical  form  and  effect  to  the 
arrangement  which  constitutes  the  im- 
provement.    Ibid.,  235. 


42.  It  \n  not  necessary,  to  prrifnf  ;, 
paleiiteii  as  the  lirst  inventor,  tliiii  h^ 
Hhoiild  liHve  lieeii  the  first  one  to  hii;;. 
gest  the  possibility  or  prolialiility  of  siidi 
discovery  or  iiivcniioii.  He  miiy  li;i\|. 
prolited  by  the  expt-rinieiits  of  othns' 
btit  it  gives  them  no  right  to  (>liiiiii  n 
share  of  tlio  honor  or  proliis  of  d,,, 
successful  inventor,  (imxlijfiir  v.  Jhni 
2  Wall,  Jr.,  209.— tJi:ii:it,  J.;  \.  j., 
1852. 

43.  If  A,  claiming  to  l)e  an  invciitdr 
of  a  certain  invention,  stainl  by  niiil 
hear  anotlier  make  claim  to  the  s;iin(>  in. 
veiition  without  asserting  his  own  cliim 
to  such  invention,  the  inference  will  lir 
warranted  that  the  jirinciples  of  siuh 
invention  were  not,  at  that  time,  known 
to  A.  Jiitijijha  V.  Voinii/,  .MS.  (A||i. 
Cas;)— MoKsKix,  J.;  D.  C,  1853. 

44.  lie  is  the  first  inventor,  who  Inis 
first  perfected  and  adapted  the  invin 
tion  to  use;  but  tliis  i)osition  is  sulijict 
to  the  qualification,  that  lie  who  iinumt^ 
first  shall  have  the  jrrior  right,  if  he  is 
using  reasonable  diligence  in  pcrfcctiii:,' 
and  adapting  the  same,  althoiiLrli  ihe 
second  'wwQWiov  has  in  fact  Jlrxt  jxrfi it- 
ed  the  same,  and  reduced  it  to  prfictioe 
in  a  positive  form.  Marshall  v.  Jfn\ 
3IS.  (App.  Cas.) — DuNLOP,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1853. 

45.  A  long  course  of  mere  fruitless 
experiments  to  reduce  a  principle  to 
jiractice,  Avill  not  be  sufficient  to  pre- 
vent a  subsequent  original  inventor, 
who  lias  perfected  his  invention  witli- 
out  knowledge  of  the  prior  invention, 
from  receiving  a  jiatent.  MvCurmkk 
v.  Ketchum,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.)— Moe- 
SELL,  J.  ;  D.  C,  1853. 

40.  But  where  a  prior  inventor  has 
been  using  due  diligence  to  perfect  his 
invention  and  adapt  it  to  practical  use, 
his  right  will  be  preserved  and  protect- 


^--L 


INVENTOR,  H. 


410 


riRST  A<D  oniaiNAL;  buimkquknt;  HiaiiTH  or. 


ed  jiltlioii;;''  liiH  niH'c-o«H  nifty  not  be  por- 
JVct.     /'"''• 


pnuaioal   iniidiino,   nml    rt'dtu-od   it  to 
practUH".     Ho  who  lias  llrHt  (loin?  tliis, 


47,  I'liiItT  tlu'  proviso  of  §  15  of  tluv  is  tho  iiivfiitor  wlio  in  untitled  to  pro- 
act  of  is.'ttl,  an  orij:;inal  inventor  in  en-  taction.     //>/>/.,  n2'2. 


titled  to  reonivo  a  patent  for  Iuh  invon 
tion  ovi'M  tliotifjli  lie  may  not  lie  a  first 
(liscovonT  in  respect  to  sneh  invention 
hiivin"  l>een  known  in  a  foreijjfn  eoini- 
try,  iirovided  he  believed  himself  to 
bo  the  first  inventor,  and  siieh  forei^^n 
Invi'iitioii  had  not  been  patented,  or 
(Icsi-rilx'd  in  any  i)rinted  i)ul)lifation. 
O'lUdbj  V.  Morse,  16  I  low.,  110.— 
Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Suj).  Ct.,  185:). 

48.  The  mere  specnlation  of  a  philos- 
opher or  mochanie,  never  put  into  prac- 
tice or  operation,  will  not  deprive  a 
Hubscquciit  inventor,  who  lias  employed 
his  labor  and  talents  in  itntlin*^  it  into 
practice,  of  the  reward  du(!  to  his  in- 
('ciiuily  and  enterprise.  liich  v.  Lip- 
phu'ott,  20  Frank.  Jour.,  15,  ;kl  Scr.— 
GiuEK,  J.;  Pa.,  1H5:). 

40,  Hut  if  the  first  inventor  reduced 
his  theory  to  practice,  and  put  liis  in- 
vention into  use,  the  greater  or  loss  use 
of  it,  or  the  more  or  less  widely  the 
knowledge  of  its  existence  may  circu- 
late, will  not  constitute  the  criterion  by 
which  to  decide  upon  the  validity  of 
any  subsequent  patent  for  the  invention. 
Ibid.,  15. 

50.  The  circumstance  that  a  person 
has  had  an  idea  of  improvement  in  liis 
head,  or  has  sketched  it  upon  paper — 
and  then  gives  it  up — does  not,  in  judg- 
ment of  law,  constitute  or  have  the  effect 
to  constitute  him  the  first  and  original 
inventor.  Wtnans  v.  iV.  Y.  tfi  JIar.  It. 
R,  31  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  3d  Set.,  322.— 
Xelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

51.  It  is  not  the  person  who  lias  only 
produced  the  idea  that  is  entitled  to 
protection  as  an  inventor,  but  the  per- 
Bwi  who  has  embodied  the  idea  into  a 

29 


62.  If  the  idea  iiiv(dved  in  the  pat- 
ented arti(de  had  occurre«l  to  others, 
or  had  couie  to  the  patentee  from  others, 
still,  if  the  patentee  had  been  the  first 
to  give  to  that  idea  a  usefid  ami  prac- 
tical form,  he  will  be  considered  the 
first  inventor.  Tcc.'tfi  v.  Pfwlpi*,  1  INIc- 
Allis.,  40.— iM.Ai.MSTKu,  J.;  C'al.,  1H55. 

53.  When  two  persons  are  both  in- 
ventors of  the  same  thing,  the  one  who 
perfected  his  invention  first  is  protected 
by  the  law.  Allen  v.  Jluntir,  0  Mc- 
Lean, 322. — McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1H55. 

64.  If  an  inventor  does  not  use  rea- 
sonable diligence  to  perfect  his  inven- 
tion after  the  idea  of  it  is  conceived, 
.ind  in  the  mean  time  another  not  only 
(jonceives  the  idea  but  perfects  the  in- 
vention, and  practically  applies  it  to 
public  use,  the  latter  is  the  first  and 
original  inventor,  and  a  patent  gr.anted 
to  the  former  will  be  void,  as  he  is 
not  the  first  and  original  inventor. 
Ransom  v.  Mayor,  cfcr.,  of  New  York, 
MS.— Hall,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

55.  The  cardinal  princi|«'ic  upon  which 
patent  laws  rest  is,  that  an  individual  is 
only  entitled  to  appropriate  to  his  ex- 
clusive control  that  which  he  has  by 
his  original  invention  or  discovery  first 
made  known  and  rendered  useful.  Ccirr 
V.  nice,  MS.— Hetts,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

50.  To  determine  his  exclusive  title, 
it  is  necessary  to  ascertain  -what  was 
before  known  to  the  public,  and  whether 
what  he  assumes  to  be  his  is  really  made 
so  by  being  distinct  from  any  thing  be- 
fore publicly  used  in  that  condition,  and 
aj)plicable  to  like  purposes,  and  is  ren- 
dered by  means  of  his  invention  usefuL 
Ibid. 


480 


INVENTOR,  B. 


^"^. 


M' 


^''hrsl^ 


•■5-(< 


^■■!- 


1%*' 


iC'^' 


'    '.<.■ 


|«Mn 


H!  Ifi' 


"'«P' 


i 


'>s,-^-:^v 


'*».,, 


Mt:  '■): 


■ii  j'liljtl 


rtHKT   ANI>  OIUUINAI.;   KL'UMKgUKNT;    HIlillTN  Of. 


fi7.  Hit  who  firHl  inukcH  known  Niifll- 
ciontly  an  iiivt'iitiim,  by  tli'Mcriltitig  it  in 
woi-(Ih  or  driiwin^H,  will  be  connidcruil 
tliu  fii'Ht  inv«-ntor,  and  vcHtfd  with  un 
inchoktr  ri^lit  to  itH  ux«-ltiHivc  iinc,  which 
ho  nmy  onihody,  perfuct,  and  niukt;  ab- 
Huliito  by  profuedinfj;  to  luuturu  it  in  tlu* 
innnner  whicli  the  Iriw  rtMinircH.  J/ill 
V.  J)unkli>f,  MS.  (Ai>i>.  CiiH.) — MouHKLL, 
J.;  1).  C,  1857. 

58.  In  d(>torininin^  the  qitoHtion,  un- 
der {}  15  of  the  art  «»!'  IHMO,  whether  a 
patentee  believed  hiniNeit*  to  be  the  tlrMt 
inventor  uf  the  tiling  piitented,  notwith- 
Htunding  tho  actual  exitttenco  «>f  aueh 
ihinj^  in  a  foreifjn  country,  which  how- 
over  had  not  been  patented  or  described, 
tho  detendant  may  give  eviilence  that 
the  patentee  knew  of  the  existence  of 
tho  tiling  abroad,  and  in  considering  th(> 
fact  whether  he  believed  iiiinself  to  be 
the  first  inventor,  it  is  material  to  de- 
termine whether  ho  was  in  fact  tlie  orig- 
inal jitlventor.  Fbrbutihv.  Cook,  10  yio. 
Law  Uep.,  004. — CuuTis,  J. ;  Mass., 
1H57. 

69.  The  first  inventor  is  not  he  who 
made  or  perfected  the  first  machine  or 
iiiRtniment,  but  he  who  first  conceived 
the  idea,  and  ho  described  it  by  words 
or  drawings  as  to  cnabK;  a  skilful  work 
man  to  bring  it  into  useful,  practical 
operation.  Davidson  v.  Leivis,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — MoHsKLL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1858. 

00.  Such  a  person  will  be  protected 
against  the  claim  of  a  subsequent  inven- 
tor, who  m.ay  have  first  made  a  machine 
or  instrument,  provided  such  first  dis- 
coverer has  been  using  due  diligence  in 
effecting  the  same  end,  and  although  he 
may  have  been  unsucccssfid  in  sorao  of 
his  experiments,  if  by  following  them 
up  he  at  length  succeeds.    Ibid. 

61.  Although  an  inventor  and  paten- 
tee may  not  have  reduced  to  practical 


use  and  operation  his  invention,  bcforo 
the  time  the  mune  thing  may  have  Imvh 
invented  by  another,  if  at  the  time  of 
such  Hubse(|iu'nt  invention,  thi;  lirNt  in. 
ventor  was  using  reaHomtble  dilij^tuicu 
()$  16  of  the  act  uf  iHIiti)  in  ada|ttiiiir 
and  perfecting  the  same,  and  did  at\t'r- 
ward  in  a  reasonable  time  adapt  and 
perfect  the  same,  such  Nubseqiicnt  in- 
vention will  not  deprive  liim  of  tliclxn. 
efits  secured  l>y  his  patent.  Jiartlml). 
mem  v.  Sairyer,  MS. — iNciEUSoi.L,  J.  • 
N.  v.,  Apr.,  18r)9. 

02.  The  true  meaning  of  55  7  of  the 
iict  of  IHiiO  is,  that  a  patent  shall  i>i8uu 
to  an  applicant  and  bo  valid,  if  he  i.s  the 
originator  and  author  of  a  new  iiivcn- 
tion  or  discovery,  unless  the  thin;,'  in- 
vented by  him  has,  prior  to  his  alli';,'eii 
«liMcove»*"  or  invention,  been  invente(l,or 
discovered,  or  used  by  some  one  clxe  in 
this  country;  or  uidess  the  invention 
has  been  j)atented  or  described  in  some 
printed  publication  in  this  or  some  for- 
eign coimtry,  prior  to  the  alleged  inven- 
tion or  discovery  of  the  applicant ;  or 
unless  said  invention  of  the  apiilicant 
had  been  in  public  use,  or  on  sulu  with 
his  consent  and  allowance,  prior  to  iiis 
application  for  a  patent,  for  more  than 
two  years.  Bartholomew  v.  Sawijtf, 
MS.— Ingkksoix,  J. ;  N.Y.,  Sept.,  1859. 

03.  Though  a  machine  is  made  urul 
completed  prior  to  the  invention  of 
another,  and  though  such  prior  mai'hine 
embodies  the  improvements  or  jirin- 
ciples  contained  in  the  other,  the  inqui- 
ry for  the  jury  is,  whether  the  former 
was  in  point  of  fact  a  machine  complet- 
ed and  reduced  to  practice  in  contradis- 
tinction to  an  experimental  macliine,  or 
a  machine  made  by  the  supposed  invent- 
or, in  the  prosecution  of  experiments 
and  inquiries  ;  and  unless  it  appear  that 
such  machine  was  actually  used  as  a 


INVKNTOII,  n. 


451 


riMT  Axu  oataixAL;  tuMiquuT;  biohtc  or. 


working  miu'liiiH'i  tlio  jury  ari«  warriuil- 
ctl  in  prt'siiinitin  tliiit  it  is  a  riiero  ox  per- 
iiiieiii,  atxl  it'  "<*<  '^  ^''"  "^'^  iiivnii<lato  a 
patent,  ()lttain(><l  by  tlu'  otluT  <»r  «ulmo- 
qiit'iit  invontor,  provided  Huch  pftteiitcf 
wiiM  an  orijjcinal  inventor,  without  knowl- 
(>(li;e  of  tlie  toriiier  inaeliinc,  and  did 
not  derive  any  of  hh  invention  from 
Mich  other  perHon.  Cahoon  v.  Bi/if/, 
jIv<_Ci.iKKi»Ki>,  /.;  Me,,  iH.'in. 

04.  To  entitle  any  pernon  to  an  ex- 
clusive ripht,  by  virtue  of  a  patent,  he 
must  be  the  first  aH  well  us  the  orij^inal 
inventor.      Johnson    v.   Jioot,   ]MS. — 

Sl'KAtiUK,  J.  ;    MaSH.,   iH-'jO. 

tl5.  The  person  who  elearly  Hupgests 
an  invention,  or  deseribes  it,  so  that  it 
can  be  practically  applied,  is  entitled 
to  a  patent  therefor,  and  not  the  one 
who  first  actually  putH  it  in  operation. 
SteariKif  v.  J)(nu's,  IVIS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
DiNi.op,  J. ;  D.C.,  1859. 

GO.  The  person  who  is  the  first  to 
conceive  and  give  expression  to  the  idea 
of  an  invention,  in  such  clear  and  in- 
telligible manner  that  a  person  skilled 
in  the  business  could  construct  the 
tiling  is  entitled  to  a  patent,  provided 
he  uses  reasonable  diligence  in  perfect- 
injf  it.  Eamea  v.  Richards,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Merrick,  J. ;  D.  C,  1859. 

67.  Where  an  inventor  describes  his 
invention  to  a  mechanic,  and  directs 
him  to  construct  it,  he  is  entitled  to  a 
reasonable  time  for  making  experiments 
in  order  to  perfect  his  invention,  and 
such  description  and  experiments,  if 
successful,  will  be  considered  as  suffi- 
cient evidence  of  an  assertion  of  his 
right  at  the  time  he  made  them,  al- 
though a  subsequent  inventor  may  first 
perfect  the  invention  and  obtain  a  pat- 
ent therefor;  and  such  prior  inventor 
will  be  entitled  to  a  patent.  Dietz  v. 
Buniham,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Morsell, 


J.;  1>.  C,  1850;  Oihhs  v.  Johnson. 
//>i,f.,   1800. 

(IH.  Merc  conversations  about  tho 
practicability  i>f  an  improvement,  or 
suggestions  as  to  the  nntmier  in  whic.lt 
it  might  be  carrie<l  out  orao;'omplished, 
will  not  of  themselves  defeat  tht;  claims 
to  originality  of  him  who  perfects  thu 
idea  and  secures  a  patent.  Jwlnon  v. 
^foore,  MS. — Lkavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  iHtlO. 

UO.  Neither  will  experiments  defeat, 
even  if  known  to  the  patentee,  if  it  ap- 
pear that  he  has  prosecuted  such  exper- 
iments to  final  success.     IhUL 

70.  Hut  any  information  to  a  patentee 
sufficient  to  enable  him  to  construct  tho 
thing  itself,  would  destroy  the  original- 
ity of  the  invention.  Such  knowledge, 
however,  must  bo  definite  and  tangible^ 
and  sufficient  of  itself  to  enable  the 
party  to  whom  imparted  to  construct 
tho  thing.     Ibid. 

71.  If  an  inventor  who  lias  obtained 
a  patent  is  not  the  first  to  have  conceiv- 
ed the  ideas  he  claims,  and  to  have 
adapted  them  to  practical  use,  his  patent 
is  void.  An  invention  belongs  to  tho 
prior  inventor,  whether  he  has  obtained 
a  patent  or  not.  Winafis  v.  Danforth, 
MS.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1800. 

12.  The  party  who  first  conceives  tho 
idea  or  conception  of  an  invention  is 
entitled  to  a  patent,  provided  he  ])ur- 
sues  his  idea  or  conception  and  reduces 
it  to  practice  within  a  reasonable  time, 
though  another  may  have  first  actiuilly 
reduced  the  invention  to  practice.  Hev. 
Rtih.  Co.  V.  Wing,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
DuNLOP,  J.;  D.  C,  1860. 

73.  The  first  inventor  is  entitled  to  a 
reasonable  time,  to  be  judged  of  accord- 
ing to  the  circumstances  of  the  particu- 
lar case,  in  which  to  perfect  his  inven- 
tion, without  impairing  his  claim  to  pri- 
ority.   If  he  is  using  reasonable  dili- 


1^1 


"^^ 


■*^\ 


Bi*' 


;■()*»• ' 


li' 


'Hi'' 


^ 


fl»    ir  1. 


^^^^ 


i  i-^i 


tiutt 


■■^f 


4AJ 


JDINT  INVKNTION  AND  IWTKNT. 


wuik;  ami  iiiuurn  LNiiai, 


Unuv,  lit' will  tiot  liHo  liiM  i-ii»li(  tlinxiuli 
mitxIuM-  \\x^\  iiiiikini;  :i  w  mkiiiir  iii\  t'li- 
t'loii.  Api^itotnf  V.  (^hiiiithirii,  MS. 
(A|i|».  CiiK.)— MouHKii,,  .1.;  I).  I'.,  |H(»o. 

71.  An  invoiilor  who  lirht  iirrrfctM  mi 
itivciitioii,  :ui<t  !i|t|ilii':«  fur  itiul  olilaiiis  t 
I>:iti>iii  lor  it,  will  not  l)i>  «l«>|iriM't|  ol' liis 
rij^lit  to  •tiifli  p.Ut'iit  Ity  H  nior«'  tiinly 
Htid  i)t>^li;^t'iit  iitvt'iitor,  wlio  may  liavo 
first  i'oiii'fi\t>il  iIh>  idt'ii  ot'liii'  itivt'iitioii, 
))\it  dill  iiolliiii^'  lowiinl  r«<<liiiiii!,'  it  to 
jiractico,  or  applyin;,'  for  w  |iali'iil  for  It. 
H'-rM'.r  v.  /';>r/»,v.,  MS.  (A|.|..  Vi\*.)— 
DiNior,  J.;  I).  C,  !HHI. 

75.  Wluro  .\  coiiciiM'tl  tlu>  '' iilt-a" 
of  an  iiivciitioi),  lull  made  no  drawiii^ 
of  it  for  »ix  or  hovoii  montlis,  and  in  tin- 
moan  tinio  ({  had  foni't'ivcd  lht>  Hauii< 
iiivi'iilion,  and  h  '  imdf  a  tnoiU'l  of  it, 
tliiis  jjjivinLT  />/!>/••<  I j'ttnii  iiiitl  s/inpi'  1«< 
his  ('oMci'|itioii.  /A/7,  that  il  waH  to  1m> 
Ci)nsid«'ri'd  ax  having  Ih'^t  j»i>rf»'cli'd  his 
invontion.     Jfu'd. 

7(1.  If  a  person,  aHcr  lii\  iiij;  the  <'oi\ 
(■('|ilii>n  of  an  invt'iilion,  is  nsinjj;  dm' 
tlilijjjfnci'  to  perfect  it  and  rodnee  it  to 
praotiec,  he  will  still  he  deern«>d  the  fn'Ht 
inventor,  though  another,  who  eon.  eived 
the  idea  latt'r,  may  have  lirsl  jierfeeted 
the  idea  by  inannfaoluring  th<  thitig  in- 
vented. ///<7.\i  V.  Shaver,  MS.  (App. 
Cas«.)— DiNLor,  J. ;  I).  C,  1861. 


>fc 


JOINT    INVKNTIOX    AND   PAT- 
ENT. 

1.  If,  of  two  joint  invcMitors  of  a  ma- 
chine, one  of  them,  without  the  other 
reliiuiiiishing  his  interest  to  a  joint  in- 
ten-it  in  the  patent  right,  o]>tain9  a  })at- 
cnt  in  his  own  name,  he  will  be  deemed 
gnilty  of  a  fraud,  and  will  in  eipiity  be 
considered  as  a  trustee  for  the  other. 


liiutiffii  \.  Kiih'urf*,   1    Wash.,  I7l.__ 
Wasiiinoton,  ,1    ,  Ta.,  |ho|. 

'.'.  .\  joint  patent  nniy  well  he  jtrraui. 
ed  lor  II  joint  inviiil'on.  An  iiixciiiiiin 
may  be  the  result,  of  fhi>  eoinbiufil  m,.,,. 
till  operations  oi  \\\n  per^txiis  acijii"  tn. 
ifether.  -\s  neither  eoiiM  elaiiii  lu  I,,, 
(lu>  Hole  inventor,  the  invention  In  joim 
and  they  are  jointly  entitled  ton  paiini, 
lltrntt  V.  //.///,  1  Mas.,  47a.— .s,,,,,, 
.1.,  Mass.,  iHls. 

il.  A  joint  patent  eaniioi  be  siiNtaiiir  I 
upon  a  sole  invention  of  eilhcr  of  (|„. 
patentees,  for  tliii  patent  net  jjivcs  im 
right  to  a  patent  e  \eept  to  the  inviiiinr. 

4.  A  joint  patent  for  an  iiuentinn  i> 
utterly  iiieonsistent  with  m-veral  patciiN 
for  till*  Name  invention  by  the  Kainc |i:ir- 
lies.  No  person  ean  bi-  at  the  «\\uw 
tinu'  the  jt)inl  and  sole  inventor  (if  ilio 
www  invention.     /7<i«/.,  47M. 

T).  If  several  patents  are  taken  oii(  In 
-everal  patentees  for  a  several  iincn- 
turn,  and  the  -^nne  patentees  al'lcrwaiil 
ttike  out  a  joint  patent  for  the  Kanicis 
a  joint  invention,  the  parties  are  not  iili- 
sohitely  estopped  by  the  former  |i;ili'iii< 
from  asserting  the  invention  to  1m' jdiiii; 
but  the  fornu'r  patents  are  very  stimi;' 
evideiu'e  against  the  joint  invcnlion, 
Ihid.,  174. 

0.  AVhere  two  persons  obtained  sev- 
eral pal  'Ills,  ami  afterward  oliiuiiei]  1 
joint  patent  for  tin*  invention  pnteiitcl 
in  the  several  patentH,  and  aOrrwanl 
covenanted  together  .as  to  a  division  of 
their  interests  niidei  >iicli  joint  patent, 
Jffid,  to  an  aetion  of  covenant  l)roii<»lif 
by  one  of  wich  joint  patentees,  that  the 
oth( '•  'ould  not  pload  that  neitli'T  was 
the  inventor,  or  that  weparat  p  'ints 
had  been  issued  to  each,  t'^teornen  r. 
Barrett,  1  Pick.,  443,  447.— AVii.dEjJ.; 
Mass.,  1823. 


':-i' 


(W^^.  Ij. 


JOINT  INVKNTION    \S\)  rATKNT. 


wiimt  AW  ■Murni  trittMm. 


7.  AikI  tliitf  iit\i>r  lwi\  iiiji;  nl>lniii(*«l  n 

joint.  |iali  >l.  iH'i''<»'r  |iiiily  vouU\  koI  ii|> 
the  prior  x>'p:tl'ult>  |)ilh<lltM,  niii|    iit'ltlirl 

WilN    t>H|o|>|<>  >i     !>>'   tin*    ^«'|>!trilt('     pIltl'tttH 

iVoiii  >i!«H('rliMf<  tliitt  till)  invciilioii   wiim 
joint,     MiW.,  147. 

8,  I  lilt' i'ir«Miti)M(ikii<'i>N  ur«  ii'hiiHin 
t\\,iVf  th-u  twii  piirtii'H  colli riliiitfil  to  aii 
iiivt'iitioii,  HO  iiM  to  iiitiko  tlirtii  joiiil  hi- 
vi'iilorH,  n  Joint  piiti'iit  »<li"iilt|  lir  t:ik>  n 
Dill.     77ininii»  \.   Wri'^H,  '2   I'aiiii',   lOI. 

_-Tiio«i'«<'N,  .!■;  N.  v.,  IH2V. 

(I.  'I'Ik'  niiiii  who  rri|ii*'«>s  lo  pcarliri' 
till-  theory  »f  ftnothcr,  who  i»MNi,MtM  in 
tlii>  rt'<hiilioii  of  it  to  prat  (it'i>,  raiiiiol 
he  foiisith'ii'il  IIS  ihc  sole  iiivi'lltor  of 
llii'  marliini'.  Arnold  v.  /lin/ii'/i,  MS. 
(App.  Cum.)— Cuanui,  Ch.  .1  ;  l>.  C, 

IHII. 

111.  ir  oiif  sii>;i{»'mI  llir  iiK  h'  ofopi-r- 
atioii  or  the  princi|il(>  of  u  inachiiic,  itml 
miolhcr  rciliict's  it  to  priicti(M>,  luithcr 
am  ho  coiifiiK'nMl  rh  tin*  Moh'  iiiv«-nlor, 
liiit  the  iiivmtioii  is  jnjiil.      //u</. 

II.  Oiii' of  two  or  more  Jiiiiil,  iii\i    i- 
tors  ix  not  f/nt  iiivctilor,  w  ilhiii  lht>  inciiii 
iiijr,.!'  55  r.  n\'  Ihr  ii.l,  oC  ln;i(l,  ami  ifhc 
a|)i>lii'H  tor  a  patent,  llie  (!oiiiiiiiHHi(»iu<r  in 
ImmiiuI  to  refuse  it.      f/nil. 

I'j.  ralenlH  for  iiiV(>ntioim  eannol,  un- 
der J5  tt  of  ,lio  (id  of  1h:i7,  Inhiio  jointly 
to  the  inventor  iiK  hiicIi,  uikI  to  tho  as- 
Mj,'nee  of  a  partial  interent;  hut  may 
issue  to  the  aHHij^nee  or  iiHsij^iiees  of  tiuf 
vliole  intereHt.  Anon.,  4  Opin.,  Mil. — 
Mahuv,  Alty.  (ten.;    lHi5. 

in.  A  partial  assif^tinient  l»efore  Issiie 
does  not  eniithf  tho  partial  assignee  lo 
have  the  patent  issiicil  to  him  to  the  ex- 
tent of  his  'nti'rest.      //>«/.,  401. 

14,  If  a  i»atent  is  issued  to  two  as 
their  joint  invention,  hmcIi  patent  is 
jirima  facie  ovi(l«»iice  that  the  invention 
was  joint,  though  tho  faet  may  ho  dis- 
proved at  thu  trial.  Ilotchki.is  v.  (Jrcen- 


wool/,   4    .Mef^enii,    4llJ.      Mi'I^kan,   J,; 

Ohio,  IH4H. 

ir>.  .V  J.dnt  interest  in  a  puteiil  duot 
'lot  make  ihoHO  inteii  -ted  pirtiiorM. 
Some  ikL^M-eeiiieiit  liei'oiiitiN  iuu'I'hnkj  jr  to 
••fiaMe  Iheiii  lo  work  llio  iiiv«'nlioii  at 
thn'ir  j"iii(  I'xpeice  and  for  tin  u  Joint 
heiM'lit.  i*itrA/iiirtl  \.  Ki/iHnimi,  I 
Mlin.hf.,  411(1.     Nm.ho>»,  J.;  N.V.,  IMIO. 

III.  I'riMif  of  (he  deelaratiotiH  <>f  h 
parly  elaimiuj^  lo  he  a  joint  inventor  of 
an  inveiilioii,  and  le^serlin^  hih  h  in>eii'> 

torship,   made   in   ihr   piesem f   iho 

other  joint  inveiilor,  and  not  denied,  or 
impheiity  admilleil  l>y  him,  Will  he  Niif- 
lieicnl  III  prevent  the  iNHuin;{of  a  patent 
to  >4iieh  other  inventor,  on  an  ap^ili<  uiioii 
without  joining  tin;  former.  Ymi'HU'y 
V.  Itrookjbid,  MS.  (App.  ('aH.)— Moii- 
HICI.I,,  .f.;    I).  ('.,   |H.,,t. 

1 7.  The  relation  o|'  copartners  he- 
twi'vii  joint  patenti'eH  docH  not  result 
from  their  eonniHttion  as  joint  pat«>iileefi, 
or  het  ween  one  of  two  joint  |>atenti'eH 
and  the  iiHsi^neo  of  the  other,  'i'lm 
parlies  are  simply  joint  owiim's  or  ten* 
antM  ill  eoininoii,  of  the  rights  and  pro|>> 
eriy  secured  by  the  patent  and  their 
li.Ljhts,  powci  ;,  ,ind  duties  as  respeetn 
each  other  aro  hMlistiintially  those  of 
the  Joint  ow'inrs  of  a  chattel.  l*!tf.Hv. 
Hull  ;i  niatchf,  200.— Hall,  J.;  N.  Y., 
IH.M. 

!H.  One.  Joint  owner  of  :i  patent  can 
lei^:illy  f^niiil,  assijLjii,  lict-nse,  or  ■  "11  only 
in  refpec*  tt^  his  own  sharo  or  right;  lio 
cannot  sell  and  f^ive  j;ood  title  to  hirt 
co-owmn's  rif^ht ;  and  if  he  appropriates 
any  portion  (d"  the  i'xclnsivc  lij^ht  or 
eonitmm  property  to  his  Hoparatc  ti.se  or 
Itenefit,  either  by  a  Halo  or  UHO  of  tho 
patented  machine,  it  is  in  jtrinciiph;  the 
samo  as  a  conversion,  by  destriu  lion  or 
sale,  of  the  joint  property  by  a  tenant 
in  common,   and  for  which  the  other 


'C 


■■M^*^^c*^^,, 


i.^.^^' 


'ii., 


JUKlSDKTroN'.-JI'UY. 

WM^r  g<  kNTIiiNi  DKrilllMINHD  MT. 


ti'iiiinf  In  I'ommnti  ooiiM  mniiilnlii  trr>v«r. 
Ji}itl.,  '.'07,  '.'OH. 

19.  NnHnllMCiii'torjr  r«<a«ort  <<tiiit-«  why 
till'  part  ownvr  of  n  piitriii-riKht  i-umot, 
lik*>  till'  pitrt  owner  of  n  rliiittr',  liav« 
Ilia  miii'ily  by  nii  act  ion  on  tl,c  ctuu 
ii^ainMl  Ilia  ('o|iio|irit<iiir,  fitr  tlf  «'«clit- 
nivi*  apprrtpriation  of  tlio  joint  |)rn|M*r- 
(y,  ill  tliM  Naino  form  am  tlmn^li  tlio 
plaitilifV  wt<r<>  tin*  Nolo  own<T  ami  tliu 
ilt't'ciKlatit  n  Hlranj^iT.      AA///.,  'J08. 

'20.  In  Niich  an  action  npiinut  hln  co- 
owntT  for  an  iiifriii({i<nii<nt  of  tlio  patent, 
lit'  can  rt-covcr  IiIm  actual  ilaniav;c!«  nc- 
cording  to  IiIn  intercut  in  the  patent, 
withniit  ro{^artl  to  tho  nniount  w  liich 
IiIn  coproprietor  han  recelv«><I  hy  incanx 
of  the  iiilViiij^cnienf.      //*/</.,  20H. 

'J I.  One  tenant  in  eoniinon  lian  an 
go()<l  a  rif^ht  to  tist)  and  to  license  tliirtl 
perHonM  to  UHO  tho  thing  patontcil  n* 
the  other  tenant  in  coininon  haH.  <V/<m 
V.  lirvwrr,  2  C/'urt.,  .')'.'4.— Ci  luis,  J. ; 
MaHH,,  18^5. 

22.  Neither  (lan  come  into  a  court  of 
equity  and  assert  a  Hiiperior  efpiity,  un- 
less it  haH  been  created  by  some  Qm\- 
tract  between  them.  None  stich  exist- 
ill};,  one  tenant  in  common  cannot  cmi- 
join  tho  other  from  nuch  u.so  or  Hale. 
Ihul.,  524. 

2:1,  If  the  invention  patented,  ati  *  ' 
joint  patent,  is  the  sole  invention  of  0110 
of  the  jiatentecs,  and  not  the  joint  in- 
vention of  both,  the  pat<a»t  is  void. 
Jtanaom  v.  Mayor,  cftc,  0/  New  Vor/c, 
MS.— IIaix,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1  h.50. 

24.  A  joint  patent  may  bo  t.iken  out 
by  two  persons  for  an  improvement  in 
a  machine,  the  object  of  which  is  to 
produce  n  given  eft'ect,  though  such  im- 
provement may  consist  of  two  distinct 
and  8cp.arate  parts,  and  such  parties 
may  have  separately  invented  such 
parts,  the  one  inventing  one  part  and 


thd  othur  the  othei .  Wihon,  AM(>/n„ 
">/  .MK'en  <l/«//  Ftllhoutrn^  y,  ,Sini/rr,  M> 
(App.  ('.w.)-Ih  Ni.oi.,  J.;  h.  ('..  IhUo^ 
*JI5.  Hut  li«'li|  by  NieinoN,  J.,  in  rrlVr. 
ence  to  tliii  MHine  patent,  that  ol"  ,\iln.t„ 
and  Fi*llhoUNen,  that  if  each  wkm  an 
inventor  of  a  tliNtinct  part,  fi)>|iiir;itr 
patentH  ought  to  have  isMiieil  to  coth. 
and  not  a  joint  patent  to  the  two;  aixl 
that  if  so  issiu'd,  the  patent  wan  voiii, 
/'ntfer  V.  Wihon,  MS. — Nkuo.n,  J. 
N.  v.,  I  MOO. 

JirUlSDICTION 

Of  ('ourtN,  ico  Couhth;  KmiTT. 
Of  Justices  of  Cin-iiit  Court  of  Div 
trict  «)f  Columbia,  see  Aim'kalm,  H.  3. 


JURY. 


As  to  how  far  tho  jury  may  construe 
Patents,  hee  Patknt,  P.  4. 

1.  The  jury  are  to  dotormine  wlii'th. 
or  the  patentee  in  the  first  inventor; 
whether  the  defendants  are  iixjiij,'  hi^ 
invention  ;  and  whether  improvciiu'iiti* 
in  a  machine  are  in  the  princijilc,  nr 
form,  or  projiortions  of  it.  Jieiitijcuw 
Kitnowm,  1  Wash.,  171. — Wahhi.nutox, 
J.;  Pa.,  1H04. 

2.  Whether  an  invention  is  new  ari'l 
useful  is  a  (ptestion  for  tho  jury.  Park 
V.  Little, '\  Wash.,  197. — Wasiiinotos, 
.J.;  Pa.,  1813. 

.1.  It  is  for  tho  jury  to  decide  whetluT 

there  has  been  any  dedication,  hy  the 

inventor,  of  his  invention  to  the  publii'. 

Whittenuvre  v.  Cutter,  1   Gall.,  48.'.- 

Story,  J,;  Mass.,  1813. 

4.  It  is  a  question  for  the  jury,  wheth- 
er the  ro.ichine  used  by  the  defendant 
is  substantially  the  Hame  as  that  of  the 
plaintiff;   and    whether   the  plaintifi^n 


1%  ' 


jriiY. 


406 


WHAT  QVMfRW*  MmHUIWU*  BT. 


piyi^nt  h»»  bttn  aurri'iil  it  ioitnly  i»l»luini'<t. 
(kliortm    V.    Winklry,    i    (iiill.,    flfl.- 

^loiiv,  J.;  M «*•».,  •«••• 

a,  Whcrv  it  iM'cointm  u  iiintt«>r  of  in- 
(iuiry«  whutlit'r  tliM  iM'tit'tltM  cil'iui  iiivi'ii- 
tioii  ar«  of  Hiifttrifiit  ('oiiNf<|ii«>n('<<  to  \w 
i)ri)t«'ft«'<l,  it  '\*  projHT  to  U'liVf  tin*  ijiirt* 
tiou  <»J'  utility  to  the  jury.  iMny^hn  v. 
/>«  //rool,  I  Puiiit',  U04.— liiviNiJHioN, 

J.;  N.  v.,  I«W. 

tf.  Hut  if,  oil  tho  pliiitititTH  own  nIi«)W- 
in^,  tlu'  iiiv«'iitioii  in  iiHt>l«>NH,  il  iiniy  lu' 
(l()uli(«'<l  wh«>tli«'r  th«>  court  wouM  trtui- 
fofiiil  its  liinitN,  in  di't'iditi);  hiicIi  <|iifN- 

7.  Tlw  iiiU'iitof  tlio  (lolny  in  n|t|>iyint? 
for  11  piitfiit,  mill  whctlior  tlit*  allowing  an 
invt'iition  to  hu  uno<I  without  »  patent, 
ihdulil  not  he  eonsidereil  uii  iihumion- 
mont,  \*  !i  queNtion  wiiieh  nIiouM  alwtiyM 
Ikj  Hiihinilled  to  \\  jury.  Morria  v. 
Jfit)iti>i</t<>n,  1  I'aino,  Ulii, — Tiiomi'- 
Bo.v,J.;  N.  Y.,  IH'J4. 

8.  In  every  ease,  it  in  a  quoHtion  fi>r 
the  jury,  whether  the  ehun^e  <»f  form 
nixl  proportion  in  an  invention  huH  pro- 
ducini  a  tlifli-rent  eHeet,  ami  is  a  new  in- 
vention. Daois  V.  Palmer,  2  Hroek., 
310.— Mausiiaij,,  Ch.  J.;  Va.,  1H'J7. 

9.  Tlie  (pioHtiun  whether  the  acts  or 
acquiescence  of  the  party  furnish,  in 
the  given  case,  satisfactory  ])roof  of  an 
almndonnient  or  dedication  of  the  inven- 
tion to  the  pubUc,  is  one  of  fact  rathi-r 
than  law.  liut  when  the  facts  are  given, 
there  does  not  seem  any  reason  why  the 
court  may  not  state  the  h>jj;al  conclusions 
deducible  from  them.  Pennock  v.  Di- 
alogue^ 2  l*et.,  10. — Storv,  J.J  Sup. 
Ct.,  1829. 

10.  Priority  of  knowledge  and  use  is 
a  question  of  fact,  which  a  jury  may 
decide  on  the  evidence  of  one  witness. 
Whitney  v.  J'Jmmett,  Bald.,  311 . — Bald- 
win, J.;  Pa.,  1831. 


11.  The  kiiowled^oof  an  inventor,  of 
hU  aeqiiicNieuce  in  the  pulthc  iite  of  hi« 
iiivetiiiiin,  may  he  preMunied  from  cir- 
euniNtaiieeit;  hut  thirt  in  a  fact  for  ihu 
jury.  StfUB  \.  Cnnftrr.l  Pet.,  3'il.— 
.Mt  I.KA.N,  J.;  Sup.  ('«.,  Ih;i:i. 

12.  The  jury  are  to  judj^e,  hy  nn  in- 
spection of  (he  models,  and  from  tho 
evidence,  whether  two  ma«'hincs  liilVer 
ill  principh'.  Smith  v.  Ptnr^'ty  2  Mc- 
Lcim,  170.— .McLka.v,  .F. ;  Ohio,  1H40. 

l;t.  The  (piesiion  of  the  forfeiture  or 
ahaiidoiiment  of  an  invention,  \*  aipieH- 
(ion  of  tact  for  a  jury  on  a  trial  at  law. 
JliUlnlh  v.  y/f«/M,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
Cka.n.  ii.Cli.  J.;  I).  ('.,  IHU. 

14.  Ol)jectit)nrt  to  a  patent,  that  tho 
specification  doen  not  HuHlciently  de- 
scribe the  invention — or  that  the  inven- 
tion is  not  new — that  a  renewed  and 
the  original  patent  are  not  for  the  same 
invention — or  that  tho  patent  wait  ob- 
tained with  a  fraudulent  intent — all  in- 
volve matters  of  fa«'t,  which  Itelong  to 
tlio  province  of  the  jury,  upon  the  evi- 
dence. Carver  v.  Jiraintree  Manuf. 
Co.,  2  Story,  441. — SrOBV,  J.;  Mass., 
1«4:j. 

l.^.  Wliero  witnesses  differ  as  to  tho 
fact  of  infringement,  the  <piesti(>n  will 
he  submitted  to  a  jury,  either  by  an  ac- 
tion at  law,  or  an  issue  directed  by  chan- 
cery. Jirookd  V.  liickueUy  ;i  McLean, 
202.— McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1H4:'. 

10.  The  question  of  the  unreasona- 
bleness of  tho  delay  to  enter  a  disclaim- 
er, is  a  mixed  question  of  law  and  fact, 
and  must  Vie  decided  by  a  jury,  under 
the  instruction  of  tho  court.  Urooht 
V.  Bickiiell,  3  McLean,  440. — McLxan*, 
J.;  Ohio,  1844.     • 

1 7.  Whether  a  reissued  patont  i«  sub. 
stantially  for  a  different  invention  fron\. 
the  first  patent,  is  a  question  of  fact  for 
a  jury;  but  as  by  §  13  of  the  act  of 


i^,l 


>..»' 

1 

:?l^ 

'  - 

'VU-v. 


m^k 


456 


k&U' 


"  '^i;''"' 


h  -  .""k.' 


'^C 


'  t; 


a 


tin  ;4- 


tWI-^'i: 


''^liHl,, 


'•1  u;ii 


:-Nit^ 


i3  !^iP 
^Ji-'""' 


JURY. 


WUAT  QUKSTIONS  DKTKUUINKI)  BT. 


18;)0,  tlio  C'ominissioiier  of  PatciitH  is 
nutliorizi'(l  to  issue  a  roncwed  jmtont, 
the  iii(|iiiry  afterward  in  regard  to  tlie 
mrrcii  r  is  limited  to  the  fairness  of 
thefraiisaetioii — to  the(iuesti()ii  of  fraud 
ill  thti  surreiuler.  Stiitijtaon  v.  West 
Cheater  R.  It,  4  I  low.,  404.— Mi  Lkan, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  184.'5. 

18.  Whether  the  sale  of  an  artieh^ 
before  a|H)iication  for  a  i)atent  will 
amount  to  an  ahandoinnent  of  inven- 
tion, is  a  (|ues(ion  for  a  jury  in  a  trial 
at  hiw.  lioiith  V.  (uirelfi/,  1  Ulalchf , 
24!),  2r)0.— Xki.s(.n,  J.;   N.  V.,  1847. 

Ifl.  It  is  a  (|ue!^tion  of  fact  for  tlie  jury 
Avhether  a  departure,  in  a  ilefenthuit's 
machine,  from  tlie  iirran^^ement  of  parts 
in  a  machine  (hscribed  in  the  phiin- 
tifl;"s  patent,  constitutes  a  material  varia- 
tion from  tlic  j>atentee's  arranj^ement. 
lUanvh.  Gun-IStovk  Go.  v.  Warner,  1 
lihitehf,  278,  270.— Nki.son,  J.;  Ct., 
1S40. 

20.  It  is  <br  the  court  to  decide  wlietli- 
er  the  patent,  in  all  substantial  jjartieu- 
lars,  conforms  to  the  reciuirements  of 
the  law  ;  and  it  is  for  the  jury  to  decide, 
■whether,  from  the  evidence,  the  de- 
scription of  an  invention  in  a  i)atent,  is 
Bufliciently  full,  clear,  and  exact  to  ena- 
ble a  skilful  mechanic  to  construct  the 
thing  described.  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5 
McLean,  55. — LEAvriT,  J. ;  Ohio,  1849. 

21.  It  is  the  province  of  the  court  to 
decide  what  constitutes  novelty,  atid  of 
the  jury  to  determine,  from  the  evi- 
dence adduced,  wliether  the  patentee's 
invention  is  new.     Ibid.,  GO. 

22.  It  is  a  question  for  the  jury  to  de- 
termine, whether  an  alien  patentee  has 
put  and  contimied  on  sale,  the  invention 
patented  to  liim  within  eighteen  months 
from  the  date  of  the  patent.  Ihthani 
V.  Ze  Hoy,  MS. — Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1849. 


23.  The  qucstioti  of  identity  hctwci'n 
two  opposing  machines,  is  ultiinaii-ly 
one  of  fact  to  be  determined  by  the  ju- 
ry.  ItUlutm  v.  Le  Hoy,  2  IJlatchf,,  4B5. 
— Nklson,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

24.  The  (juestion  of  fraud  in  the 
granting  of  a  patent,  will  not  be  passied 
ujton  by  the  judge  on  appeal,  but  is  to 
be  tried  by  a  jury.  Jixrlew  v.  (/Xid, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoBSELL,  J.j  D.  C, 
185. 'J. 

25.  Whetlier  the  defendant  has  con- 
structed, tised,  or  sold  the  thing  pati'iit- 
ed  to  the  plaintitfs,  is  a  question  of  fad 
for  the  jury.  Witums  v.  Denmeud, 
15  IIow.,  338.— CUUTIS,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1S53. 

20.  A  question  of  infringement  is  one 
of  fact,  wliich  it  is  the  province  of  the 
jury  to  decide.  Rich  v.  JJi^pincott, 
20  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  3d  Scr.,  14.— Gini:ii, 
J.;  Pa.,  1853. 

27.  The  jury  are  to  :letermiiic  as  to 
the  novelty  of  ti.e  invention ;  aiul  wliit'i- 
er  a  renewed  patent  is  for  the  same  i.n- 
vent  ion  as  the  original  patent;  niul 
whether  an  invention  has  been  ahaii- 
doned  to  the  i)ublic ;  and  whether  two 
machines  are  identical,  or  are  construct- 
cd  and  ,'ict  on  different  print'ii)les.  J]at- 
tin  V.  Taytjert,  17  IIow.,  85.— M(;Lkan, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

28.  It  is  the  province  of  the  jury,  un- 
der the  ir.;:truction  of  the  court  as  to 
what  the  invention  is,  to  deUMiiiini! 
whether  such  invention  is  new  iuul  use- 
ful. Wintennvte  v.  Redington,  MS,— 
Wii-sox,  J. ;  Ohio,  1856. 

29.  Whether  there  is  any  novelty  in 
an  invention  or  arrangement  of  parts,  is 
a  question  of  fact  for  the  jury  to  ileter- 
mine  upon  a  view  of  all  the  evidence 
in  the  case.  Sickles  v.  Borden,  3  IJlatclif., 
640.— Nklson,  J.;  N.Y.,  18;" 6. 

30.  Whether  a  reissued  patent  is  for 


•*!!«*; 


LECTURES.— LP:rrEus. 


457  • 


KUJlir  OK   iMiOI'KllTY   IV. 


PROl'EBTT   IS,  AND   I'llOTKCTIOX   Or. 


the  sftino  invention  as  tlio  original  one, 
is  ft  (jnestion  of  fact  for  a  Jury. — Hcil- 
„tr  V.  Jiatt'in,  27  IVnn.,  621,  6'24.~ 
WooDWAKK,  J. ;  Pa.,  1850. 

;il.  Tlio  jury  are  to  consider  that  the 
piitont  Lfrarts  tliat  which  the  conrt  ilo- 
icriiiiiies  it  to  grant.  /Scrnll  v.  (JoUuis, 
^ijj.—IxciKnsoi.L,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

;):'.  The  qne.Htion  of  identify  is  one  of 
f;ict,tohciletcriniiiedl)ythe  jurynponlhe 
fvulcnco  hefore  thcni,  under  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  court  as  to  what  in  law  consti- 
tutes a  suhstantial  id^-ntity.  /^mit/i  v. 
J[i,ji/tiiit,  IMS.— Bk'its,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

;t;!.  And  it  is  exclusively  the  province 
of  the  jin-y  to  ascertain  and  determine 
whether  tiie  j)atentee  is  the  original  in- 
ventor of  the  invention  descrihed  in  the 
patent,  and  whether  the  p.atent  em- 
braces tiu^  tiling  used  by  the  defend- 
ants.   If)i(L 

34.  The  question  as  to  the  inateri- 
ali'yof  any  part  of  a  comhination  is  one 
for  the  determination  of  the  jury  upon 
t'>e  tviJcMce.  }'<(/i('e  v.  Ctonj^Ml,  ^m. 
-Lkaviit,  J.;  Oiiio,  1850. 

35.  It  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the 
jury  whether  the  defendants  have  in- 
tringed  the  pat(  nt  of  the  plaintiH".  W<t- 
Urbitri/  Jirass  ^o.  v.  N.  Y.  cO  Jirook. 
Brass  Co.,  MS.— ^Ingkusoi.l,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1858. 

36.  The  question  of  priority  of  inven- 
tion is  for  tlie  jury  to  determine.  Ihtr- 
tholomew  v.  Siucyer,  MS. — Ixgersoll, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

37.  AVliether  an  inventor  has  .ihan- 
iloned  or  surrendered  his  invention  and 
wiietlier  this  is  sought  to  be  proved 
from  his  declarations  or  acts,  or  from  a 
forbearance  or  neglect  to  act  or  speak, 
is  an  intjuiry  or  conclusion  of  fact  for 
the  jury  to  decide.  Kendall  v.  Wiiisor, 
21  IIow.,  331.— Daxiel,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1858. 


.T8.  The  (juestion  of  in(ringpin(>nt  is 
exclusively  for  the  jury.  Jiid.'ton  v. 
Coj)e,  MS. — liKAVirr,  J. ;  Ohio,  18(J0. 


LEC'TUHES. 

1.  The  author  of  lectures  has  aright 
of  ])roperty  therein,  wiiich  is  entitled 
to  protection.  Lectures  may  be  taken 
<lown  verbatim,  and  the  person  taking 
them  down  has  a  right  to  their  use; 
l>ut  he  may  not  print  them.  Jiartlett  v. 
Crittemh/i,  4  McLean,  304. — McLkah, 
J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

2.  Any  use  of  such  lectures,  which 
should  operate  injuriously  to  the  lecturer 
would  be  a  fraud  upon  him  for  which 
the  law  would  give  him  redress.  Ibid., 
304. 

3.  The  author  cannot  claim  any  vested 
right  in  the  ideas  he  communicates,  but 
the  word  ,  and  sentences  in  whicii  they 
are  clothed  belong  to  him.     J  hid.,  304. 

4.  Lectures,  oral  or  written,  c.'umot 
be  published  without  the  consent  of  the 
author,  though  taken  down  when  deliv- 
eri'd.  Jiartlett  v.  Crittenden,  5  Mc- 
Lean, 42.— McLeak,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 


LE'rrERS. 

See  also  Manuscript. 

1.  The  receiver  of  a  letter  has  no 
right  to  publish  it  without  the  writer's 
consent.  Denis  v.  Le  Clcrc,\  INIartin, 
302.— Mautix,  J.,  La.,  1811. 

2.  Unless  there  be  u  nu)st  uncipiivocal 
dedication  of  private  letters  and  papers 
by  the  author,  either  to  the  public  or 
some  priv.ate  person,  the  author  has  a 


.^,*  a»t-vWwiii/Wwj 


^^;f^ 


^^^* 

ilill^ 

^ya  ' 

^^^ 

%#., 


WW  ) 


[^'•l 


ill 


lit  I* 

y 


imf 


"'^^ 


.£ 


■.CL**;" 


^mn'' 


'C'Sk  ,  "Ssi,v 


458 


LETTERS. 


PllOPEUTT    IN,    AND  PUOTKCTION   01, 


l»roperty  tlioroin  and  the  copyright  ho- 
loiigH  exclusively  to  him.  J'olsotn  v. 
Marsh,  2  Story,  109. — Sxonv,  J.;  Mass., 
1841. 

3.  tSemhle,  that  there  is  no  (liHtinction 
between  letters  of  business,  or  of  a  more 
private  or  domestic  character,  and  let- 
ters Avhich  from  their  character  and  con- 
tents are  to  be  treated  as  literary  prop- 
erty.   Ibid.,  109. 

4.  The  author  of  any  letters  (and  his 
representatives),  whether  literary  com- 
positions, or  familiar  letters,  or  letters 
of  business,  possess  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive copyright  therein ;  and  no  jicrsons, 
neither  those  to  whom  they  .t'c  address- 
ed, nor  other  persons,  have  any  right  or 
authority  to  publish  the  E.ime  upon  their 
own  account  or  for  their  own  benefit. 
J/>id.,  110. 

5.  But  consistently  with  u  isright,the 
persons  to  Avhom  they  are  addressed 
possess  the  right  o  ^/uMish  such  letters 
upon  such  occasions  as  require  or  justify 
the  publication  o-  public  use  of  them — 
as  to  establish  a  personal  right,  or  vin- 
dicate his  character — but  this  right  is 
strictly  limit«^d  to  such  occasions.  Ibid., 
110,  111. 

6.  In  respect  to  official  letters  ad- 
dressed to  the  government,  or  any  of  its 
departments,  by  public  officers,  the  gov- 
ernment may,  perhaps,  from  principles 
of  public  policy,  withhold  them  from 
publication,  or  give  them  publicity  ;  but 
private  persons  have  no  right  to  publish 
them  without  the  sanction  of  the  gov- 
ernment.    .Il)id.,  113. 

7.  A  Court  of  Chancery  assumes  jur- 
isdiction to  restrain  the  publication  of 
private  letters  on  no  other  principle, 
and  upon  no  broader  ground  than  that 
of  a  copyright  in  literary  productions, 
or  of  property  in  the  paper  on  which 
they  are  written,  similar  to  property  in 


stereotype  or  engraved  plates,  ^y^.^ 
more  v.  ScoviUe,  3  Ed.  Ch.,  527.-— Jj,. 
Coin,  V.  Chan. ;  N.  Y.,  1842. 

8.  It  will  not  exercise  the  power  of 
preventing  a  publication  of  private  Id. 
ters  of  business  on  the  ground  of  copy. 
right  or  literary  property,  Mhcn  thev 
possess  none  of  the  attributes  of  literary 
composition.     Ibid.,  528. 

9.  Nor  because  they  Avcre  writton  in 
confidence  and  their  i)ublicatiou  migjn 
wound  the  feelings.     Ibid.,  529. 

10.  A  court  of  equity  will  restrain 
the  publication  of  letters  written  by  the 
comi)lainant,  if  such  letters  are  in  fact 
of  any  value  to  him  aj  literary  produo. 
tions,  or  if  his  right  to  multiply  copies 
is  worth  any  thing  to  him.  Iloyt  v.  Mc- 
Kemie,  3  Barb.  Ch.,  324. — Walworth, 
Chan. ;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

11.  But  otherwise  as  to  such  letters 
as  have  been  written  to  him  by  other 
persons  without  any  authority,  express 
or  implied,  to  publish  them ;  as  to  fiiicb 
the  right  belongs  to  the  writer.  Ihil^ 
324. 

12.  A  letter  cannot  be  considered  of 
any  value  to  the  .author,  for  the  purpose 
of  publication,  which  he  would  not  eon- 
sent  to  have  published,  either  with  or 
without  a  copyright.     Ibid.,  324. 

13.  A  court  of  equity  will  not  attempt 
to  restrain  the  publication  of  private 
letters,  on  the  ground  of  protecting  lit- 
erary property,  when  they  posscii  no 
attribute  of  literary  composition.  Ihii^ 
325. 

1 1.  The  writer  of  private  letters  has 
a  right  of  property  in  them,  and  their 
publication  may  be  enjoined.  They 
can  only  be  used  by  the  receiver  for  the 
purposes  for  which  they  were  written, 
or  in  justification  or  defence.  Jiartletl 
V.  Crittenden,  5  McLean,  42.— McLkas, 
J. ;  Ohio,  1849. 


4W' 


LKTTKUS. 


450 


rnOJ-EUTY   I.V,    AND  PltOI'KCTION  OF. 


15.  It  is  doubtful  wlietluM'  iiiulcr  tliu 
net  of  18;U,  as  to  copyrij^fhts,  the  courts 
of  till'  rniti'tl  States  cau  exoreiso  juris- 
diction, by  way  of  injunction,  to  i>\v- 
vent  the  publioi'tion  of  private  letters 
contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  writer. 
Woolsej/  V.  Judd,  4  Duer,  382. — Dleu, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

IC.  A  court  of  e(iuity  cannot  interfere 
by  way  of  injtuiction  to  prevent  the 
publication  of  private  letters,  merely 
on  the  ground  that  such  a  publication, 
without  the  consent  of  the  writer,  is 
a  breach  of  confidence  and  lionorablc 
feeling,  and  is  dangerous  to  the  peace 
and  morals  of  the  community.  Ibid., 
383,  :}84. 

17.  Such  an  injunction  caiuiot  be 
granted,  unless  it  appears  that  the  per- 
gonal legal  rights  of  the  party  seeking 
the  aid  of  the  court  are  in  danger  of 
violation.     Ibid.,  384. 

18.  The  writer  of  letters,  though 
written  without  any  ])urpo!!e  of  publi- 
cation or  profit,  or  any  idea  of  literary 
property,  possesses  such  a  proj)erty  in 
them  that  they  can  never  be  published 
without  his  consent,  unless  the  jiurposes 
of  justice,  civil  or  criminal,  recpilre  the 
publication.    Ibid.,  390,  391. 

19.  The  receiver  of  letters  has  only 
a  special  or  qualified  property,  confined 
to  the  material  on  whicii  they  are  writ- 
ten, and  not  extended  to  the  letters  as 
expressive  of  the  mind  of  the  writer. 
Ihid.,  393. 

20.  Neither  the  receiver  of  letters, 
nor  any  other  person,  has  any  right  to 
publish  such  letters,  without  the  con- 
sent of  the  writer.     Ibid.,  393. 

21.  The  property  which  the  writer 
retains  gives  him  an  exclusive  right  to 
determine  whether  the  letters  shall  be 
published  or  not ;  and  when  he  forbids 
their  publication,  makes  it  the  duty  of 


a  court  of  equity  to  aid  and  protect 
him  by  an  injunctioii.     Ibid.,  393. 

2'J.  The  receiver  of  a  letter  nuiy  pulv 
lish  it  when  its  publication  is  shown  to 
be  necessary  for  the  vindication  of  his 
rights  or  conduct ;  but  this  license  has 
never  been  extended  to  a  person  whose 
possession  of  a  letter,  or  ol  the  ciopy  of 
a  letter,  as  acquired  without  the  con- 
serit  of  the  writor  or  receiver,  is  wholly 
unlawful,     rbid.,  400,  407. 

23.  iJut  if  a  receiver  attempts  to  puln 
lish  such  a  letter,  or  any  i)art  thereof, 
against  the  wishes  of  the  writer,  aiul 
upon  occasions  not  justifiable,  a  court 
of  e(iuity  is  bound  to  prevent  such  pub- 
lication by  an  injunction.     Ibid.,  40(5. 

24.  As  against  a  stranger  who  has 
possessed  himself  of  private  letters,  or 
copies  thereof  unlawfully,  the  right  to 
restrain  their  publication  is  absolute — 
such  person  having  no  right  to  publish 
for  any  jiurjiose  whatever.     Ibid.,  400. 

25.  Letters  written  by  one  ])erson  to 
another,  either  of  business  or  friendship, 
and  aside  Irom  the  question  whether 
they  have  any  literary  value,  are  prop- 
erty. Ui/re  v.  Iligbee,  22  How.  Pr., 
200.— MurxKX,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1801. 

20.  Tiie  property  of  the  receiver  of 
such  letters  is  not  absolute  in  them,  but 
only  special.  Such  letters  will  pass  to 
the  administrator  of  the  person  receiv- 
ing them,  but  they  are  not  assets,  and 
cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  sale  by 
him.     Ibid.,  202,  202. 

27.  As  regards  private  letters,  the 
right  of  publication  as  one  of  literary 
property,  remains  for  a  reasonable  length 
of  time  (to  allow  its  assertion  by  publi- 
cation) in  the  writer  and  his  personal 
representatives.  After  such  a  period 
has  elapsed,  that  there  ceased  to  bo  a 
probability  that  such  right  to  publish 
was  treated  as  a  legal  right,  any  one 


4.^-: 


A 


m%f 


i.1      ,a   te'  \^^ 


m 


■nij(i  « 


i1^*^ 
'^^^' 


400 


LICENSE,  A. 


!•      ^'. 


im 


*A- 


!i: 


■»►     •  'r'  1.  ^ 


•V 


'f  s 


NL, 


WHAT  conhtitutkh;  RioiiTa  undkb;  ErrECT  or. 


may   ]iii1ilish   who   can   obtain   ooines. 
//>/(/.,  JOT.— (ioii.u,  J. 

28.  Wliatover  i)ro])L'rty  tlicn*  is  in 
siu-Ii  IctliTs  rests  ill  tlu'  wriifr,  and  not 
jii    the    rt'c'C'iver.     Ibid.,  208. — l.vti.'iA- 

II AM,  J. 

29.  TIk'^  adininistr.itor  of  tlio  rocoivor 
may  however  ivtaiii  tlieni,  as  lie  wonUl 
a  rociiipt  or  an  acroimt,  to  aid  liiiii  in 
the  settienieiit  of  the  estate,  if  they  liad 
any  bearing  upon  that  subject.  IbuL, 
208. 

80.  And  if  sueh  letters  are  of  sueh 
a  character  as  in  his  oi)inion  wuuM  be 
in-odtictive  of  injury  (if  published)  to 
the  M'riter  or  others,  he  may  destroy 
them,  and  no  one  can  call  him  to  ac- 
count theretbr.     Ibid.,  208. 


LICENSE. 

A.  "What  cossthttes  ;   Rkuits  undeii; 
KfFKCT  (IF  TAKI\(i 460 

B,  IlKfOUDlN'O   OF,    AM)    TliANSFKU  OF.  ..    4G I 
€-'•      FUUFKITUKE   OK;    ACTIONS   O.V 4G0 

A.     What  coxstiiutks  ;  Ivkjiits  un- 
DEU ;  Efi-'>xt  cf  taking. 

See  also  Assignment,  B.  ;  Extension 
OF  Patent,  C. 

1 .  Where  A  erected  oii  his  own  pr^^m- 
ises  and  at  l.'is  own  exp(  nse  a  machine, 
the  invention  of  B,  and  li  then  leased 
of  A  for  a  term  of  years  the  machine, 
covenanting  to  deliver  the  same  to  A 
at  the  end  of  the  term,  Ifdd,  that  this 
•amounted  to  a  license  or  a  consent  in 
writing,  under  §  4  of  the  act  of  1790, 
to  use  the  machine  after  the  end  of  such 
term.  Reutgeii  v.  Jianoicrs,  1  Wapb., 
172.— Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1804. 

2.  An  offer  to  take  a  licen««^-  from  a 


patentee  to  uhc  his  invenMt  u,  does  not 
take  away  the  right  of  the  person  mak- 
ing sueh  offer  to  deny  that  tlie  patentee 
was  the  ^'liginal  inventor.     Ei'hm  \, 

J'Attl»l^    Pet.  C  C,   347. WASIIINcilyy 

J.;  i'a.,  1810. 

;j.  A  patentee  by  an  itistruint'nt 
agreed  to  "grant,  bargain,  sell,  a,ssigii, 
and  transfer  to  !>.,  his  ext-cutors,  ail- 
ministrators,  and  assigns  the  right  aiiij 
privilege  of  making,  using,  and  scllin.f 
friction  ii'.atehes,"  as  patented,  to  have 
and  to  hold  "  the  right  and  privilego  nf 
mamifaeturing  tlie  said  matches,  and  to 
emi»loy  in  and  about  the  same  six  per- 
sons, and  no  more,  and  to  vend  sa'ul 
mutches  in  any  part  of  the  UnitiMJ 
Slates."  A  proviso  followed  that  noth- 
ing therein  contained  should  ]ire\ enter 
restrict  the  patentee  from  "making and 
vending  the  same,  or  of  selling  and  con- 
veying similar  rights  and  privileges  lo 
others."  And  B.  was  not  to  inaiiufac- 
ture  in  certain  places.  JMd^  that  siuh 
a  convevance  was  an  authoritv  or  license 
coupled  with  an  interest  in  its  exccntion; 
but  not  so  much  a  property  or  interest 
In  rem,  as  a  right  of  user  for  tlio  lien- 
efit  of  the  licensee.  Brooks  v.  Bynmy 
2  Story,  54H,  551. — Stokv,  J.;  Mass,, 
184.3. 

4.  lender  the  patent  acts,  if  an  inven- 
tor allow  another  to  use  )iis  invention 
for  a  considerable  time  before  applviiii,' 
for  a  patent  therefor,  and  a  intent  is  af- 
terward obt.iined,  such     f^rinissioii  and 
allowance  will  justify  the  jury  in  pre- 
suming a  license  or  grant  from  the  pat- 
entee, and  such  person  is  not  liable  to 
an  action  of  infringement  fur  the  con- 
tinued use  after  the  patent  is  granted. 
Mc  Clurg  v.  Kingsland,  1  llow.,  208.- 
|B,vj.i. ■'.-.'! .V,  J.',  Sup.  Ct.,  1843. 
,      ry   Uud'  !■  ^;  V  of  the  act  of  1839,  the 
'  J..":  on  Ti'ho  Uiit,  had  the  use  of  an  in- 


m 


LICENSE  A. 


4n 


WHAT  CONSTITUllCH;    UKIIITH   UNIliCU;    KmOT  Or. 

J 


vi'iitiiiii  prior  to  tlii'  iippllcutioii  of  a  jmt-  uno  imy  siu'li  luachini's  in  hik'Ii  t«'iTitoi*y 
out  tlu'i(  lor,  1"^  on  llu'  siimt'  fnolinj;  as  for  ii  <^ivfn  peritxl,  nnd  n'sorvinir,  liow- 
if  111' liad  a  spi'cialiit'i'nse  from  the  in- 1  cviT,  tiii!  ri^l't,  (o  tiu'  jialcnlt'e  l<»  con- 
viiitof,  wliiili,  if  JJtiven  lii'forc  (lit- appli- jstrncl  and   lici-nsn  wncli   niacliint-s  clsc- 


caliuu  for  a  jiaU-nt,  wonld  justify   tlie 


wlicrc,  JlilJ,  tliat  till'  {frant  was  df  ;iii 


bility.     /fu'f.,-M\*. 

(i.  i>iit  tin-  nsc  of  an  invention  before 
an  ai»|iliiiit'<*"  *•*•'  "  patent,  must  be  tlie 
Bpecific  iin|troveinent  then  invented  and 
used  liy  the  person  ^vllo  had  jiurchased, 
coiistnutcti,  and  used  the  niacliine  to 
wliich  the  invention  is  ajiplied.     Jbiif., 

210. 

7.  WhcM'c  a  patentee  assi!j;ned  and 
released  :ili  liis  rij^ht,  tith",  and  interest 
ill  the  letters  patent,  so  far  only  as  tlie 
exchisive  ri.L(ht  of  manufaetnriug  :>nd 
vcnJiniL,'  for  a  term  of  years  for  a  week- 
ly consideration,  and  in  ease  of  default 
of  payuu'iit,  that  the  patentee  was  to 
have  tlie  right  to  claim  and  take  back 
tlio  interest,  JIclil,  that  tlio  agreement 
conveyed  no  interest  in  the  patent-riglit, 
but  that  the  grant  amouiitetl  to  a  mere 
license,  with  a  limitation  or  condition  as 
to  its  continuance.  Armstrong  v.  Ilaa- 
Icnheck,  'S  N".  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  45. — Ukti's, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1844. 

8.  The  words  "license  and  empower" 
need  not  import  any  thing  dilferent  from 
"grant."  In  their  broad  and  general 
sense  they  are  used  indiscriminately. 
A  mere  "license,"  strictly  speaking, 
passes  no  interest,  but  only  makes  an 
action  lawful,  which  without  it  would 
have  been  unlawful ;  but  if  the  instru- 
ment passes  an  interest,  then  it  becomes 
a  "grant."  Wushburu  v.  Gould^  3 
Story,  1C2.— Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

9.  Where  a  grant  to  license  and  em- 
power parties  to  construct  and  use  fifty 
patented  machines  within  certain  terri- 
tory, with  a  covenant  tliat  the  patentee 
would  not  license  any  other  persons  to 


continuetl  use  aHor  it  issued,  w  ithout  Ha-  exclusive  riglit  under  the  patent.   Ihiil., 

100,  I  (I.-),  l(i(i. 

10.  'I'lie  limitation  of  tlu;  nundier  of 
machines  to  be  made  or  used  under  a 
patent,  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  grant 
of  an  (exclusive  riglit  in  the  jiateiit  with- 
in such  territoiy.      Ilnd.,  1(»7,  lOH. 

11.  The  taking  of  a  temporary  Turense 
to  use  a  i)atent-right  cannot  be  consid- 
eretl  as  an  acknowledgment  of  a  right 
in  the  licensor  beyond  the  ti-rminatioii 
of  such  license.  Ilich  v.  IloU'/ihlxn,  1 1) 
C<mii.,  418.— Wir.LiAMS,  Ch,  J.;  Ct., 
1844. 

12.  Where  it  was  stipulated  betwo. 
A  and  1>  that  B  siiould  be  entitled  tt. 
use  A's  patent  three  days  in  a  week 
until  a  given  date,  and  that  A  would 
not  prosi!cute  any  action  against  1>  for 
any  lormer  violation,  provided  15  should 
not  use  such  patent  after  the  specilied 
date,  or  by  any  other  machine  infringe 
A's  riglit ;  Heldf  that  such  proviso,  in- 
troduced by  the  plaintiff,  :iiid  not  plac- 
ing any  personal  oblig.ation  on  the  de- 
fendant, did  not  operate  as  an  estoppel 
against  IJ  to  prevent  him  showing  the 
truth  in  regard  to  the  validity  of  the 
right  of  A.     Ibid.,  419,  420. 

lU.  If  a  licensee  or  grantee  acknowl- 
edge, under  his  hand  and  seal,  the  va- 
lidity of  the  grantor's  title,  query,  is  he 
not  estopped  from  denying  it  ?  Jirooks 
V.  Stollnj,  3  McLean,  520. — McLeax, 
J.;  Ohio,  1845. 

14.  Where  a  party  has  an  hiterest  in 
only  a  j)art  of  a  patent,  as  a  license  to 
use  the  invention  j)atented,  only  in  the 
manufacture  of  a  particular  kind  of 
goods,  he  cannot  maintain  an  action  for 


^^mt' 


....V  ^  .■ 


M^ 


'**'^^«r;, 


468 


LICENSE,  A. 


'i:-,  ^'^ 


^m^' 


*'  !*«    k.| 


x^Wtf, 


7.S^ 


:,:  ;::> 


m>-.  -^ 


PL., 


WHAT  CO.NHTITL'TIOI ;   P  '111T8  VNDKU ;    KJ'rKCT  OF. 


un  iiifriii^rotiu'iit.  Suydam  v.  Dny,  -j. 
IJlatchf.,  :i:J. — Nklhon,  Iha-is,  JJ.j  N. 
y.,  1H40. 

16.  A  liconsp  to  run  our  niaclitno  will 
not  1)0  coiislriKMl  to  iiu>an  an  iilfntical 
particular  niacliinc,  unli'ss  it  is  ho  limit- 
c'tl  in  oxj»ri'H8  ternis.  Wilson  v.  StolUy^ 
4  Mi'Loan,  278. — M<'IiKAN,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1847. 

10.  A  license  or  grant  of  an  exclusive 
right  to  use  a  jiatcntcd  machine  for  a 
fipccifietl  j»urj)ose,  as  a  right  to  use 
liiaiicharcl's  patent  for  ttn-iiing  irregular 
forms,  to  turn  lasts — <loes  not  convey 
any  legal  title  to  the  jiatent.  JiUtm-h- 
ards.  EUhidijc,  1  Wall,  Jr.,  aao,  341. 
— GiuKR,  J.;  Pa.,  184t>. 

17.  h.\\  'igreenicn  made  hy  a  pftl- 
entee,  ami  «.onveying  to  the  grantee  the 
exclusive  right  to  make  and  vend  the 
thing  patented  within  .1  cerf.-iin  territo- 
ry, hut  reser\ing  to  the  grantor  the 
right  to  make  and  sell  williin  the  same 
territory,  is  not  an  assignment  of  an 
exclusive  interest  in  the  patent,  but  is 
only  a  license.  Gayler  v.  Wilder,  10 
How.,  495.— Taney,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1850. 

18.  Tho  right  to  make  a  m.ichine  is 
distinct  from  that  of  using  i(.  liickneU 
V.  Todd,  5  IMcLean,  238.— 3Ic  Lka.v,  J. ; 
Ohio,  1851. 

19.  The  right  to  use  implies  a  right 
to  repair,  but  not  to  construct.  It  also 
implies  a  right  to  purchase,  when  the 
one  in  use  is  worn  out  or  destroyed. 
Ihid.,  239. 

20.  Declarations  on  the  part  of  an 
inventor  that  he  does  not  intend  to  take 
out  a  patent,  but  to  let  ihe  public  have 
his  invention,  are  equivah^nt  to  a  license, 
and  such  party  or  any  one  holding  mi- 
der  him  will  be  estopped  from  asserting 
his  right  as  against  a  person  acting  on 
the  faith  of  such  declarations.     Pitts  v. 


ff'»V,  2  niatchf.,  237,  238.— Xkim.v,  J.- 
N.  v.,  1851. 

21.  An  agreement  innd«>  between  l!. 
and  C  and  others,  providing  for  tliu 
selllenu'nt  of  various  m.-itlcrs,  ilu.  di^, 
continuance  «»f  certain  suits,  and  also  as 
to  the  nuinufa(;ture  of  a  certain  articlf 
as  follows:  "that  the  said  parties  may 
each  hereafter  mamifaclure  ainl  vend 
Hpikeofsuch  kind  and  chanuMcr  as  tlicy 
see  fit,  notwithstanding  their  contlicfi,],, 
claims  to  this  time,"  nutst  bo  constnicd 
with  n'ference  to  the  situations  of  the 
parties  to  it;  atid  W.  having  cliiinmd 
that  he  had  the  exclusive  right,  iiiulcr 
his  patent,  to  nuike  such  spikes,  wliiih 
right  the  defendant  C.  was  infringiiii; 
but  the  defendant  chiiming  that  lie  did 
not  infringe  such  jiat«'nt,  but  made  muIi 
spikes  by  an  entirely  ditVerent  inetliod- 
Jldd,  that  such  agreement  did  not  <;ive 
C.  a  license  to  nnike  such  sjiikes  after 
li.'s  patent,  but  only  a  right  to  make 
them  by  the  same  process  or  niaeliitici'V 
he  had  been  before  using.  Tray  Iron 
and  Nail  Fac.  v.  Corning,  14  How., 
213.— Way  NK,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  18.V.'. 
[OverruUng  same  ease  below,  1849;  1 
IJlatchf.,  470.] 

22.  An  agreement  made  by  the  own- 
er of  a  patent,  securing  to  the  urantu 
the  exclusive  right  to  make,  use,  aiiil 
sell  to  others  to  be  used,  the  iriacliino 
patented,  within  a  certain  territory,  but 
reserving  to  the  grantor  the  right  to  sell 
within  such  territory  nuichincs  of  liis 
own  manufacture,  does  not  ojienitc  as 
an  assignment  or  transfer  to  the  grantee 
of  the  right  and  title  secured  hy  the 
l)atent  within  such  territory.  Pitts  v. 
Jameson,  15  Uarb.,  315. — Johnson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1853. 

23.  It  is  an  agreement  in  the  nature 
<»f  a  license  to  manufacture  and  sell,  but 
more  than  a  mere  technical  license ;  it  is  a 


LICEN8K,  A. 


49$ 


WHAT  CUNHTITUTKH ;    HIUIITH  UNDBR;   irriCOT  OF. 


fivc'.l  cimt not  ri^lit,  v«stpfl  in  f  lie  pfr.intoo, 
aii'l  ft^'xiKiiiil'l*'  ••>■  '"'"•  I'  '^»  liowfvor, 
n  clioso  ill  uctiun,  nut  in  |i(mNt'Nsioii,  an*l 
tlie  ^ruiitee  and  \m  asui^ns  can  ri'tain 
till'  rijjlit  only  no  lun^  asi  the  ItiisinoHs  ih 
prost'i'iiti'tl  uudor  it.     Jbid.y  ;\\6. 

•>i.  Whenever  the  business  is  aliaiulon- 
I'li,  tiio  rijjhts  seciiretl  by  the  contract 
rovort  to  the  grantor.  Then,  but  not 
till  tlicn,  the  grantor  can  ncII  rights  to 
third  persons  to  make,  sell,  and  use  tlie 
nati'iited  machine  in  siu'li  territory, 
witlioiit  being  responsible  to  the  gran- 
tuo  or  his  representatives  for  damages. 

J5.  The  reservation  by  the  grantor 
is  also  a  mere  personal  privilege,  and 
not  transferable  to  others.     //>/(/.,  Mil). 

20.  Tpon  the  death  of  the  grantee, 
the  contract  and  the  rights  under  it  go 
to  liis  administrators  as  assets.  Ifji'd., 
316. 

27.  But  though  they  had  no  right,  as 
.idininistrators,  to  carry  on  the  business 
of  making  machines  under  the  contract, 
they  could  sell  ai.d  transfer  the  right, 
and  the  purchaser  would  acquire  all  the 
rights  secured  to  the  intestate  during 
his  lifctiiiK',  if  the  bvisincss  h  curried 
<m.    Ibid.,  316. 

28.  G.  made  an  agreement  with  B.  as 
follows :  "  In  consideration  of  one  dollar, 
I  t-ngago  to  grant  to  IJ.  license  to  man- 
ufacture, under  my  patents  and  improve- 
ments, india-rubber  hose,  in  general,  ex- 
eept  that  made  of  pure  gum.  In  the 
event  of  tlie  right  of  said  hose  being 
disposed  of,  said  U.  is  to  receive  one- 
half  the  bonus  obtained  therefor,  it  be- 
ing optional  with  him  to  retain,  if  he 
prefers  it  instead,  a  half  right  to  manu- 
t'aeture;"  Held,  that  such  agreement 
einbraced  a  reissued  p.atont ;  and  that  1>. 
obtained  an  immediate  right  to  manufac- 
ture, and  not  merely  an  obligation  for  a 


Aitiin*  right;  and  that  \\.  could  recovt-r 
of  ( I.  one  half  of  any  sales  made  by  (J.  of 
the  right  to  make  such  hose,  and  that  B. 
became  entitletl  to  such  iiioifty,  iimiiedi« 
ately  upon  any  such  disposal.  Mrliiir' 
/ift/\.  <,'(>odi/,tir,  II  (,'ush.,  571,  572. — 
Miiimn  K,  J. ;  Mass.,  inrt'.]. 

20.  Under  §  14  of  the  act  of  18.10, 
an  action  at  law  is  properly  brought  in 
the  name  of  the  pati'iitee,  in  behalf  of 
a  licensee  who  is  damaged  by  the  iii- 
fringoiiient.  Oooityear  v.  Mv liurn'ijy  3 
IMatchf.,  :(n.— Nki-son,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  IH.VJ. 

;$().  A  party  has  no  authority  to  grant 
ruH'iises  under  a  patent  upon  a  mere 
agrei'inent  with  the  patentee  to  assign 
such  patent.  The  patent  must  be  actu- 
ally assigned  to  such  party  before  ho 
can  gr.'int  licenses.  Day  v.  Ilttrtahorny 
MS.— I'lTMAN,  J. ;  11.  I.,  1834. 

.'11.  One  tenant  in  common  in  a  pat- 
ent h.as  as  got^d  a  right  to  use,  and  to 
license  others  to  use  the  thing  patented 
as  the  other  tenant  in  common  has. 
Clnm  v,  lirewer,  2  Curt.,  624. — CuuTiS, 
J. ;  Mass.,  J  855. 

32.  A  licensee  under  a  patent  is  one 
who  has  transferred  t(»  him,  in  writing 
or  or.ally,  a  less  or  ditterent  interest  in 
siudi  patent  than  cither  the  interest  in 
the  whole  patent,  or  an  undivided  p.-^rt 
of  such  whole  interest,  or  an  exclusivo 
sectional  interest.  Potter  v.  JLAland^ 
MS. — I.VGBBSorx,  J. ;  Xklsox,  J.,  con- 
curring; Ct.,  1858. 

33.  A  licensee  b.as  no  legal  rigbf,  as 
an  .assignee,  to  surrender  a  patent,  axuX 
a  surrender  Avithout  his  concurrence  is 
valid.    Ibid. 

34.  Nor  can  a  mere  licensee  brinjj' 
an  action  at  law  for  a  viohitiun  of  tho 
patent.     Ibid. 

35.  A  licensee  is,  however,  entitled 
to  the  s.ime  right  under  a  reissued  that 
he  had  under  tho  old  patent ;  but  he  can- 


464 


LICKNSK,  n. 


RIOOROINO,    ANU  TRANIirKU  Of. 


:':3 


%.>.  ■'*-. 


m\: 


'«fc 


not  ho  f'oinpolli'd  to  tako  umlor  tlio  lu-w, 
and  \(\\\}  \i\}\m  riglil  uiulor  ihu  uld  uiio. 

no.  A  t'ontraot  of  lifi'iiMu  U  liko  cvrry 
otlitT  cDiilract,  ami  ilcpciuls  ii|i()ii  a  lair 
foiist ruction  of  tlu'  ads  of  tlit'  [lartit's. 
Jhll  V.  MiCuUuwjhy  MS.- Lkamit, 
.f. ;  Ohio,  IH58. 

;!7.  The  »alu  of  a  macliino,  ami  thr 
liglil  to  iiso  a  patt-ntftl  ailicK'  with  it, 
imports  a  lici'iisc  to  usi'  tho  aitit  Ic  pat- 
ciitt'd  ;  and  Hiu'h  liccnsi"  is  not  within 
tlu'  provisions  of  >|  1 1  of  thu  act  of 
IK.'Ul,  which  rc(|uirc  an  assii^nnicnt  or 
{^rant  to  he  in  writing;,     liuxn  v.   l*iit- 

7ie!/,   1 1  Mo,  Law  Kcp.,  087. , 

J.;  N.  II.,  1858. 

;18.  A  licensee  may  hrin.ir,  for  his  own 
benefit,  an  action  in  the  name  of  tiie 
l>atentoe,  hut  the  nominal  plaintiff  c.in 
reqnire  inilemnity  for  co»tH.  Goodyear 
V.  r>i$} np,  4  Jiliacht",  C.  C-  Xklson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  180O. 

:U).  The  mere  taking  a  license  does 
not  estop  the  licensee  denyinjjf  the  va- 
li<|i(y  of  a  patent.  Mitchdl  v.  linrchnj, 
MS.     SiiiiMr.vv,  .T. ;  N.  Y.,  IHOo. 

40.  Covenants  in  !i  license  as  to  the 
use  or  disposal  of  the  products  of  a  pat- 
etited  machine  or  process,  are  binding 
only  npon  the  parties  to  if,  and  the  pub- 
lic, or  a  purchaser  of  the  products,  can- 
not be  compelled  to  notice  or  rejjard 
such  agreements,  or  the  rights  conferred 
or  reserved  by  them.  The  Wis/ii'/iff 
Mfc/tifie  Co.  V.  Earlc,  3  "Wall,  Jr. — 
Pbiek,  J.;  Pa.,  1801. 

41.  A  stranger  purchasing  the  prod- 
uct from  one  licensed  to  use  the  pro- 
cess, need  look  no  further,  and  may  use 
it  for  his  own  purposes  without  inquir- 
ing for  or  regarding  any  private  agree- 
ment of  licensers  not  to  compete  Avith 
one  another.     Ibid. 

42.  Where  a  patentee  granted  to  .in- 


'  other  the  exclusive  right  to  niaki- mi,! 
Hell  his  palentol  invention,  williin  a,.,, p. 
tain  territory,  for  which  he  was  to  1,;,.. 
a  certain  sum  f«»r  each  nnichiiie  sm  ii);„|„ 
and  sold,  but   th«'  palent<'e  reserved  t!it> 

j  right  of  sending  machines  u{'  Ins  ,)^^„ 
manufactin-e  into  such  territorv,  //,/,/ 
that  such  contract  was  not  an  assii'n- 
nient  of  the  it.itenlee's  iniercHt  in  tin- 
pati'nt  in  such  territory,  but  a  hkti' 
gnint  or  license  to  make  and  sell  il,,. 
article  therein  ;  an«I  that  an  action  nm^t 
not  be  brought  in  the  name  of  ihc  y.w. 
entee,  and  not  in  the  n.ame  of  tliej;r!iii- 
tee.  J/itHHti/  V.  ]y/ti((l(i/,  MS.— Lkav. 
irr,  J.;  Ohio,  1801. 

B.     Iti:<'oi{niN(!,  AM)  Tkansi'ku  ok. 

1.  An  assignment  of  a  pin-liciilar  in- 
terest  in  a  patent-right,  or  a  conv<v:uioi; 
of  a  right  to  use  an  invention  within  a 
limited  territory,  \h  not  recpiircil  to  In' 
recorded.  tStivifin  v.  J/aid,  I)  Wtiii.. 
IV?.— Wn.r.iAMs,  Ch.  J. ;  Vt.,  ]8;i:, 

2.  Under  §  11  of  the  patent  act  of 
18;J0,  a  mere  license,  or  a  grant  of' a 
right  or  privilege  tmder  a  patent,  to  lie 
used  concurrently  with  the  iiatentct,  or 
any  other  grantees  under  liini,  nml 
which  is  not  an   exclusive  right,  nei'l 

I  nof  be  recorded.  Mrook's  v.  Ili/nin.  ■! 
Story,  .041,  642.— Stoky,  J.;  Miiss, 
IBIU. 

.'<.  And  it  is  not  necessary  that  a  sub- 
sequent purchaser  of  the  pateiit  slionU 
have  notice  of  such  a  li<'cnse.  Ihid., 
54n. 

4.  Whether  the  entirety  of  a  license 
or  privilege  is  cap.ible  of  being  ai^sisincd, 
evi'U  though  the  word  "  assigns"  may 
be  used,  if  it  was  intended  as  a  persioii- 
al  privilege  ;  query.  Ibid.,  544.  [And 
SCO  post  15.] 

5.  I>ut  though  a  riglit  or  license  mny 
be  transmissible,  it  seems  not  to  be  ap- 


jilfeil 


LICKNSK,  15. 


400 


THAMHrKH  or. 


|,oiliiiii:»li!«',  wuh'SH  it  in  vt'ry  clt-Jir  fniiii 
till' ii'^tniMU'tit  tliiit  Hiich  \v:i>«  tlir  intent 
and  tiii'.'iiiiii^  ot'  (lto]iurtifH.   IbUl.^  ij(4, 

b'A. 

6.  Kvt'fy  fonvcyancc  of  siK'h  Horl 
muHt,  liowcvi'r,  Im«  ilccidt'il  upon  itH 
mvii  tciiiiJ*  iiiiil  iilijccts,  iici'onlin;;  to  tiu' 
true  intent  and  ineanini;  of  the  parties 
III  it.     //'/'A,  fi.'iO. 

7.  Ii:  tliis  ease,  7/</</,  tliat  the  lieeiiHe 
wiiM  an  entii'et y,  ami  iin'apaiiie  ot'  *livis- 
iciii,  or  of  lieiiiL;  broken  up  into  parts, 
ill  tho  possession  of  (Uti'eivnt  per.soiis. 
It' :issi;,'M.il»Ie,  the  assii^nnieiit  must  l»e 
dt"  the  iiilirety  of  tho  license  to  the  as- 
ti;;iii'i',  and  it  eatuiot  Ik;  apportioned 
amoii^  ditfereiit  persons  in  severalty. 
]\  could  nr)t,  therefore,  sdl  to  C.  a  rij^'lit 
toinininfaedirinLfniafehes, to  the  ainonnt 
of  one  right,    einbruein<^    one    person, 

mi,  r>r>2. 

8.  Tlio  rij,dit  or  lit^eiiso  to  use  a  nrn- 
oliiiio  is  assiirnahlo  to  a  thir<l  person. 
\\'oo<firi>rfh\.  Ciii'tin^  '2  VVood.»t  Min., 
527.-  -Wooniituv,  J.;  Mass.,  1H47. 

0.  A  inachino,  and  the  rij^ht  to  use  it, 
is  personal  property  more  parlienlarly 
tliiin  a  mere  pateiit-rif^ht ;  and  has  ail 
the  incidents  of  personal  property,  mak- 
ing it  Kuliject  to  pass  by  sale.  Ibid,, 
527. 

\[).  Where  a  maeliliio,  or  rltijlit  to  use 
a  macliiiie,  is  soM  before  tho  orijrinal 
patent  has  expir«'d,  the  uso  of  sueh  ma- 
cliinc  then  in  operation,  may  bo  con- 
tinued until  it  is  worn  out  or  destroyed. 
Ibid.,  m^. 

11.  The  right  to  use  such  particnlitr 
iiiacliino,  and  the  machitie,  after  the  term 
expires,  may  i)ass  by  sale,  devise,  levy, 
or  assignment  of  an  insolvent's  effects. 
Ibid.,  530. 

12.  Whore  one  licensed  to  run  a  pat- 
ented machine,  sells  such  machine,  the 
license  to  run  does  not  necessarily  pass 


with  such  maehiiu'.      Wilxni,  v.  Stnllii/ 
4    AIi'lA-an,    27H.  -Ml  Lk.\n,  J. ;    Ohio, 

IhtT. 

I 'I.  A  licciisu  to  UNO  n  patented  ma- 
chine may  bu  assigm>d,  it  not  lietng  a 
mere  personal  priNilegc,  W'iIxoh  v. 
Stolhy,  .")  .McLean,  li. — Mi  Lka.v,  J.; 
Ohio,  IH41). 

I  I.  Ill  such  casu  the  assigneit  is  bound 
to  perform  the  (!onditit»ns  of  the  license  ; 
and  the  same  rnio  applies  to  the  assignee 
of  the  li<enser.     //>/»/.,  '1. 

l.'i.  The  ditlerenco  is  well  understood, 
betwei  II  lici'iises  which  may  l>e  assigned 
or  used  for  others,  and  those  which  the 
licensees  coiihl  only  personally  u^ic  with- 
out being  transmissible  by  them  to 
others.  Ti'dij  Iron  «0  Xdil  luivtury  v. 
('orii.'tif/,  It  Mow.,  '2Hi. — NVaynk,  J.; 
Suj).  Ct.,  \Hr,-2. 

10.  A  mere  license  to  a  party,  with- 
out having  his  UHsigns,  or  «'(|uivalent 
words  to  them,  Hhowiiig  that  it  was 
meant  to  b<'  assignable,  is  on!}  a  g;'aiit 
of  a  personal  power  to  the  licensee/, 
and  is  not  transferable  by  him  to  anoth- 
er.    Ibi<f.,  216. 

17.  When  a  license  i.s  gi-.-xnted  to  any 
one  to  use  a  patent,  which  license  is  ac- 
niinpanied  with  an  obligatitui  in  favor  of 
the  patentee,  on  tho  part  of  tho  one  to 
whom  it  is  gr.inted,  to  do  or  not  to  do 
a  particular  thing,  which  <d»ligation  is 
the  consideration  upon  which  the  license 
is  granted,  the  licensee  or  his  assigns 
must  perform  such  obligations,  and  if 
ho  will  not,  .an  injum-tion  will  bo  grant- 
ed to  restrain  him  from  any  further 
right  to  use  the  j)atont.  (Joodyeiir  v. 
Day  it  Conyress  Ruh.  Co.,  .3  JJlatchf., 
455. — Inukrboli,,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  I85ti. 

18.  Where  D.  had  an  exclusive  li« 
cense  to  use  the  patent  of  G.  for  a  par- 
ticidar  purpose,  covenanting  not  to  uso 
it  for  other  purposes,  and  to  pay  a  speci- 


Mtii 


486 


UCCNSR,  C. 


SlSi, 


;:> 


'i« 


iifff'^' 


ri)i'r»;iirRR  or;  actiomm  rrnii.i  iiks. 


flod  ttirill'  for  unrli  urc,  find  C  took  "n 

ft«Ni);miU'llt  <»f',«<lU:ll  liri'iiM*',  //</«/,  I.  Tli;it 
C  took  tliu  lirfiNo  Hiiltjfct  to  till'  ol>li- 
gution  to  [r.iy  tlit>  H|i('cilli'<l  liiritV  on 
v'liiit  lu-  kIumiIiI  iiiakr  umlcr  it ;  ;tiiil  '2. 
Tliiit  tilt'  liill  WAS  •oill'uinil  to  coriijH'l  C. 
to  pay  to  (r.  tlio  t  kiitr  )luo  for  liin  iihu 
of  thi'  licfiiMi',  or  1>«  cnjoitiud  irom  itH 
UHf.     //>!«/.,  456. 

i),  FoitruiTuui^  oi  ;  Actions  luiiti'XCT- 

ISO. 

1.  A  person  a^^nvil  with  a  p^tt'titi'c 
to  l»ay  him  a  i-i'itaiii  sinii  on  cvi  ry  pat- 
enti'd  articU;  ir»:tniifai>turi>(l  by  liiiii.  'I'lic 
I»rttriil('c  Itro'ighf  Ills  action  for  money 
liatl  and  received;  I/itif,  tliat  tlie  jury 
Jniudit  infer  tlio  receipt  of  monoy  iVoni 
tho  fact  of  tlio  Hall'  of  the  article,  t^ftin- 
liij  V.  ]\7iij)/)h',  2  iMcI.ean,  43. — Mo 
1j:av,  J.;  Ohio,  ]>*:\0. 

'2.  And  ahhout^h  the  contract  was 
ppc'cial,  yet  if  it  appear  to  l»c  executed, 
and  not  open  and  suhsistiiifjc,  it  it*  a  well 
Bt'ttlcd  principle  that  thii  plaintiff  inttv 
recover  on  tl»t'  general  count  for  molies 
liad  and  received.     Ibid.,  44. 

3.  The  briui^inj^  of  an  action  to  re- 
cover the  arrears  duo  under  a  license  to 
use  a  patent,  does  not  r'-alliun  the  li- 
cense allcr  default  and  notitic  of  the 
termination  of  the  I'cense.  At'iimtroiKj 
V.  iriiilenheclCi,  3  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  45. 
— Bicrrs,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1844. 

4.  And  the  p.itenteo  may  have  an  in- 
junction to  restrain  the  further  use  <f 
the  privilege,  notwithstanding  such  ac- 
tion and  a  judgment  thereon,  as  it  is 
liot  a  waiver  of  the  forfeiture.  IbUJ.^ 
445. 

5.  The  non-payment  of  the  agreed 
consideration,  us  stipulated,  works  a 
forfeiture  of  the  license.     Ibid.,  445. 

6.  Under  the  laws  prior  to  1830,  a 


Hfcnue  or  .nsxjjjfiinrnt  oxplred  u  lih  tlu- 
liniit^ition  of  tliu  orij^inul  pulent,  uuIcm 
it  was  exprcHMly  in  terms  no  j:riiiiii.d  „^ 
to  be  applicable  to  any  renewal  of  thu 
patent  afterward.  \\'<iM/i/ti/rh  v,t,'nittl 
.«  Story,  l;).').— Stokv,  J.;  Mass.,  |sn, 
7.  If  a  licenno  to  umi  a  patint. d  ii,;i. 
chine  bo  eondition.-il,  such  coiiditi(,(  > 
nmst  lie  performed,  or  there  i-  hd  ri,,),, 
to  the  use.  Hi'uo/i'H  v.  .SV'<//,y,  ;|  M, 
Lean,  fi2U,  tt2ti. — McLkan,  J.j  oiii,, 

lM4fl. 

H.  Theuseoftlie  maclitne  tinder xiuji 
circumstaiu'cs  is  a.i  inlVitigetneiit,  ami 
may  be  enjoined,      //'id.,  528. 

0.  All  alleged  viol.ation  of  the  i'oiitracl 
of  license  by  the  patentee  or  complain- 
ant does  not  f^ive  any  riudit  of  n.e  to 
the  di'fend:int.     Jbitf.,  527. 

10.  To  entitle  a  licensee  to  tlie  li< m-. 
fit  of  the  license,  it  is  incumbent  on  him 
to  do  all  which  he  is  bound  to  <l  ;  but 
if  he  fail  in  the  strict  perCorniiiiice  U 
reason  of  the  act  ^f  the  liceiisei',  he  will 
be  orpially  entitled  to  the  use  of  tlie 
machine  as  if  ln'  had  lifeially  ami  fully 
performed  his  part  of  the  cuiitiad, 
J  bid.,  52H. 

1 1.  Hut  if  the  licensee  has  failed  id 
perforin  the  conditions  of  the  license, 
he  has  no  pretence  of  right  to  tin-  ik' 
of  the  thing,  and  has  no  chiiiii  in  lawiv 
e(piity  either  to  its  uso  or  tor  diiniagt-. 
Ibid.,  628. 

12.  Where  a  licen.,e  was  granteil  to 
construct  and  use  a  ]»atcnted  niailiiite 
for  the  consider.'ition  of  certain  tinti; 
given  by  tho  licensee,  with  tlu'  aifivo- 
ment  that  in  case  such  notes  ■?re  not 
paid,  the  license  should  be  vol';  Ifdil, 
that  it  was  optunial  with  the  .,i'aiitor 
to  enforce  'm  colleotion  of  the  in/lus, 
or  tre.at  tLe  rights  of  the  licensee  as 
forfeited  und  T  the  stipulation,  mid  an 
injunction  was  g'auted  to  restrain  tlie 


LICKNSK,  C. 


407 


rcMrilTL'U  or;    AITIOXII   llMlt'KCTINn. 


firtlifr  «wo,  unit''"*  th«  niitpn  wi-ri'  paiil. 
W  ,>lu)<>i'(h  V.  U'etff,  1  flliitclif'.,  106, 
],  ;,     \i;i,M»x,  J.;   N.  Y.,  lrt4(J. 

t;i.  TIm-  H'i|iiilutioii  h  t«>  liu  tri>titi>tl 
ji,  a  iloiildi'  >»H'unty  ^;iv«'ii  liy  tlio  II 
, t'Uitue  tu  the  ^'r:uit<ir  lor  llio  jmyrrit'iit 
.f  the   ct)««i«lynili(m    mormy.      /  .7., 

u-,0. 

1 1  To  im  notion  of  covofiant  iiiwtii  an 
i,frei'mOlit  wlilrh  gnuitnl  ii  licfUHO  to 
iiiiiko  :iii<l  vfiul  a  patt'iitoil  mticks  I'.c 
liii'iisi'i'  iinrofiiiu  (o  kiu'|»  Mil  iicciMiiit  of 
ill.'  iirt'uU'H  niauufuctiiri'd,  aiitl  to  pay  a 
I'lM'd  price  per  jjmmiikI  on  tlioHu  koM,  it 
lOin  dcffiu'i'  tliiit  the  jiatciit  is  iliv:ili<l. 
W  t,l,r\.Aif<ini.i,-2  \\  ond.A;  Miii.,  ;i;i I. 
—WooiHiruv,  J.;  Mass.,  I«t0. 

1.).  I'lUt  if  thi)  covtiuant  waN  ajj;i"fi''tt 
riiililji'  [lolicy,  or  wIkti'  iIk'  plaint  ill"  h.ttl 
;uti'(l  tiiiiululi'iitly  ill  takiii-,'  i»iit,  tlic  pat- 
iiit,  it  si'utns  Midi  a  (lofi-iicc  wuulil  bu 
M.l'uis.Mldi'.     Ifnii-t  3.">'-',  3:J0. 

II),  A  forfoiturc  of  a  lici'iise  may  bo 
intoiToil  aooordiiij^  ti>  its  tonus  by  rou- 
•(III  of  tliu  uI»aiiiloiiiiient  or  iioglool  of 
ihi' liceiiHee.  WUkihi  v.  Stnllvy,  6  Mc- 
Lean, 2.— MtLiiAV,  J.;  Oliio,  1840. 

17.  Wlioro  the  liooiiso  otiDtains  a  pi*o- 
v'hJou  tliat  :i  failiiro  to  act  iiiidor  il  for  a 
ivrtiiin  tinieshoulil  oo  an  nbainluniiiont, 
afoi'iual  notice  from  the  UcenHor  is  not 
necessary,  tiiat  ho  consitlors  sncli  a  fail- 
ure an  ul)an(U)iiiiU'nl.     IhiiL,  '-J. 

18.  \  cuiitract  to  nso  a  ]>atoiito(l  iiia- 
cliiiie  (hiring'  tho  ooiitimiaiioo  of  the  jial- 
ciit,  aii'l  to  pay  thorofor  a  iixoil  propor- 
tiim  of  tlio  value  of  the  fuol  save<l 
tliei'eliy,  will  not  support  an  notion  un- 
til the  oxjiiraf  ion  of  llu'  patent.  M'nnh., 
AkX;  tCc,  ISfeatn  Pack.  Co.  v.  iSic/des, 
10  How.,  441. — (luiKU,  J.;    Sup,  Ct., 

mo. 

10.  It  is  an  entire  contr.'t ;  but  if  the 
defeiiilaiits  had  agrood  to  pay  by  instal- 
ments at  tlie  e:id  of  certain  times,  an 


jiotioti  woiihl  llo  for  every  brosu'h,  a* 
orM'Urrinjj,       I/tid.,  4H. 

I).  If  tho  ooh«lilloiis  of  n  liooiiNo  are 
violatod,  strictly  alt  ii<xht  and  llllu  un- 
dor  it  itru  torloitud,  and  nn  injuiiotiou 
will  issue  to  restrain  the  further  use  of 
ihu  tliiii)f  granted,  if  mh-Ii  iMJiinotioii  h 
applied  for  <liirint;  ^''^'  violati«>n.  UV»- 
ton  V.  Shv.nmtn^  1  Dhitohf.,  BSH,  640.— 
Nki-son,  J,;  X.  Y.,  1850. 

'i\,  Ibit  such  an  injunotion  >\ill  not 
bo  j;raiitod  if  the  \  iol.tion  lias  boon 
disooiiiii,iiod,  and  if  it  ipprarHlhellion- 
Koo  was  K'"'^y  "'*'  'l'^-*  violation  iindor 
misap))n'honiti<  ij  d' hi.s  rl^^lttiiundoi  the 
licoiiso,     ///'#„  540. 

'J'J,  I'pou  the  broaoh  of  tlu'  conditions 
of  a  liooiis<<,  the  pHlentoo  or  Hcensor  ha* 
a  iii;hl  to  avo.d  tlio  i  outraot  and  Iw  re- 
united to  his  original  riifhts,  and  prose- 
cute tho  licrusee  for  tin  infringoineiit 
of  tho  jtatont.  Woodworth  v.  Cook,  2 
IMatchf,,  IU0.~Nki,8»»n,  J,  ;N,  Y'.,  IHJO. 

2;{.  In  siioli  I  ase  also  the  liconsi-e  is 
j'oniitted  to  his  orij^inal  ri^lit-  and  posi- 
tion, as  the  contract  must  be  avoided  al- 
tojjothor,  if  at  dl.  It  cannot  be  obliga- 
tory upon  one  party  and  not  upon  tho 
othor.     Ibid.,  100, 

'1\.  Whore  the  party  liad  tho  right  to 
use  t  wo  machines  under  a  right  acipiirod 
during  tho  original  term,  and  afterward 
took  a  license  inidiT  an  extended  term, 
and  upon  an  alleged  non-porfonnanco 
of  tho  conditions  of  such  liconso,  an  ac- 
tion for  an  infringement  was  brought 
by  the  patentee,  or  his  assignee,  JIddy 
that  tho  liconseo,  under  tho  decision  on 
Wilxoii  V.  Jio.H8cau,  4  How,,  U40,  ct)uld 
set  uj)  .1  right  to  continue  tho  use  of 
such  two  macliines,  as  having  been  in 
I  nsf  when  tho  first  term  of  tho  patent 
expired*     Ihid.,  IGl. 

25.  Where  a  patentee,  G.,  gave  to  a 
person,  D.,  an  exclusive  right  or  license 


n 


^f^-' 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TicST  TARGET  (MT-S) 


./.X 


^ 


'^^ 


''.ss^5^ 


1.0 


I.I 


lis    12.0 


lU 


IL25  i  1.4 


I 
IE 


-► 


Hiotographic 

Sciences 
Corporation 


'iZ  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTEit,  N.Y.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


'^ 


o 


^ 


V 


>^^ 


A 


^.  <^ 


i\ 


<•' 


''?) 


/  ■•  ■■^•'li. 


408 


LICENSE,  C. 


kiir; 


h  *-/>», 


^'^^ 


N*^! 


J'OUFEITUriK   or;    actions   nKHI'KCTIXO. 


to  USD  li'iH,  (i.'s,  i»;iU'iiti'<l  iiivontinn, 
for  ii  ciTtaiii  coiiHidLTuti*  u  oi*  tnrift", 
G.  .•ij^rcfiii',',  liowt'vcr,  to  take  up  and 
caiii'i-1  all  other  llceiisL's  graiitud  hy  liiiii, 
and  tlieri!  being  u  (;ovenni>t  between  G. 
and  1).,  that  in  tliu  event  of  others 
clainiiiig  grants  and  usshig  sueh  hiven- 
tlon,  and  thereby  lini)aiiing  tlio  profits 
■\vhicii  vould  accrue  to  I),  that  then  sueh 
tariff  sliould  cease,  Jleld^  in  an  action 
of  covenant  for  non-i)ayment  of  sucIj 
tariff,  and  other  non-compliances,  tliat 
it  was  a  good  defence  that  otliers  used 
the  invention  and  iuii)aired  the  right  of 
D.,  and  that  it  was  of  no  consequence 
Avhetlier  G.  was  unable  to  restrain  other 
parties  from  such  use,  or  whether  it  was 
to  his  advantage  or  not  to  do  so,  Good- 
year V.  Day^  MS. — Gkiek,  J. ;  N.  J., 
1 850. 

2G.  The  granting  of  a  new  license  by 
the  owner  of  a  patent,  to  a  second  per- 
son to  make  and  vend  a  patented  article 
within  a  certain  territory,  .after  he  had 
granted  a  prior  and  exclusive  license  to 
another  person  for  the  same  territory, 
is  no  bar  to  an  action  brouglit  on  the 
frst  contract  or  license,  to  recover  the 
amount  agreed  by  it  to  be  paid  for  ma- 
chines manufactured  under  such  con- 
tract, but  may  be  available  by  way  of 
recoupment  of  dam.iges.  Pitts  v.  Jame- 
mn,  15  Barb.,  317. — Johnson,  J.;  N. 
v.,  1853. 

27.  Where  a  licensee  undertakes  to 
use  a  patent  Avitaout  paying  for  it  the 
amount  specified  in  the  license,  equity 
will  so  far  enjoin  him — whether  the 
license  thereby  becomes  voidable  at  law 
or  not — that  unless  he  will  pay  he  shall 
not  be  allowed  to  use.  J)ai/  v.  JTartn- 
horn,  MS. — Pitman,  J. ;  R.  I.,  1855. 

28.  G.,  a  patentee  gave  an  exclusive 
license  to  D.,  to  use  his  patent  for  a  speci- 
fied purpose  only,  D.  covenanting  not 


to  use 't  for  any  other  purpose,  .'ind  to  pny 
a  specifietl  tariff  for  siu-h  use.  1).  )ist(l 
the  patent  for  other  purposi-s.  (i.  il,,.,, 
sued  I),  in  New  Jersey  to  restrain  siuli 
use,  and  obtained  a  ileereeand  an  order 
for  an  accounting.  After  such  dccno 
was  rendered,  C.  with  a  knowlcdjie  &; 
it  took  from  1).  an  assignment  of  Lis 
license  .and  went  on  making  ihc  •A\^\\^•\^. 
permitted  by  it,  but  refused  to  pav  U> 
G.  whiit  Wiis  due  from  I),  on  aceoiint ,.( 
tariff  fees  under  the  license,  or  wlmt 
w.as  due  by  D.  for  violating  the  patent, 
G.  then  filed  a  bill  against  D.  and  C.  to 
set  aside  the  assignment  of  tlie  license 
as  void,  or  that  it  be  permitted  to  stand 
only  on  the  condition  that  C.  pay  to  (i. 
what  D.  owed  for  tariff  fees,  and  lur 
the  breach  of  the  covenants  of  the 
license.  Held,  on  demurrer:  1.  That 
G.  had  no  lien  on  the  agreement  or 
license  to  secure  the  tariffs  stij)iil.ati'J 
therein,  and  that  therefore  the  bill  set 
up  no  title  or  equity  as  against  C.  as 
respects  the  amount  due  from  D.  at  the 
time  of  the  assignment  of  the  license. 
2.  That  the  unpaid  tariffs  due  from  D. 
to  G.  afforded  no  ground  for  enjoinini; 
C.  from  acting  under  the  license,  and 
that  it  was  not  material  as  respects  G. 
whether  the  assignment  was  fraudulent 
or  not,  and  that  the  bill  could  not  be 
sustained  as  against  C.  to  aid  in  enforc- 
ing the  decree  against  D.,  or  to  collect 
from  D.  the  amount  of  tariff  which  wis 
due  from  him  at  the  time  of  the  assign- 
ment of  the  license  to  C.  Goodyear  v, 
Day  it  Cong.  Rub.  Co.,  3  I>latclif.,  45:). 
— Ikoersoll,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

29.  A  suit  brought  to  enforce  the 
covenants  of  a  license  granted  under  a 
patent  is  not  a  case  arising  under  a  lav 
of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  confer 
jurisdiction  upon  the  Circuit  Courts  to 
take  cognizance  of  it.     Ibid.,  454. 


'^^^ 


LIMITATIONS. 


400 


^W» 


APPUCATIO.NH ;    API'EALa;    ACTlO.Na 


;)0.  The  mere  porformatico  of  such 
oovoiiaiits  would  be  a  violatioii  of  the 
rirjlits  of  a  pateiitco  as  secured  by  the 
loveiianta,  but  not  as  secured  hy  any 
law  of  tlie  IJ^iiitcd  States.     //>«(/,,  454. 

31.  If  a  licensee  use  the  thing  patented 
lieyoml  the  limits  of  tiic  lieenKe  or  <,Mant, 
or  in  a  way  not  autliorized  thereby,  then 
there  is  a  violation  of  the  rights  secured 
to  the  patentee.     Ihid.,  454. 


LIMITATIONS. 

A.  Op  AiM'UCATioNS  Foil  Patents 469 

B.  Ob"  Appeals    to    Justices'  CiKOurr 
Court 469 

f,   Of  commencino  Actions 4Gl» 

A.    Api'lications  fou  Patknts. 

1.  The  statute  does  not  limit  any  time 
in  which  the  inventor  must  apply  for  a 
patent,  nor  does  it  declare  a  forfeiture 
by  reason  of  any  delay.  Delay  there- 
fure  is  unimpc-tant,  unless  it  amounts 
to  evidence  of  abandonment  of  the 
claim,  and  that  is  proper  matter  for  the 
consideration  of  a  jury.  Ilildreth  v. 
Ikatk,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Cbancii,  Ch. 
J.;  D.  C,  1841. 

2.  There  is  no  act  of  Congress  that 
makes  delay  in  taking  out  a  patent  fatal 
to  the  first  inventor,  unless  he  abandons 
his  discovery  to  the  public,  or  by  his 
"consent"  allows  it  to  be  put  in  "  pub- 
lic use  or  on  sale,"  for  two  years  before 
taking  out  a  patent.  Allen  v.  Blunt, 
2  Wood.  &  Min.,  141. — Woodbury, 
J.;  Mass.,  1846. 

3.  It  is  wholly  immaterial  to  the  va- 
lidity of  the  patent,  whether  an  inven- 
tion was  long  antecedent  to  the  appli- 
cation for  a  patent,  or  directly  prece- 
ding it.  Wilder  v.  JleCormick,  2 
Blatchf.,  33.— Beits,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1846. 


4.  Before  a  patent  in  granted,  thco 
is  no  law  that  recpiircs  the  first  in\entor 
to  disclose  his  invention  within  any  lim- 
ited time,  nor  is  there  any  limitation  un- 
less the  lapse  of  time  is  sufficient  to 
show  an  abandonment,  whi(^h  is  a  (lucs- 
tion  for  a  jury.  Perri/  v.  Curmll,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— CuANcui,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C, 
1847. 

5.  If  an  inventor  unnecessarily  defer 
his  application  for  a  patent,  anil  sufPT 
his  invention  to  go  into  use^  except  for 
the  purpose  of  perfecting  it,  and  testing 
its  utility  by  proper  experiments,  and 
beyond  what  he  has  reason  to  believe 
necessary  lor  these  purposes,  his  paient 
is  void.  Winitns  v.  Schencc.  <£•  'IVoy 
li.  li.,  2  Blatchf.,  291,  .<00.— Nklson, 
CONKLINO,  J  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

6.  No  particular  time  is  limited  by  the 
statute,  within  which  an  inventor  must 
make  application  for  a  patent,  yet  it 
ought  to  be  done  within  a  reafionahle 
time.  What  is  or  wliat  is  not  a  reason- 
able time,  depends  on  the  circumstances 
of  each  case,  l^llithorpe  v.  Itohertson, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoRSELL,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1858. 

D.    Of  Ari>EALB  to  Justices'  Cib- 
cuiT  Court. 

1.  There  is  no  limitation  of  time  as 
to  an  appeal  from  a  decision  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  to  the  justices  of 
Circuit  Court.  Janncy's  Appeal,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Cp.ancu,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C, 
1847. 

C     Of  commekcing  Actions. 

1.  There  is  no  act  of  Congress  limit- 
ing the  time  in  which  a  suit  may  be 
brought  for  an  infiingement  of  a  patent- 
right.  Parker  v.  Hallock,  MS. — Gbi- 
EE,  J.;  Pa.,  1858. 


'    i 


.?SJ?itefci^:^ 


>^..4^^ 


470 


'»»4. 


si>^ 


MACHINE,  A. 


WHEN    I'ATKNTAULK;    IMUNril'LKH  OF. 


2.  The  two  years'  Utiiilalloii  In  wliicli    sciciict'  liavo  (lis«-()\er('il,  luit  tlio  r/jo(/,/j 


to  hriii}:^  .suits  lor  jteiialtii's,  prosciibt'il 
in  tlio  ('limes  act  of  1790,  is  n'i»fiiIo(l 
by  iniplication  Ity  g  4  of  tiio  act  of  1h;}0, 
wliirh  t'uafls  lliat  suits  for  penalties  or 
forfeitures  must  be  brou^jjlit  witliin^^'c 
years  from  the  time  when  the  penalty 
or  forfeiture  accrued.  iStimp.wn  v. 
Pond,  2  Curt.,  503,  604.— Cukti^,  J. ; 
MaHS.,  1855. 


o/Mrdiidi,  the  peculiar  manner  cr  iltnin 
of  produciu},'  any  given  etfeci.    //.,,/_ 


LOST  AIITS. 
See  Akts,  Lost. 


3IACIIINE. 

A"    Wnvis  PATENTAiu.E ;   PiuNOiPiJig  op; 
Identity  of 410 

B.      PlUNCIl'LE.S  or,   AND  MODES  OP  Al'PLI- 

c.vrioN;  aow  explained  anddescuiued  472 

At     Patentahility    of;    Prixciples 
of;  Ibentitv  of. 

See  also  Form;  Improvement;  Lv- 
vextion  ;  A.,  E. 

1.  If  tlie  jiriiiciples  of  a  machine  are 
HOW,  either  to  produce  a  new  or  an  old 
effect,  the  inventor  is  entitled  to  tlie  ex- 
clusive right  of  tlie  whole  machine.  The 
intrinsic  difficulty  is  to  ascertain  in  com- 
l)licated  cf^ses,  the  exact  boundary  be- 
tween what  was  known  and  used  before, 
and  what  is  new  in  the  mode  of  opera- 
tion. Whittemore  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall., 
480,  481.— Stor-v,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

2.  By  the  principles  of  a  machine  (as 
these  words  are  used  in  the  statute)  is 
not  meant  the  original,  elementary  prin- 
ciples of  motion,  which  philosophy  and 


481. 

3.  The  opinions  of  skilful  witnessiv, 
whether  the  jirineiples  of  two  niaeiiin, , 
are  the  same,  are  competent  evidcuio 
in  a  patent  cause.  lint  care  sliniiKl  \w 
taken  to  distinguish  Mhat  is  meant  liv 
a  principle,  the  true,  leg.al  ineaisiiij,'  (,f 
which,  in  respect  to  a  inacliiiic,  is,  tl,,. 
peculiar  structure  or  constituent  parts 
of  such  machine.  And  in  this  viow  tlic 
(piestion  may  be  very  properly  askcil, 
in  cases  of  doubt  and  coiiipltxity,  of 
skilful  persons,  whether  the  prin(i|jle.^ 
of  two  machines  be  the  same  or  ditKr. 
cut.  Burrcit  v.  Hall,  1  Mas.,  470.— 
Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1818. 

4.  The  principles  of  two  nimliinos 
may  be  the  same,  although  the  form 
or  proportions  may  be  'litferent.  Thiv 
may  substantially  employ  the  same 
power  in  the  same  way,  though  tin,- 
external  mechanism  be  apparently  dif. 
ferent.  On  the  other  hand,  the  princi- 
ples of  two  machines  may  be  very  dif- 
ferent, although  their  external  structtire 
may  have  great  similarity  in  many  rt- 
spects.     Ibid.,  471. 

5.  The  meaning  of  the  terms  "an 
improved  machine,"  or  "an  improve 
ment  on  a  machine,"  is  substantially  the 
same.     Ibid.,  470, 

6.  The  distinction  between  a  machine 
and  an  improvement  on  a  machine,  or 
an  improved  machine,  is  too  clear  for 
them  to  be  confounded  together.  Ev- 
ans V.  Eaton,  3  Wheat.,  516.— Mar- 
shall, Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 

7.  There  is  no  substantial  difference 
between  a  patent  for  an  improvement 
on  a  machine,  or  a  patent  for  an  im- 
proved  machine.     Ibid.,  517. 

8.  A  machine,  and  an  improvemcJit 


MACHINE,  A. 


*ic, 


471 


the  terms  "an 
"rtu  improve 
ubstantially  the 


WIIGX   PATEN  rAULK;    I'UINCll't.KH  OT. 


on  a  iiiiu'liiiio,  or  ;iii  improved  miicliiiie, 
mu»t  ii"t  '>('  c'liirdHiiiU'il :  a  j^rniit  of  the 
fXi'liif*ivo  use  ot"  an  improveiiiiMit  in  a 
iiiiu'liiiK'i  I'riiicipli',  or  I'roeess,  is  not  a 
jrniiit  of  (lie  i'liproveiiu'iit  only,  hut  the 
iiintroveil  machine :  an  improvement  on 
;i  mai'liiiie  and  an  improved  machini' 
are  the  same.  Whitney  v.  J-Jinim  tt, 
IJal.l.,  ;tll.— Mai.dwin,  .1.;  Ta.,  1H31, 

0.  Principle,  in  nniehines,  is  not  a 
new  mechanical  power — none  such  liave 
bi'cn  iliscovered  lor  eentiuies.  That  is 
a  principle,  which  applies,  modiiies,  or 
conihines  mechanical  powers  to  j)rodnco 
.1  certain  result.  Smith  v.  Pearce,  2 
McLean,  17M. — McLiOan,,!.;  Ohio,  1840. 

10.  Wiiuii  a  patei'.t  is  oht.ainod  for 
parm  "f  «  niachine  involved  with  other 
iiart.s  which  may  have  been  used  before, 
it  is  essential  that  tii  •  tiew  parts  should 
l)c  so  distinctly  }n(inted  out  that  the 
claim  may  not  cover  any  parts  that  are 
ohl.  i^/cAe  V.  Speri'y,  2  N.  Y.  Leg. 
Obs.,  255.— JuDsox,  J.;  Ct.,  1843. 

1 1.  A  machine,  in  order  to  give  a  l)arty 
adaii.i  to  ap.atent  therefor,  must  be  sub- 
stantially new.  The  machine  nmst  be  new, 
not  merely  the  i»urpose  to  which  it  is 
applied.  Bean  v.  Smalhcood,  2  Story, 
411.— Stouy,  J. ;  Mass.,  1843. 

12.  The  princijile  of  a  machine  means 
the  operative  cause  by  whieh  a  certain 
effect  is  produced.  If  a  maclune  is 
fornu'd  by  a  combination  of  certain  me- 
chanical powers,  such  cond)ination  of 
these  powers  is  the  principle  of  the 
maclune.  When  a  siniilar  effect  is 
produced  by  a  combinaiiou  of  the 
same  mechanical  powers,  though  the 
machines  may  be  somewhat  different  in 
their  structure,  in  principle  they  are 
the  same.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  Mc- 
Lean, 451.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

13.  A  machine  is  patentable  only 
whin  it  is  substantially  new.     Tt/ler  v. 


JJiOiil,  1  Codullep.,  30. — McCai.eu,  J.; 
La.,  1848. 

14.  The  mere  application  of  an  old 
machine  lo  a  new  process  is  not  patent- 
able.    Jfjid.,  30. 

15.  Tiie  word  pnncijdc  means  tin 
operative  cause,  by  whi»di  a  certain  ef 
I'ect  is  produced  ;  the  condiiiiation  of 
certain  mechanical  }iowers;  the  mode 
of  operation.  Upon  this  question  of 
principle  we  may  arrive  at  a  correct 
conclusion  by  ascertaining  what  is  the 
result  whieh  the  invention  is  designed 
to  j)roduce.  Whatever  is  essential  to 
produce  the  appropriate  result  of  a  ma 
chine,  independent  of  its  mere  form,  is 
a  matter  of  prineijjle.  Olcvtt  v.  Jfaio- 
kiiis^  2  Amer.  Law  Jour.,  N.  S.,  320. — 
MiLLEK,  J.;  Wis.,  1840. 

16.  The  word  principle,  as  applied  to 
mechanics,  is  where  two  machines  or 
things  are  made  to  operate  substantially 
in  the  same  way,  so  as  to  produce  tho 
same  result ;  as  where  any  of  tho  me- 
chanical powers,  the  lever,  screw,  wheel, 
tfec,  are  used  to  accomplish  certain  pur- 
poses, the  same  powers  being  used  in  a 
somewhat  different  form,  to  do  the  same 
thing,  will  not  bo  a  ditference  in  princi- 
ple. Huberts  v.  Ward,  4  McLean,  506. 
—McLean,  J. ;  Mich.,  1840. 

17.  Whether  tho  mechanical  instru- 
ments be  larger  or  smaller,  whether 
their  action  be  horizontal  or  vertical, 
the  principle  is  the  same.     Ibid.,  506. 

18.  Machines  may  be  regarded  mere- 
ly as  devices,  by  the  instrumentality  of 
which  the  laws  of  nature  are  made  ap- 
plicable and  operative  to  the  j^roductiou 
of  a  particular  result.  Parker  v.  Ilidme, 
1  West.  Law  Jour.,  422. — Kaxe,  J.  > 
Pa.,  1840. 

10.  The  principle  of  a  machine  is  the 
particular  means  of  producing  a  given 
result    by  a   mechanical    coutrivancc. 


If     .fi-^' 


'^wU/WfL/MK' 


^■:^¥«5U4i 


472 


MAChfNE,  n. 


r    INV'llM.KS  or,    AND   MODKH  OF   AI'J'UCATUIN ;    HOW   Bf;T   FORTH. 


k«  '"W 


m 


Mi'Fo  (!<)loral>Io  (lifTor^noes  in  forin  ntid 
s(ni('tiii(;  do  not  iiiukcf  a  (lifltTcMci'  in 
prlnciplf.  I'arkcr  v.  Stilea,  5  McLean, 
03. — T.KAVirr,  J. ;  Ohio,  1841». 

20.  Invention,  as  it  respt't-ts  niacliine:*, 
is  any  new  arriniffcmcnt  or  comhina- 
tloii  of  in.'ii'hincry,  wliellior  of  old  or 
new  parts  or  materials,  producinj^  in  its 
arningctncnt  and  conihination  a  useful 
result.  jffVoriinck  v.  Si/i/iour,  MS. 
— Nklson,  J.  ;  N.  v.,  1H51. 

'Jl.  The  term  m.ichiue  includes  every 
mechanieal  device  or  coinliination  of 
meclijiriical  powers  and  devic;'s  l(»  per- 
iorm  some  fuiu-tion  and  produce  a  cer- 
tain effect  or  result,  ('omiiif/  v.  Jiitr- 
den,  ]">  How.,  iiUT. — (JuiKii,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  iHo;!. 

22.  A  new  process  is  usually  the  re- 
sult of  discovery;  a  machine  of  inven- 
tion.    Jfiul.,  208. 

23.  One  may  discover  an  improve- 
ment in  a  process,  irrespective  of  any 
]>articular  form  of  machinery;  and  ano- 
ther may  invent  a  labor-savinjjj  machine, 
l)y  Avhieh  the  operation  or  process  may 
be  ])erformcd,  and  eadi  may  be  entitled 
to  a  patent.     Ibid.,  208. 

2-t.  A  ])atent  cannot  be  for  the  func- 
tion or  abstract  effect  of  a  machine,  but 
only  for  the  machine  itself.     //>«/.,  208. 

25.  The  Avord  "macliine"  in  the  stat- 
ute includes  new  combinations  as  well 
ii*»  new  organizations  of  mechanism,  a'' J 
hence  tliere  may  be  a  jiatent  for  new 
combinations  of  machinery  to  produce 
certain  effects,  Avhether  the  midlines 
constituting  the  combiiiation  be  new  or 
old.  In  such  a  case,  tlie  patent  is  not 
for  an  abstract  principle,  but  for  the 
particular  application  of  the  principle 
which  the  patentee  professes  to  have 
made.  Wintermute  x.  Jiedington,MS. 
— WiLsox,  J. ;  Ohio,  1856. 

26.  By  the  term  "principle"  of  a  ma- 


cliine is  understood  its  mode  or  ninnin., 
of  operation,  and  hence  there  ni;iv  I,,. 
two  structures  widely  dillerenl  in  .,,,. 
pearanco  or  dimensions,  and  yet  idcnti. 
(•ally  the  samo  in  principle.  JAtttn  v. 
/S/ufir/c,  ym. — Lkaviim,  .1. ;  Ohio,  1n.jO, 

27.  Principle   is    often   applied   tit  ;i 
machine  to  describe  its  movements  aiKl 
etl'ects.     Lc  Hoy  v.  Tiithinn,  22  How. 
i;»n. — McLkan,  J.;  Sup.  C't.,  \h'A), 

28.  A  new  machine,    which   .'utoiii. 
plishes  the  same  end  as  a  former  one 
but  by  sulistantially  dilferent  means,  is 
patent.'ible.      Enmcs   v.    Cook^   MS.— 
Si'UAtiui;,  J.;  Mass.,  IH'JO. 

20.  The  priiu'iple  of  a  machine  haa 
reference  to  its  mode  of  operation,  not 
to  any  al)stract  principles  involved  in 
its  proportions  or  motion.  Jndaon  v. 
C'ojot',  iSIS. — Lkaviit,  J.;  Ohio,  18G0. 

B.     Principles   of   and   Modes  of 
Ari'LioATiox,  now  kxplainud  axd 

DESCKIUEI). 

1.  The  i)atent  act  of  1793  does  kdi 
limit  the  inventor  to  one  single  mode 
or  one  single  set  of  ingredients  to  ciinv 
into  ertect  his  invention.  lie  ni;iy  claim 
as  many  modes  as  he  pleases,  provideil 
always  that  the  claim  is  limited  to  such 
as  ha  has  invented,  and  as  are  substan- 
tially new.  Ityan  v.  Goodwin,  3  Suniu., 
521. — Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1839. 

2.  And  §  3  of  the  act  requires,  in  the 
case  of  a  machine,  that  the  inventor 
shall  fully  explain  the  principle,  and  the 
several  modes  in  which  he  has  contem- 
plated the  application  of  that  principle 
or  character,  by  which  it  may  bo  distin- 
guished from  other  inventions.  And 
the  same  enactment  exists  in  g  0  of  the 
act  of  1836.     Ibid.,  521. 

3.  This  section  seems  clearly  to  show 
that  a  patentee  may  lawfully  unite  in 


^•*''l 


MANrFACTUUfc:. 


473 


ABTicut  or;  wiiiy  patkntadi.e. 


one  i>iitont  nil  tho  mo.U's  of  iipplyin^; 
liis  iii\tiiti<">  ooiit('rn|iluti'(l,  iiml  all  the 
ilirttTeiit  rtortH  or  motliliciiliutis  of  iiiii- 
iliiiicry  l»y  wliifli  it  :  i:iy  l.c  aiiplic.l,  aiwl 
if  siii'li  wi'iH!  lu'W,  till'  patiiit  \V(jiiltl 
riwli  tlu'iii  all.  .1  fortiori,  this  ni\v 
is  iiiiplit'Jihle  where  each  of  the  iiiachiiieH 
IS  but  lU  iiiiprovemciit  or  iiivt'iitldii  «'(Hi- 
diiciiili  l<>  tl'i'  accoiniilislmit'iit  of  the 
Miiiio  "t'liiTal  end.  \Vi/)th  v.  Stone,  1 
Storv,  202.— Story,  J. ;  Afass.,  IHIO. 

4.*  Under  ;5  (1  of  the  act  of  IH.'UJ,  re- 
(luiriiii^  the  inventor  "  to  explain  the 
(icveral  ni<nles  in  whieh  he  has  eontein- 
phiti'il  the  api)lieation  of  the  distin_^\iish- 
\\vf  principle  or  charaeter  of  his  inven- 
tidii  "  it  is  not  incnnd)ent  to  sutri^est  all 
tiic  possible  modes  hy  whieii  the  inven- 
tion may  he  varied  and  yet  the  eileet 
jiroiluced.  It  is  sutlicient  to  state  the 
motles  which  he  contemplates  to  he  the 
last,  and  to  add,  that  other  mere  for- 
mal variations  from  these  modes  he  does 
not  deem  to  he  unprotected  by  his  ]»at- 
ont.  Carver  V,  JJraiiitrce  Mani//.  Co., 
j  Story,  440,  441.— Stouy,  J.;  jMass., 
184:?. 

5.  Where,  therefore,  an  inventor,  in 
a  patent  for  "  a  now  and  useful  im}n'ove- 
iiii'iit  in  the  ribs  of  the  cotton  gin," 
chiiint'd  "the  iiu-reasing  the  depth  or 
space  betwcen.tho  upper  and  lower  sur- 
I'aot'of  the  rib,  whether  this  be  done  by 
making  the  ribs  thicker  .at  that  part,  or 
liy  a  fork  or  division  of  the  rib,  or  by 
.iiiy  other  vaiiation  of  tho  form,"  JIdd, 
that  there  Avas  no  want  of  accuracy  or 
sufficiency  of  description,  nor  any  claim 
bmader  than  the  invejition.  Ibid.,  433, 
4:!."),  441, 

G.  Tho  .let  of  Congress  (act  of  1836, 
§  C)  not  only  requires  the  p.atentee  to 
"particularly  specify  and  point  out  his 
invention  and  discovery,"  but  also  to 
explain  the  icver.al  modes  of  its  applica- 


tion.  The  court  does  not  reiptiru  hh 
strict  n  compliance  in  these  respects  uh 
was  oiu-e  the  jtraetice,  Imi»  the  claim  to* 
novelty  must  be  clearly  described  some- 
where in  the  snccitication,  and  it  must 
be  made  in  hiicIi  |ilain  terms  that  it  can 
be  readily  imderstimd  with  "  rcason.abh) 
certainty."  Jlovci/  v.  Sti  vena,  3  W»iod. 
&,  Min., '27,  2H. — NVoodhuuy,  J.;  Mass., 
1H4(S. 

7.  Wliether  the  discoverer  of  a  now 
and  impiirtant  truth  can  Kccure  to  him- 
self all  the  mechanical  means  of  carry- 
ing it  into  effect,  he  can  onlv  do  so  in  a 
e.'ise  in  which  ho  clearly  sets  forth  and 
claims  sueli  new  truth  to  be  his  discov- 
ery .and  exclusive  right.  Ji rooks  wJ'Wike, 
MS.— Si'UAciUK,  J.;  ^^Fass.,  1H51. 

8.  When  n  patent  is  for  a  machine, 
tho  specification  must  explain  the  prin- 
ciple of  it,  .and  also  tho  several  moiles 
in  which  the  inventor  lias  contemi»lated 
the  ajiplicalion  of  that  principle.  iSic/des 
V.  GloH.MnHuf.  Co.,  MS. — (JuiKu,  J. ; 
N.  J.,  18r)0. 

9.  Under  §  0  of  tho  .act  of  183G,  it  is 
the  duty  of  an  inventor  to  describe  in 
his  specification  the  several  different 
modes,  or  devices,  or  modifications 
ktiown  to  hina  of  his  invent i(m.  Har- 
(jentw  Carter,  11  Mo.  Law  Kep.,  (155. 
— CuKTis,  J.;  Mass.,  1858. 


^  MANUFACTURE,  s 

1.  A  new  manufacturo,  as  tho  use  of 
a  new  composition,  as  porcelain  to  form 
knobs  for  doors,  <fcc.,  and  which  results 
in  a  now  and  useful  article,  is  tho  prop- 
er subject  of  a  patent,  though  the  moans 
(tho  shank  and  hpindle)  emjtloyed  to 
adapt  tho  now  composition  to  a  useful 
purpose  are  old  or  well  known.   Ifotv.h- 


*-^; 


X,    1 


474 


MANL'FACn.uK. 


AUTICLK  or;    nilKN    I'AirNTAIII.K. 


*s-i^ 


m 


V^W-H 


%* 


A'M*  V.   (frffnirotuf,  II    How.,   'Jdft. — 
Nki.son,  .1.  ;  Sii|..  C't.,  Im:»o. 

'.'.  Kill  it'  |Mii-('i'l:iiii  kiHilt.H  were  not 
li(>\v,  ami  llic  H.iiiit'  kitxl  of  nliiiiiks  iiixl 

S|iillill(W     ll!l<l      lll't'll      llM-il      witli     otlltT 

kiiolw,  llii'  list'  or  Hiilisliiiitioii  of  porcc 
lain  iiisU'iiil  <•!  ntlicr  luatiM'ial  in  a  i-oni- 
liiiiatioii  with  Mich  shiiiik!',  lic,  will  iint 
«'Ulilli>  llic  naiiiit'ii'liii'i'i'  Id  a  patriil, 
«'\i'ti  lliHiiL^li  hiicii  nialciial  may  lie  lift- 
tiT  adaptotl  lor  tlin  imrpo.si'.  //>/</., 
•Jiltl. 

3.  A  iit'u  |>nt|»('rty  (liscovfrcil  in  mat- 
ter, wlifii  |)  ■adically  applittil  in  tlicc.itii- 
hlriiclioii  of  a  iis«'|"iil  arlii'Ic  or«'omiiu'r»'t' 
or  maniil'acliii't',  is  palcntaMc ;  l>iit  tlic 
prtM'i'NS  tiiroii<f|i  wliitli  tiic  lu'W  proper- 
ty is  ileM'lopeil  and  applied  must  l)e 
htated  will  siicii  precision  as  to  enaide 
11  meeliaiiie  to  eonslniet  and  apply  the 
necessary  jiroeesH.  At'  /ifo;/ v.  Ttit/nini, 
14  JIow.,  IT").— M(Ij;an,  J. ;  Sup.  t'l., 
18.V.'. 

■1.  WIktc  (lie  8iil)jeet  matter  is  a 
niamifiietii  c,  tin-  (piestion  as  to  inlViiiLce- 
nient  will  lu',  whether  in  reality  and 
Miltstanee  the  detenilanl  has  availed 
himselt"  of  tlu'  invention  of  the  paten- 
tee; a  mere  eoloralde  variation  in  the 
process  oi  application  should  not  lie 
allowed  to  jiroleet  a  defendant.  liic/i 
V.  /^ij)pi/ic>tf,  'J(i  Frank,  .lour.,  ;!d  Ser., 
14.--(li{iKK,  .1.  ;  Pa.,  \Hy.\. 

L.  A  mere  .'inaloffous  use  is  not.  pat- 
entable; but  where  a  new  or  improved 
manufacture  is  jiroduced  by  new  con- 
trivances, ('ombinations,  or  arrange- 
ments, a  new  principle  may  be  con- 
stituted, .and  the  ajjplication  or  practice 
of  old  things  will  be  new  also.  Smith, 
11.  Z.,  Ex  parte,  .ATS.  (App.  Cas,)— 
Moiisiii.L,  J,;  D.  C,  185;J. 

6.  In  the  result  the  usu.il  test  is, 
■whether  the  production  of  the  article 
is  as  good  in  quality  at  a  cheaper  rate, 


or  better  In  qihttltif  nt  the  nnnie  rnd. 
or  willi  botli  till".!'  I  nseipu  Mri"*  1),,,.. 
tliilli/  <;ttnf)itnif.      Ihiil. 

I.  'I'lie  discovery  I  lint  a  relune  nr 
worthless  material  can  be  ad>atit;i>'i' 
onsly  applied  to  a  new  purpose,  if  i),;,! 
result  is  owinjx  ''•  ih*-'  pri-Meiiee  in  hidIi 
refuse  material  of  certain  Inyieiru'iiti* 
or  substances,  wliieli  have  before  Ihtii 
iiseil  for  the  same  purpose,  is  not  uhai 
enlable  invention.  It  is  not  a  new  man. 
nfaclur*'.  M<iiUi\  h'x  fiart<;  MS.  (Aiiii. 
Cas.)— .Mousi;!.!,,  .1.  ;   I).  ('.,  |n5;i. 

H.  There  is  a  wide  diU'erence  bctwiTn 
the  invention  of  a  new  method  or  >,y,^ 
cess  by  which  ii  known  fabric,  pnulnct, 
or  manufacture  is  produced  in  a  Kftter 
ainl  cheaper  way,  and  the  diseoverv  of 
a  new  compound,  Hiibstance,  or  iii:uiii- 
facture,  having  <pialities  never  foiunl  tn 
exist  together  in  any  other  inalfrial. 
(toDt/i/t'iir  V.  Thi'  liailrtiaifK,  'J  Wall., 
•Fr.,  ;i(i(). — (JiMKK,  .1.;  N.  .1.,  |s:.;i. 

1).  In  the  lirst  cane  the  inventor  can 
patint  nothing  but  his  process,  ami  not 
his  composition  of  ni.atter;  in  the  latter, 
both  ar«'  new  and  origin.'il,  and  Imtli 
patentable,  not  Hcverally,  but  as  mv 
discovery  or  invention,     Ifuil,  ;tOl. 

10.  If  a  patentee  be  the  inventor  or 
discoverer  of  a  new  manufactiirc  or 
composilion  of  matter,  not  known  or 
used  by  others  before  his  discovery 
thereof,  his  franchise  or  sole  right  to 
use  and  vend  to  others  to  b(^  used,  is 
the  new  composition  or  substance  itself. 
The  product  and  the  process  constitute 
one  discovery,     .rind.,  '.Hi'2. 

II.  Where  an  invention  wasduscrihed 
as  a  "j)rocess,"  but  the  description  of 
the  "  manner  .ami  process  of  niakinii;  tlii' 
same"  showed  clearly  that  tlie  iiiveiitioii 
was  not  merely  an  improved  method  or 
process,  but  a  new  product,  fabric,  or 
matiulacture ;  it  was  held,  in  an  action 


M.\Nl'.S(  UIITH. 


495 


MOMT  or  movutnt  un  uow  umt. 


I'or  iii»ViiiK«Miit'iit  l>y  iixiii^  llu«  phMliitl, 
lliiil  lilt'  |mffiili'''  liii'l  ,1  riylif  li»  pniliiliit  ^ 

tl|('    Hlllf    "•!•    IIHl'    t)f   lIlO    »'<MII|lilsili(ill,    IIH 

the  proilm'l  iumI  |in»ct'H,s  wi'i"  ImiIIi  iitw. 

I'.'.  Wlifi'o  ii  rcMiilt  iri  n  n(>w  niitl  val- 
iiiilili*  urlii'Ki  nl'  iiitiiiiitaftiirc,  tliis  will 
air.dil  ifi'tMiiid  III  |iifHiiiiif  iiivi'iitiidi. 
]\;>"fnij/\  A>  /»trl>,  MS.  (A|.|>.  Ciis.) 
-MoKHKl.l.,  J. ;    l>.  <'.,  iH.Mt. 

|;t.  WImti!  ii  |)!iltiil  was  claimi'il  inr 
(III  :tn*'<;t'i|  (■(iiiiliiiialidii  of  cti'liiiii  |i:ii'ts 
ill  iUK'W  ardcic  of  iiiaiiiiractiirt',  liiilcil 
fiivt'l<HH'H,  lull  I  lion-  was  no  new  |>rin- 
ciiilo  ill  tlio  roiiiliiiialioii  itself,  ami  it 
was  ailiiiittcil  that  tlu'rc  was  Il(ltllill^ 
iit'W  ill  tilt'  iiit'aiis  or  |)itit'css,  ami  tln'ri- 
wiis  iiotliiii;;  in  tli»'  rcsiiltrt  vrry  viiliialt'c 
to  ciiiiiiiit'rt'i-  iir  triuic,  it  was  licid  lliat 
tlu'iv  was  not  siillliitnt  cvidcm-c  of  in- 
vuntioii  to  warrant,  tlu'  uiantiii!/  of  a 
liiitciit.  ')n;  /'xjKirh.,  MS.  (A|»ii.  Cas.) 
-MoitsKi.i.,  .1.;  I).  ('.,  lH.^)!i. 

14.  A  result,  or  eU'eet  is  not,  pateiit- 
iildc,  liiit  wliere  a  result  is  in  ;i  greatly 
iiii|ii'()veil  iiiaiMifaetiire,  or  (lcve|o|)incnt 
of  KoiiK)  WW  uiitl  useful  principle — or 
wlioro  tlio  rosult  la  Huhstantially  (lill'-i'- 
eiil  fnmi  what  lias  Iteeii  elVeeted  Ixfore, 
it  may  hecoiiK'  tlui  test  of  invention,  iiml 
from  wliieli  invention  ni.-iy  he  iiiferre<|. 
'IWudwdl  V.  Fox,  iMS.  (.Vpp.  (.'as.)- 
.MoKsi:!,!,,  J.;  I).  ('.,  18.5!), 

l.").  Where  the  claim  was  i'or  hjik  fhtx/ 
of  formiiiif  hoop-skirls  l»y  applying  the 
hoops  anil  tapes  to  oaiih  otiier,  while 
llioy  arc  supported  in  the  reliitive  posi- 
tions they  arc  to  occupy  in  the  finished 
skirt,  fur  which  j>urj)ose  a  fonner  Jbr 
each  Hhapo  of  Hkirt  was  necessary, 
Held,  that  the  claim  was  not  for  the 
former,  or  apparatus  us  such,  but  that 
the  inventor  had  a  right  to  claim  the 
use  of  the  apparatus  as  incidental  and 
subsidiary  to  the  jjructicul  j^urpose  of 


tlir  idea  coiiMiiiiiliii^;  \i\x  iineiitioii,  and 
that  therefore  it  wan  ininiali'ria!  ihiit  the 
a|.p,iraliis  n\-  /'(irmtf  was  old.  }/iinn, 
Ii.   ./.,    /•>  jKirt,;    MS.   (App.  t'a-*.)-- 

MOKSKI.I.,  .1. ;    l>.  ('.,   IHIIO. 

1(1.  A  pariy  camiol  claim  w  patent  for 
a  new  mimifntiire,  niert'ly  liecaiise  he 
has  applied  an  e\i-(ing  manufacture  to 
a  new  use.  Ilo  must  have  invented  u 
nttn  faliric  or  manufacture  of  merchant- 
alile  value.  /'ini/ii\  h'x  fntrti\  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)  DiNi.op,  J,;   I).  C,  IMUI. 


MANi:S(;UIITS. 
S«n)  also  liiiriKKs. 

1.  An  author,  at  common  law,  has  a 
property  in  his  maiiiiscripl,  and  may  oh- 
tain  rcilress  af^.'iiiist  any  one  who  de- 
prives him  of  it;  or  l»y  improperly  oh- 
tainiii;^  a  copy,  endeavors  to  rc.'ilizo  u 
profit  Ity  its  piildication.  W/mnto/i  v. 
/'ilrrn,»  J'et.,057. — M<  Lkan,  J.;  Sup. 
Ot.,  1h:i4. 

Li.  There  can  1h!  no  <h)ul>t  that  the 
rights  of  an  assignee  of  a  nianiiscript 
would  l»c  prote(rted  l»y  a  Court  of  (Chan- 
cery.     //>;»/.,  (if)  1. 

;{.  This  is  presumed  to  l»otIie  "copy- 
right'" recogniz(;d  in  g  1  of  the  act  of 
iT'.Mt,  ami  which  was  intendcMl  to  ])0 
protected  l»y  its  pnnisions.  And  this 
prote(!tion  was  given,  as  well  to  books 
publislied  under  such  circumstances,  as 
to  manuscript  coj)ies.     Ihhl.,  VM\. 

1.  Congress,  by  the  .'id  of  1700,  did 
not  legislate  in  reference  to  existing 
rights.  Instead  of  siuictioning  an  ex- 
isting right,  it  created  it.     Ibil.,  001. 

f).  There  remains  in  an  autJior,  not- 
withstanding the  copyright  by  statute, 
a  common  law  title  to  his  works  bnfor*« 


H 


410 


MANUSCUIITS. 


NioiiT  or  I'RorKRTT  in;  how  umt. 


PIEti 

■  "Mwrfr 


|>iit)Ii<Titiuii.  Jonea  \\  Thornf,  I  \.  Y. 
l.iL(.  ()!•«.,  K)l».— Mr(.'»»i  N,  V.  Cliiui. ; 
X.  v.,  IHI;». 

U.  At  coiiiriinii  liiw,  iiiiIo|M>iii|<'iitly  of 
till!  ^latiitu,  till)  author  of  u  iiiiiiiiiHcript 
ini;^'lit  iihiaiii  n-drt'Ns  iij^aiiiHl  out'  wlm 
liiiil  MiiircptitioiiHly ;;aitK'(l  po>4Hf.xHioii  of 
it.  Jliirf/ifte  V.  Critfitit/cn,  4  McLeuii, 
.■I0|.--.M<;Lkav,  J.;  Ohio,  IH17. 

7.  On  f^jt'iicral  i'(jiiitalili'  |iriti<'i|»U'H, 
ri'lit'f  may  aiHo  hi'  k'V''"»  mulrr  like 
<'irciiriisf:iiici'M,  by  u  Court  of  Chancery. 

ti.  Stuth'iilM  or  othrrH  who  liavo  Ikm'U 
luTUiittcd  to  take  t'o|iiKH  of  iiiaiiuscri|ils, 
iiavc  ii(»  rij^'lit  to  a  use  wiiicli  was  not 
ill  tht'  coiitcniphition  of  thu  author  and 
tlic'iUHclvL's  wIk'U  Biu'h  coiiHi'iit  waH  niv- 
rii.  Nor  cau  they,  liy  alli)\viii^  (tthi'rH 
to  copy  tlu'Mi,  <;ivt'  a  creator  licciisi' 
than  was  vi'stuil  in  thi'iusolvcs.  I/nd.y 
303. 

9.  They  liavf  flioroforc  no  ri^^lit,  I'ither 
of  tlicnisi'Ivt's  or  l»y  a  sale  to  others,  to 
])riiit  such  nianuscriplH;  and  an  injiuuv 
tion  will  lie  to  prevent  such  act.  IbUl,^ 
;ju:(,  no.'). 

10.  An  aiitlior'rt  rij^lits  in  a  manu- 
script will  bo  protected,  thoutjjh  they 
may  not  be  complete  for  publication. 
Ibid.,  .'{05. 

11.  At  common  l.iw,  the  author  of  a 
book  or  other  litenny  property,  as  let- 
ters, has  a  ri<.jht  to  ]»roperty  therein ; 
at  least  until  it  has  been  iMiblished  Avith 
his  assent.  IToyt  v.  McKenzie,  y  Barb. 
Ch.,  321.',  323.— WALWourn,  Chan.;  N. 
Y.,  1848. 

12.  An  author  has  a  common  law 
rijfht  in  his  manuscript,  until  he  relin- 
quishes it  by  contract  or  some  equivocil 
act.  Jiartlette  v.  Crittenden,  5  McLean, 
30.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

13.  There  is  a  difference  in  principle 
between  the  right  to  republish  a  jirmted 


work,  and  the  exclu«i\t)  rl^^ht  of  m,  ,^^^ 
ihor  to  publiMh  his  own  niunuMrii.i 
Ibid.,  :«7. 

14.  .Manuscripts  cannot,  without  i|„. 
consent  of  the  uitl  lor,  bu  Hei/ed  by  Iiu 
Ci.'dittirs  as  properly.      ////(A,  ;)7. 

i.'i.  The  comniiiu  law  protetits  tln' 
rij,dit  j)f  an  autlior  to  liiii  nmuuMrijii 
only.  Ibid.,  3H. 

10.  {{0  of  the  copyn;,'ht  »ct  ,,f 
1«31,  also  protects  such  ri;,dit.  /i/,/,_ 
:JM. 

17.  A  surreptitious  publication  of  an 
important  part  of  a  mamiscript,  jm  eiiiial- 
ly  within  the  statute  as  if  the  ruaiiii 
hciipt  was  complete,  and  the  whole  of  a 
mamiscript  nci'd  not  be  printed.  Ibiil. 
39,  40. 

IH.  No  Ien«,'th  of  time  will  aiithori/,. 
the  publication  of  :ui  author's  oii^inal 
manuscript  without  his  conseii  .  Ibid. 
42. 

19.  An  author  may  license  the  piil,|i. 
cation  of  his  manuscript.  Hut,  unless  a 
copyri^^ht  is  securt^d,  the  first  piihlio 
tion  of  it  will  abandon  it  to  the  piihiic. 
Pulte  V.  Derby,  5  3IcLean,  ;i;t2.— Mr- 
Leax,  ,].;  Ohio,  1K62. 

20.  An  author  may  be  said  to  ho  ilic 
creator  or  inventor,  both  of  the  idi'iis 
contained  in  his  book  and  the  conihina- 
tion  of  wonls  to  represent  them.  Be- 
fore ])ublication  he  has  the  excliisite 
possession  of  his  invention.  tSfotce  v. 
Thomas,  2  Amer.  Law  lie;,'.,  228.— 
UiUEi:,  J. ;  Pa.,  1853. 

21.  When  he  has  published  his  hook 
and  given  his  thoughts  to  the  world,  he 
can  have  no  longer  an  exclusive  posses- 
sion of  them.  The  author's  conceptions 
have  become  the  common  pruj)orty  of 
the  public.     Ibid.,  228. 

22.  At  common  law,  an  author  has  a 
right  to  his  unpublished  inanuscripts 
the  same  aa  to  any  other  projierty  lie 


MVTKIUAT.  OF  INVKNTIOV. 


4Tr 


WIIKTIIRIl   fATINTAILI;    irrWTr  or   OI.AIMISU. 


tniv  rin'<«c<< *,  nu<\  tl»«  not  of  Fc1>rimry 
3,1'  |».;»|,  1,'iM'H  liiiii  It  ri'iiit'ily  l»_v  in- 
j\int'ii"ii.  '"  protort  thi<  rlj^lil.  Liltl»' 
\.  J/'ill,  l«  How.,  170.  — M«  I,i:a\,  .1.; 

Slip.  Ct..   iH.'.ft. 

■.»;).  Tlif  imflior  of  an  iiii|iiil»li>*ln'il 
iiijiniiHcript  hiw  mi  ex«IiiMi\i'  proporty 
therein,  at  cDrnmoii  luw— :i  li^'lit  wliicli 
,.iititlrs  liiiM  to  ilt'li'iiiiiiu'  for  liiiiisi'lf 
wlu'fluT  till'  iiiariiiHcripl  ^ll,•lll  he  piilj- 
Ijolii'il  !it  !ill;  wlu'ii  this  fxcliiHivi'  rij^lil 
i-i  ill  ii;iiii,'»'i'  of  Ix'iii;^  violnh'il,  n  court 
(,f  luiiiily  i-*  Itoiind  to  prt'vciit  tlic  wroiit;, 
by  nil  iiijillirtioii.        Wot  dm  y  v.  Jiiiltl,   \ 

Diicr,  ;J^<.'»  — !>' i:»i  J-;  N'  V.,  iHrt.'). 

24,  Such  cniiinion  law  ri^hl  has  not 
bci'ii  taken  away  or  al»riiltj;cil  hy  the  stat- 
iiliH  which  have  hccu  p:iM-<ci|  for  thn 
nnitt'fticiii  ')t'  copyrij;ht.  Its  existence 
is  prior  to  thesu  Htatutos,  ami  iiuh'pcud- 
out  of  their  provisions.     Fhitl.^  :)H5. 

25.  The  exchisivo  Hght  of  an  author 
ill  a  iiianiiscript  yet  uiipiiiilished,  rusts 
upi)ii  the  sanio  fouM<latioii  as  that  which 
siiHtalns  every  other  species  or  deserij)- 
tioii  of  property,  as  th.-it  of  a  iiianufac- 
turor,  or  an  artist.     Tbid.y  .'JHO. 

'.'('..  The  exchisive  right  is  a  right  of 
property  in  the  words,  tlioughts,  and 
sHitiiuents,  whioli  in  their  eonnectlon, 
form  the  written  eoinposition  whicJi  liis 
in.'iimscript    embodies    and    preserves. 

27.  The  right  to  control  llie  pultliea- 
tion  of  a  inanuacript  remains  in  the  au- 
thor and  his  representatives,  ev«'n  wlien 
the  material  property  has,  with  his  own 
consent,  been  vested  in  another.  The 
gift  of  a  manuscript,  unless  by  express 
agreement,  carries  Avith  it  no  license  to 
publish.    Ibid.,  387. 

28.  §  9  of  the  act  of  18.31,  giving  re- 
dress for  the  unauthorized  printing  or 
puhliahing  of  manuscripts  operates  in 
favor  of  a  resident  of  the  United  States, 


who  hnn  tpqiilrfNl  iht>  propHHornhlp  of 

ail  n/iprifitft/  Wivriuy  coinpoMtiiin  from 
a  iioii-re)ti(|i>iit  alien  author  h'nne  v. 
\Vli<itl,y,  II  Amet.  Law  Keg.,  45.— 
(',vi»w.M,i.Ai»i:i«,  J.;  Ta.,  Ih(»o. 

'J'».  Ilul  this  Hcctioii— and  whieh  \n 
the  only  one  enaliling  n  proprietor  who 
derives  his  title  from  siieh  tin  author,  to 
assert  any  right  under  the  act — given 
no  redress  for  an  unautliori/.ed  theutri* 
cal  representation.     Ihid,,  45. 

:in.  Th<'  Hole  proprietor^hip  of  an  au- 
thor's manuscript  and  of  its  incorporeal 
contents,  wherever  copies  exist,  is,  in- 
dependeiitly  of  legislation,  in  himself 
and  hiti  assigns  until  ho  publishes  it.— 


M.VTKI'JAL  OV  TNVKNTIOX. 

1.  Whether  the  mere  substitution  of 
one  inateriiti  for  another  be  an  invention 
within  the  sense  of  the  p.'itent  law,  m;iy 
well  be  (piestioned;  but  there  being  room 
for  doubt,  a  patent  was  reoomnieiided. 
Sceley's  C'tse,  '2  Opin.,  52. — WiitT,  Atty. 
(Jen.;  tH27. 

2.  The  speeificaticm  need  not  state  of 
what  niiiterial,  whether  wood  or  iron, 
every  part  of  a  machine  nhould  be  mad(;. 
Brooks  v.  Jiicknell,  3  IVIcLoan,  201.— 
McLka.v,  J.;  Ohio,  1843. 

;).  It  is  a  matter  of  doubt  whether 
the  use  of  an  inferior  material  for  a  ma- 
chine when  the  patent  covers  only  a  su- 
perior one,  is  a  legal  violation  of  it. 
Aiken  v.  Jiemis,  3  Wood.  &  Miii.,  354. 
— WoQDnuRY,  J. ;  Mass.  1847. 

4.  Where  a  patent  extends  only  to 
the  form  or  parts  of  the  machine  as  set 
out,  and  made  of  any  kind  of  materials, 
or  saying  nothing  as  to  materials,  tho 


'*'■ 


< 


s  „ 


.-'WWl^^i.^Wt' 


Vl»„ 


'       J     I  \ 


I  */. 


^■♦'♦W, 


**ll«. 


478 


MKCHANICH. 


NKIM.  «>>M  -v.iu-^nosn  or:  rrtirr  AM  tn  iitvnmnir. 


rt;xltf  wiMilil  1m>  violatoil  hy  n  iiiadiliio 
.-nik.' luriii.      //»/«/.,  ^.'^4. 

A.  IllU  if  flu'  |i:ifr|i(iM>  «'li(>(m«'H  to  gn 
riirllKT,  titnl  ciivrr  lln'  iiwiti'tini  of  w liitli 
a  piirt  of  IiIm  niiii'liinc  in  iiiii<li>,  ht>  I'li- 
lircly  I'tnlimifiTu  hU  lij^lif  to  itntMMMiti' 
wlit'ii  II  ilitrcrfiil  mill  iiiti>rii>r  in;it(>ri.'il 

i-*  rmplovi'il,  .'Ithi  i's|)cci;i||y  niw  rt'j<'t'tt'<| 

l.y  Jiim«'-I»'     //'/'/.,  :t:)4, 

0.  WlitTi  11  |iitt(>iit«>i>  oltiiini*iI  n  liiiiii- 
ini»r,  III  n  «iiw-H«'t  of  wron^lit  ir«»ii  IiummI 
will)  Nti'i'l,  !illi*i{iii<^  tlitil  III'  tiiiiml,  it|M>ii 
i'\|ii<rinit'ii?,  tli.'it  till  Nti't'l  liHtniiiurs  \\v\v 
iniii'h  limn  Ii:i1>h>  to  hro.'ik,  ntxl  wroii^lit 
iron  OPOH  iiiort<  iliiniMi',  niid  thi'iTtorr 
roiiflntMl  ]\U  s|M'fiticatioii  to  \vn>ii;,'lit 
iron  niicH  with  Mlt'cl  |Mtiiit!*,  //rli/,  in  iiii 
iiclidii  for  inri'lii^i'iiifiit  npiiiiHt  ii  [kt- 
unii  ii«iiii'/  ;i  liitilltiirr  wliolly  <  f  Ht<'«'l, 
that  It  wan  a  tiiaftrr  <>f  <loiil»t  win-tiler 
fln>  iiso  >A'  smli  a  liaimiH'r  wan  a  viola- 
tion c»f  tlic  patent.      //(/'/.,  M54. 

7.  Tlie  use  of  a  material  not  lieforo 
UH(>(1  in  the  Hiiine  Htruetiire  or  article,  an 
tlu'  use  of  putt ef's  elay  in  the  makiii;;  of 
(loor-Uiinlis,  similar  knobs  having;  Iteen 
hel'ore  niaiie  of  metal,  ^hiws,  wood,  ite., 
given  no  claim  for  n  patent,  even  thoiiixh 
the  article  be  more  valuable  than  any 
other  of  the  kiml.  Jfoff/ilisH  v.  (h'cin- 
irixnlf  1  McLean,  4(il. — .Mrl.KAN,  J,; 
Ohio,  1H4H. 

H.  Hut  if  the  material  be  now,  as  a 
cunpotiml  not  Iteforc  known,  made  of 
ditVcrctit  iii'M'eilientH,  that  may  be  the 
8iil>jeot  of  a  patent..     Pn'd.,  4(tl. 

9.  The  substitution  of  one  material 
for  another,  as  chiy  for  wood,  or  metal, 
in  the  construction  of  door-knobs,  the 
spindle  and  shank  beini;  the  same  as  in 
ooramoii  use,  and  the  mode  of  connoct- 
ixvj;  them  requiriiijjj  only  ordinary  me- 
chanical skill,  is  not  i>at eatable,  llotch- 
f-h.%  V.  (hremcnod,  11  How.,  2(55,  267. 
— Nklson,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 


10.  Till'  imi»  o:  fmplnynii'tit  in  nti  in. 
Vfiillori  or  iiiNchine,  of  maleriaU  hi>i|i.r 
ailapted  to  the  piirpo»i>  for  which  it  ^ 
iioi  d  ll,:ni  the  inaterinU  of  whii  h  b,if,,r„ 
made,  and  ihiix  producing  mi'nly  \\  |„.(. 
t(>r  and  cheaper  article,  cannot  eniitlo 
the  manufacturer  to  a  patent.  Mmj. 
winf  Hjri^orh;  .MS.  (App.  CaN.)~.Mici. 
lilt  K,  J.;   I).  ('.,  |M,"\7. 

1 1.  The  iiHc  of  new  materialHin  a  com. 
biiialioii,  or  a  chatiji^e  of  form,  or  the  n.c 
of  one  opiivalciit  for  another,  den  n<it 
render  it  IH'W  in  the  hciihc  of  the  piittiit 
law,  but  some  new  mode  of  opi>r:itinM 
must  beintrodiiced.  Fnrfnt.i/tv,  C'^o/.p) 
F.awHi'p  ,«WI|. — ('i'iirtM,.F.;  Mas«.,  Ih.i;. 

I 'J.  The  iniikinj;  of  an  in«.1riinieiif  of 
two  diHircnl  HuliHtani'e«,  as  n  hjdrctii 
et  r  of  indiii-rulibcr  and  Nilvcr—tho 
bulb  bein*;  of  hard  rubber,  ntid  tlio 
j,'raduatc(l  scnle  «)f  silver  or  niet.il  if 
a  uxcful  result  or  clfecl  is  si'dind  ihcrr- 
by,  may  Im  tlie  mibjeet  of  a  putciii, 
though  such  article  may  have  hcfori' 
been  ni.ade  entirely  of  iiict!il,  iind  iiIkh 
entirely  of  liani  ridiber.  Such  ati  in- 
vention is  not  a  double  iisi..  Ail'im.*, 
Kx  p'trfr,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.)— MruisKti, 
J.;  I).  ('.,  1H«0. 


MKCITANTCS. 

Sec  also  SuaoEflTioN8. 

1.  The  suggestions  of  the  mpclDinlu 
employed  to  make  the  machine,  or  of 
others,  as  to  the  form  or  prnportiim^, 
are  not  inventions  or  improvcnioiits  t^r 
whicli  ft  patent  cojild  bo  obtained,  tmr 
can  they  invalidate  tlie  patent  for  the 
thing  to  which  they  are  applied.  Pen- 
nock  V.  Dialogue,  4  Wash.,  644.- 
Wasiiixgton,  J. ;  Pa.,  1825. 


r^*»» 


^k^"^ 
^^^^w*- 


MKCTTANTCR. 


47» 


Miu  hsu  ■t'HoitorriDNN  Of  i  arriMt  a*  vt  iNvii»rii»v. 


2,  Till'  mi  W"''""*  '•'  "  "HM'Imiiii'  fil' 
!ilti>ruti'>i -•  In  iIh'  Innn  or  |tr<i|M»ilitMiH 
of  A  iiiiwIilrMS  ««  <I»'i»Ikih"I  ••>  lli«'  liivi'ii. 
I,-,  will  """t  '••'  "iirtli'U'iil  In  i|i'|tri\i'  iIm- 
invftiior  nf  tin-  tiU'iif  of  ill.'   in\«ri»iuM. 

(If  iirt'<"l  •'"'  >'•''''">  '•'  ''"'  I'i'i'"'.  '• 
iiu'iiriMiriilixi  wiiliiii  it;  nor  woiilil  it  )h> 
^  to  »ii<'li  alt«>rati*Mii«  ii  tlUcovury  wliidi 
Hitillil  I'lilitli'  till'  iMcrtiiiliit'  Id  Ittki'  oiil 
II  itnteiil  •'•!•  tlit'in.  Wiitmin  v.  Ittudni, 
4  WunIi.,  ftsi.— W.VHiiiNtiroN,  J.}  Pii., 

I  Hill. 

;l.  If  n  I'oiitniry  ilofirlntt  wrru  fn  Im- 
miiiiitaiui'l,    \fry   I'-w,    if  lui)    imtciilH 

I'rtllM  Iff    llplirM,   lllllt'^H     in     tlltlHf    «'!IH1N 

wlitro  till' Invt'iitnr  in  iil^n  lIu-  iiu'fliiiii 
itian  who foiiHtriU'lH lhi«  mucliiiu-.  IliiJ., 

4.  T«i  ci'iistiliilt'  an  iiivnitor,  it  is  not 
lUHvsMUi'y  tliat  lii>  nIioiiM  iiavn  i\w  man- 
mil  nkill  ami  (It'xli'fity  tit  iiiaku  tho  in- 
vi'iititin.  If  till'  iili-an  tin'  l\iinislii't|  Ity 
Iiiiii,  III'  is  I'lititii'il  to  iiv  •■'  hinisi'lf  of 
llii'  iiici'lianii'al  sUiH  of  ot-n  IH,  to  carry 
out  pnictioally  IiIh  t'ontrivai'(u>.  Sp^trh- 
tniiit  V.  //f'fi/iiin,  I  iJlatflif.,  '200, — 
Ilirns  .1.;  N.  V.,  \^U\. 

T).  Till!  rxerciM!  in  llic  I'onst ruction 
of  liny  article  of  injjcnnily  ax  I  skill, 
whicli  in  no  more  tlian  that  of  an  onli- 
twirv  nicihanic  at'i|ii'iiiit('il  with  thi'luisi- 
mss,  in  not  the  snlijcct  of  a  itatcnl. 
JfiiHikhs  V.  (I'rceiiwofx/,  4  McLean, 
4tll.— M<;Lkak,  J.;  Ohio,  184H. 

0.  The  employment  or  Hnhstitiition  of 
one  niechatiical  powei  in  jilai-e  of  an- 
(itliLT,  to  ;^ccomplish  a  certain  ri'siilt,  is 
t!it'  mere  skill  of  the  mechanic,  ami  is 
nut  invention.  Rlitnch.  (Hun-Stock  Fnc. 
V.  Wiirnfr,  I  Blatchf.,  278. — Xkij*ox, 
J.;  Ct.,  1H40. 

7.  Perfecting  an  invention  by  siipe- 
iior  skill  in  tho  mechanical  arrange- 
mciit  and  construction  of  tho  parts,  is 
but  the  skill  of  the  mechanic,  not  the 


u-niiu  of  tin  Invfiitor.  f^irUturMt  v. 
h'iHMtH'itt,  1  llliiiehf.,  4w7.~-Niti*o.M, 
J.;  N.  v.,  I  MIR. 

M.  Till)  Hul»iilution  of  n  meclinnieul 
iipiivili'iit  U  no|  II  Nuli<«taiitiul  clian^i>. 
There  are  many  ilevicen  in  eoiisiruelitiii 
llittt  can  ))««  minle  liy  ii  nkilfnl  meehitnii*, 
||il1l•rin^  very  iiiucli  in  iippearaneo,  but 
whii'h  are  re^ar)le<l  ax  iiletitical ;  ii<«  pro- 
iliU'in;X  >i  reniilt  by  the  iis"  of  u  b'ver, 
or  n  Hcrew,  or  obiiiininir  power  by  i\ 
Hprinjj,  or  ii  weight,  or  a  pulley.  T'lthiim 
V,  /,»•  lintf,i  |llalelif.,4Htl. — Nki,hon,.I.; 
N.  v.,  lH."4J. 

\K  Anil  any  change  or  alteration 
whii'li  in  «u;xu«'*^'''l  •'•  •''*'  "kilfiil  oper- 
ator from  the  Working  of  a  macliint*, 
;iml  ill  (he  eoiirse  of  its  opci  alioii — any 
Useful  ehaiii^'e  (hat  may  be  the  n  siili  of 
the  practical  workiiivc  of  the  maehino — 
In  clearly  a  change  that  belnn^jn  not  to 
the  operator,  but  to  the  ori;j;iiial  inven- 
tor,     fhhf.,  |H7. 

10.  In  onler  to  uHcertaiti  and  dotor- 
mine  whether  a  change  in  the  arranjije- 
ment  and  construction  of  a  maeline  is 
to  be  eonsidcn  d  as  a  substantial  eliaii  <o 
or  not,  the  jm-y  must  ascertain  and  de- 
termine  whether  the  <'lianj;e  is  the  result 
of  mechanical  skill,  worked  out  by  me- 
ehaiiieal  devices — of  a  kiiowledt^e  that 
belonjfs  to  that  department  of  labor — 
or  whether  the  ehaiij^e  is  tho  resiilt  of 
mind,  of  j^enius,  of  invention,  in  which 
there  is  more  th:in  mere  mechanical 
skill  and  ingomiify.     //>/»/.,  Iss. 

11.  A  change  in  arraiii^cmi'iit  and 
construction  is  not  substantial,  unless 
tliere  is  endiodied  in  it,  over  and  be- 
yond the  skill  of  the  mechanic,  that  in- 
ventive element  of  the  mind  which  is 
to  be  found  in  every  invention  that  is 
tho  proper  subject  of  a  patent.  Ibkl^ 
4a8. 

12.  If  the  invention  required  no  more 


"^Twii 

•^^; 

i^www(^4fU 


^ig 


,   a^-^. 


:»•   .    -iilT 


!%6 


K 


IW»:f 


III 


430 


MEDICINES. 


HIOIITH  or   INVKN'n^im  '.IIKUKIN. 


skill  or  iiif^i'imily  than  that  pn.^Hi'ssoil 
^y  an  ctrdiiiary  nim-hanic  HkilU'd  in  tho 
liiisini'SH,  thure  is  an  ubsum-c  ot*  invi-n- 
tivf  fiuMilty,  iMid  thn  ]>n(('nt  is  iiitalitl. 

IWsc  V.  /%lps,  1  JIcAllis.,  52.— Uc- 
Au.iHTKU,  .1.  ;  Cal.,  1855. 

11.  J'u'forc  u  patunt  can  issue,  tho 
thinLf  jtatoiittMl  nmst  appear  to  be  of 
Hiieh  a  eharaeter  as  to  involve  or  reipiiro 
*'  invention"  for  its  prodiietion — require 
the  oxereiso  of  tJio  pffnlus  of  an  inven- 
tor, as  eontradistin<;uished  from  the  or- 
dinary skill  of  ;i  mechanic  in  construc- 
tion.    JiioiSDiii,  V.  Miti/or^  <£v.,  of  New 

rork;  ]MS.— IIai.l,  J. ;  X.  Y.,  1850. 

14.  If,  with  tlie  knowledge  hud  by 
the  ])id)lic,  it  re<piired  no  invention,  but 
simjily  the  ordinary  skill  and  ingenuity 
of  the  mechanic  to  produce  the  result 
effected — in  other  words,  if  tho  inven- 
tive faculty  Wiis  not  put  into  .action,  ami 
'vas  not  neetled  to  produce  the  alleged 
invention,  then  tho  ])atcnt  is  void,  be- 
cause there  is  no  invention  to  be  secured 
to  the  ])atentecs.     Ibid. 

15.  If  a  ])erson  conceives  the  ves.dt 
embraced  in  the  invention,  or  the  gen- 
eral idea  of  a  machine  upon  a  ])articu- 
]ar  principle,  .and  in  order  to  carry  his 
conception  into  effecst,  it  is  necessary  to 
employ  manual  dexterity,  or  even  in- 
ventive skill  in  the  mechanical  details 
and  arrangements  requisite  for  carrying 
out  the  original  conception,  in  such 
cases,  the  first  person  Avill  be  the  inven- 
tor, and  the  other  the  mere  instrument 
through    which    he   realizes   tho  idea. 

Wellman  v.  Blood ;  King  v.  Gedney^ 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— MousELL,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1856. 

16.  After  a  jmnciple  has  been  dis- 
covered, after  a  new  set  of  ideas  have 
been  struck  out  by  genius  and  thought, 
their  embodiment  in  machinery,  their 
adaptation  to  the  working  out  of  prac- 


tical resiiltH  contemplated  by  tin-  invcn. 
tor,  is  very  much  tho  work  of  the  skilinl 
I  nii'chiuiic.      Sickles  v.  flufi/en,  :t  liljitchf 
541. — Nki.h.)N,  J.;  N.  V.,  iH.-.fl. 

17.  In  carrying  out  an  invciitiun,  il,,, 
exercise  of  some  skill  and  judgment  on 
the  part  of  the  meclumic  called  to  con- 
struct it,  \y\1\  (dirai/H  be  required.  (Some- 
thing must  iu!cessarily  bo  left  to  liim. 
Ji(diioii.  v.  Moore,  MS. — LjiAvirr,  J,  • 
Ohio,  1800. 

18.  Il  is  ilitHcult  to  determine  wliito 
ordinary  mechanical  skill  ends  and  in- 
vent  ion  l)egins.  The  best  jn-dcHcil 
principle  is,  that  where  the  cimiliin;!. 
tion  t)f  known  elements  produces  lunv 
and  usefid  results  to  the  public  not  l»c- 

.•e  attained,  then  the  persoi'  who  •lis- 
v»)vers  and  a[>plies  the  ^ombiiiation  i> 
an  inventor,  within  tho  true  intent  aiiil 
nu^aning  of  the  patent  law.  Smith,  £x 
parte,  3IS.  (App.  Cas.) — Dlnl.  i*,  J.; 
D.  C,  1800. 

19.  Tho  remedying  of  defects  in  a 
machine  by  piuctical  men  is  the  work 
of  the  mechanic,  of  the  intelligent  oi>- 
erator,  and  has  no  connection  with  in- 
vention or  discovery.     Ibid. 


MEDICINES. 

1.  An  inventor  of  a  newly  patented 
medicine  cannot  give  it  the  name  of  an 
already  existing  and  popular  article, 
but  his  patent  will  be  withheld  until  ho 
changes  the  name ;  so  held,  Avherc  the 
inventor  of  a  new  medicine  desired  to 
call  it  Anderson's  Cough  Drops,  which 
was  already  well  known.  Jiacon's  Case, 
2  Opih.  109.— Wirt,  Atty.  Gen. ;  1828. 

2.  Tho  fact  that  a  party  has  a  p.iteiit 
giving  him  the  exclusive  ric'ht  to  make, 
and  use,  and  vend  a  particular  medicine, 


MKDK'INES. 


4R1 


KIUIITB  or  INVGNTDHS  TilKHKIN. 


(loci  not  confer  >ipon  him  the  rlj^ht  to 
practice  as  :i  pliysiciai:,  and  use  such- 
iiii'iru'ii'i'^  ill  iiny  particiihir  state,  ex- 
cept in  conformity  witli  the  hi\v«  of 
such  sCite.  Jorditn  v.  Oviriccrs  Poor, 
4()lii(),  310.— Lank,  J. ;  Ohio,  ls;n. 

3,  A  patent  authorizing  the  ]»atentec 
to  make,  construct,  use,  ami  vend  a 
iiewlv  discovered  comiKHind  of  medi- 
cine, gives  such  patentee  no  rijjlit  to 
piiuiicc  as  a  physician,  even  thoupli 
oiih-  :i(hninisterinjx  such  patcnt«'d  medi- 
cine, witiiout  compiyini^  witii  tlie  rej^u- 
liitioiis  establi.*Jied  by  the  hiws  of  uny 
^t■ltc.  Th'»n}m>n  v.  Staats,  ir)^^id., 
Mii,-NKi.s<'N, -T. ;  N.  v.,  I'^^-'flK 

4,  An  inventor  of  a  mediciiiW^not 
etitillod  to  the  exchisive  right  of  coiu- 
poiiiidinij:  and  vending  it,  unless  lie  has 
obtiiiiicd  a  patent  therefor  ;  without  a 
patent,  the  right  to  make  and  sell  is 
common  to  all.  IViohijtso/t  v.  Wtnvhcu- 
ter,  19  Pick.,  210. — Shaw,  Ch.  J. ;  Mass., 
1837. 

5,  If  another  person  makes  such  in- 
vention of  an  inferior  quality,  and  sells 
it  and  by  this  means  brings  the  thing 
into  disrepute,  the  inventor  can  main- 
tain no  ac'ion,  as  there  is  no  infringe- 
ment of  his  right,  nor  recover  damages 
unless  the  person  so  maki"g  and  selling 
passes  otf  the  thing  sold  as  made  by 
the  plaintiff.     Ibid.,  217. 

t).  Imposition  and  fraud  on  the  part 
of  such  ])erson  in  passing  off  his  medi- 
cines as  those  of  the  plaintiff,  w'ould  be 
the  only  ground  of  action.    Ibid.,  217. 

7.  An  exclusive  right,  as  an  inventor, 
in  .a  composition,  as  a  medicine,  can 
only  be  obtained  under  the  patent  law, 
by  a  compliance  with  its  provisions. 
Cofeen  v.  liriintoti,  4  McLean,  517. — 
McLean,  J.;  Ind.,  1849. 

8.  The  inventor  of   an  unpatented 

medicine  has  no  exclusive  right  to  make 
31 


anil  Vend  it ;  but  if  otlu-rs  make  and 
vend  it,  they  have  no  right  t(»  sell  it  us 
the  mamil:ictnre  of  the  inventor,  nor  to 
adopt  his  label  or  tr.ade-mark.  IJavinv. 
KnuliUl,  2  U.  I.,5(il».— CJkkknk,  Ch.  J.; 
K.  I.,  18-.;). 

1>.  T|^e  discovery  of  a  fact  that  a  given 
natur^jLsub.stance  will,  in  apjiropriato 
njetluHls  of  iidministration,  produce  a 
|)articular  physiological  or  pathological 
effect  on  the  human  i)odv,  is  not  a  ihinir 
patentable  under  any  existing  statute. 
Morton's  Anrpst/iitic  Patrtif,  H  Opiri., 
272. — CrsniNci,  Atty.  (Jen.;  185(5. 

10.  The  capacity  of  chemical  agents 
to  act  medically  on  the  nerves,  stomach, 
or  other  parts  of  the  body,  in  such  man- 
ner, is  not  patentable.     Ibid.,  272. 

1 1,  The  suggestion  of  the  i»ractica- 
bility  of  performing  surgical  operations 
under  insensibility  of  the  jiatient  i)ro- 
duced  by  aniesthetic  agents,  is  not  a 
patentablt  invention.     Ibid.,  272. 

1*2.  A  medicament  capable  of  being 
administered  in  various  forms  and  in 
ditterent  doses,  which  have  to  be  meas- 
ured and  selected  with  profession.il  skill, 
in  reference  as  well  to  the  (piautity  of 
the  agent  as  the  condition  of  the  pa- 
tient, so  as  to  produce  a  particular  ))liys- 
iologieal  condition,  without  collateral 
injurious  consequences,  is  not  a  thing 
patentable,  either  as  a  discovery  or  in- 
vention.    Ibid.,  272. 

13.  Neither  principles,  nor  abstr.act 
philosophical  ideas,  or  tlie  natural  func- 
tions either  of  the  human  bod^  or  of 
matters  of  nature,  arc  patentable.  Ibid., 
272. 

14.  The  classification  of  snbst.inces 
capable  of  producing  insensibility  to 
pain,  under  the  head  of  anmsthetic,  as 
distinguished  from  n.arcotic,  is  noi  a 
new  discovery.     Ibid.,  273. 

15.  The  combination  of  agents  of  tliis 


'»r'i 


'  ~^'  I 


:Milt' 


482 


^m 


IMISTAKKS  IN  PATENTS. 


KFFKOT,    AND  OOHRKCTION  Of. 


class  with  surgical  operations,  whetluT 
by  iiiliaiatiuii  or  by  any  other  form  of 
adiiiiiiistraticm,  ititcnial  or  external,  is 
not  a  iiioderii  discovery,  but  is  a  luiivor- 
8al  fact,  coeval  with  historic  knowledge. 
Ibid,  273. 

10.  The  production  of  insensibility  in 
the  lunnan  ••ysteni,  by  antesthetimageiicy 
or  otherwise,  and  the  perforniOTce  of 
surgical  operations  during  such  insensi- 
bility, cannot  be  considered  patentable 
as  !in  art,  in  conlradi.stiriction  to  a 
])rinciple,  function,  or  quality  of  matter. 
IbuL,  274. 

17.  No  one  can  have  an  exclusive 
riijht  to  the  nianufacture  and  sale  of  a 
nu'diciiie,  without  a  patent  from  tlie 
government.      Comstock  v.  Moore,  IS 

IIow.,   l*r.,    422. — SUTIIKULAND,   J.;    N. 

Y.,  1800. 

18.  Chancery  will  not  interfere  by  in- 
junction in  questions  of  trade-mark  be- 
tween the  venders  of  patent  uicdicines, 
being  quack  medicines ;  such  questions 
having  too  little  to  commend  thom  on 
either  side.  Heath  v.  Wrujht,  3  Wall., 
Jr.— GiuEU,  J. ;  Pa.,  1801. 


MISTAKES  IN  I'ATENTS. 
See  also  Reissues  op  Patent. 

1.  An  error  of  exiiression,  apparent 
on  the  face  both  of  the  patent  and  spec- 
ification, by  which  no  person  could  be 
misled,  will  not  invalidate  a  patent. 
JTneasy  ••.  Schwjlhill  Iia?d;  4  Wash., 
14. — V  vsinxGTOx,  J.;  Pa.  1820. 

2.  I  issuing  patents,  the  Secretary 
of  State,  under  the  act  of  1793,  may  be 
considered,  as  a  ministerial  officer.  If 
the  prerequisites  of  the  law  are  com- 
plied with,  he  can  exercise  uo  judgment 


on  the  question  whether  the  patent  sliuH 
he  issuctl ;  and  he  can  exercise  no  now. 
ers  but  such  as  are  expressly  I'ivin 
him.  J5ut  he  must  act,  in  cdiistiuiti" 
the  patent  laws,  in  the  spirit  in  wlijili 
these  ar'i  m.'ide.  lleiu'e,  if  a  mistake 
should  be  committed  in  the  depart  nicnt 
of  state,  it  may  l)e  corrected,  and  anew 
patent  be  issued,  correcting  the  ciior 
even  thougli  such  act  h  not  cxprossly 
authorized  l>y  law.  The  emainuiou  of 
the  new  patent  is  not  foimdcd  on  tlic 
words  of  the  law,  but  is  iiulisponsalilv 
necessary  to  the  faithful  execution  of 
the  solemn  promise  nuule  by  the  United 
Sta^^fc  the  inventor.  The  same  step 
ma^^Raken  for  the  same  purpose,  if 
a  mistake  has  been  imujcently  i  jniiiiii- 
ted  by  the  inventor,  and  he  desires  to 
siu-render  his  ])atent  and  have  a  coi-- 
reeled  one  issued.  Grant  \.  Ilai/mond, 
0  Pet.,  241,  242.— Maksuall,  C'h.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1832. 

3.  Where  a  mistake  occurs  in  the  copy 
of  a  patent,  the  Commissioner  has  tlm 
power,  and  ought  to  correct  it  so  that 
it  will  confjrm  to  the  patent  itself"  and 
the  record.  Woodtoorth  v.  ILdl,  1 
Wood.  &  Min.,  200.— Woodijuuv,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1846. 

4.  It  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents,  to  correct  a  mis- 
take in  the  letters  jjatent  when  applied 
to,  and  to  minute  the  correction  on 
them,  but  it  is  not  necessary  for  liiin  to 
resign  and  reseal  them ;  as  the  signing 
and  sealing  are  done  by  the  same  office- 
making  the  correction.     Ibid,  200. 

5.  But  it  would  seem  to  be  necessary 
to  have  the  Secretary  of  State  sign 
anew,  or  assent  to  the  amendment,  as 
he  is  a  distinct  officer,  and  without  sign- 
ing anew  or  assenting,  does  not  autlien- 
ticate  the  amended  letters.    Ibid.,  261. 

6.  Sembhf  that  a  patent  amendoU  iu  a 


's;:^^ 


MODI-:,  METHOD,  OR  PROCESS. 


483 


WHEN  PATBKTABLI. 


is(;  lid  |)()w. 

OHsly  j^iveii 

const  nii  Hi; 

it  ill  which 
a  inistako 
tlcpurtuicni 
1,  uiid  !i  now 
X  tho  L'lTor, 

Dt    C.\']>l'('sslv 

luaiiatidii  (if 
nk'd  on  the 
lulisjiensahly 
ixi't'ntioii  of 
y  till'  UnitL'd 
lie  banie  sU'p 
3  purpose,  if 
titly  I  iMiiniit- 
he  ik'siri's  to 
have  a  cor- 
V.  Raymond^ 
lALL,  Ch.  J. ; 


iiiatfiiivl  niistako,  cannot  oporato  as  to 
tliinl  persons  npiinst  whom  prosecutions 
were  poinlin},',  l»ut  only  for  causes  accru- 
iiii,'art»'r  tlu-  corroction.  It  may  ho  dit- 
iViriit  if  tlio  mistakt'  is  cntiroly  dericah 

Ihul,  201. 

7.  If  tlic  now  lotters  have  been  so 
ultorcd  as  to  booonio  voi.l,  wlicthor 
the  surroiulor  of  the  original  lottors, 
and  tht"  oxtonsions  of  thorn,  would  not 
l)0(;omc  also  voi<l  ?  If  ho,  porliaps  the 
party  niii,dit  amend  his  bill,  and  recover 
(III  the  ft'inior  lottors  patent,  if  not  too 
ai'tktivc.     Ihid.,  '2(il. 

8.  It  is  not  however  absolutely  neces- 
sary that  the  Secretary  should  assent  to 
an  ainondment  by  acMially  resigning 
till,  patent,  or  by  an  entry  on  the  i>at- 
ent  itself  lint  his  assent  or  ratification 
made  afterward  and  in  writing,  as  by 
letter,  is  sufficient.  Woodworth  v.JLdl, 
1  Wood.  &  Min.,  .308. — WooDnuuY, 
J.;  Mass.,  Oct.,  1840. 

9.  If  the  corrections  in  a  patent  are 
merely  clerical,  it  seems  they  will  re- 
late back  to  tho  date  of  the  letters  pat- 
ent, unless  as  to  tliird  persons,  who  had 
aeriuired  rights  as  the  p.atent  stood  be- 
fore it  was  corrected  ;  but  if  new  mat- 
ter is  inserted,  not  originally  contem- 
plated, or  correc'ions  made  not  merely 
clerieal,  it  is  questionable  Avhotlier  they 
could  rdate  back  to  the  date  of  the  let- 
ters patent.     Ibid.,  399. 

10.  If  the  correction  is  such  as  to 
render  the  pf>tent  void,  tho  surrender  of 
tlie  former  patents  would  be  considered 
void  also  :  Querj/,  Whether  in  such  case 
recoveries  may  not  be  had  on  the  orig- 
inal patent.     Ibid.,  399. 

11.  Th-  power  to  correct  mistakes  in 
letters  patent,  does  not  belong  to  the 
courts,  but  is  confided  to  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Patents,  under  §  13  of  the  act 
of  1836.    The  court  can  only  construe 


the  specification  and  claim  as  they  stand, 
:iiwl  defoiniiiio  the  legal  efVeol  of  tho 
claim.  Kit  tie  v.  Mcrriom,  2  Curt.,  478. 
CuitTis,  J,;  Mass.,  1855. 


^lODE,  METHOD,  OH  PROCESS. 

See  also  Effect  ;  Pkixcii'I-e. 

1.  A  p." tent  may  be  for  a  mode  or 
method  of  doing  a  thing:  ni(i(b',  when 
referred  tr  something  permanent,  inoauH 
an  engine  or  machine;  when  to  i-ome-  y' 
thing  fugit  ve,  a  method,whioh  may  mean 
engine,  contrivance,  device,  process,  in- 
strument, mode  and  manner  of  efibcting 
the  purpose.  A  jtatent  for  a  method  of 
producing  n  new  thing  may  apply  to  tho 
n\echanism,  a  new  method  of  operating 
with  old  machinery,  or  producing  an 
old  substance.  A  patent  for  a  mode  or 
method  detached  from  all  physical  ap- 
jdication,  v.'oidd  not  refer  to  an  engine 
or  nuu'hino,  but  when  referred  to  the 
mode  of  operation,  so  as  to  produce  tho 
effect,  would  be  considered  as  for  .an  en- 
gine or  machine.  The  words  used  asx 
mode  or  mathod,  are  not  the  subject  of  \  i 
the  patent,  it  is  the  thing  done  by  tho 
invention.  Whitney  \.  Emmett,  IJald., 
312.— Baldwix,  J.;  Pa.,  1831. 

2.  In  a  patent  for  an  improvement  in 
looms,  the  claim  was  for  the  "comieclion 
of  the  reed  with  tho  yard  beam,  and 
the  communication  of  tho  motion  from 
the  one  to  t 'le  other,  which  may  be  done 
as  specijied,^^  Held,  tli.at  the  invention 
was  limited  to  the  specific  machinery  and 
mode  of  coraraunicating  the  motion  spe- 
cially described  in  the  specification.  If 
it  included  all  modes  of  corrimunicating 
the  motion,  it  would  be  void,  as  being 
an  attempt  to  patent  an  abstract  princi- 


■^<.. 


■■■■p^.'" 

• 

,  ■'^■■^K''} 

*^'%^ 

'^ 

**'  H^^s^j 

ii, 

f    > 

>^ 

r! 

»»-'Vi 


J--.!"-.: 


484 


MODK,  MKTllon,  Oil  J'KOC'KSS. 


WIIKN   PATRNTAIILI. 


f 


T'J- 


■H'-u' 


« 


ft*-. 


./ 


I 


If         . 


j»I<',  or  for  all  j)osslblo  siml  imlmblc ! 
iiioiU's  wlmti'Vor  of  Htjoh  communicii- 
tlon,  tli<Mii;h  iiivi>nt('<l  liy  otluTH,  tuid 
Hiilist initially  ililTiMi'nt  from  tlic  moile 
(li'scrilx'il  l»y  tlio  |»att'iit»'i'.  Stone  v, 
Sin'ti<jiii\  1  Story, '271,  272. — Sioitv,  J,; 
U.  I.,  IS  to. 

;).  He  wlio  jM-odncos  !ii»  old  result  by 
a  new  iiiodo  or  proci'ss,  is  ciitith'd  to  a 
|i:it«'iit  lor  tlio  mode  or  procrss.  Hut 
III'  ciiiiuot  liavo  a  pati'iit  for  a  result 
merely,  witliout  usinix  Home  new  mode 
or  process  to  produce  it.  JToire  v.  Ah- 
hott,  2  Story,  194.— Stoky,  J. ;  .^lass., 
IHl'J. 

4.  Hut  the  applieatioM  of  an  old  pnt- 
cess  to  tlie  manufacture  of  an  article  to 
■\vliieli  it  had  never  before  heen  a]»|ilicd, 
is  not    a    patentable    invention.     There 

y  nuist  be  ^omc  new  j)rocess,  or  some 
new  macliinery  used,'  to  produoc  the  re- 
sult.    Ih'ul,  194. 

5.  A  patent  cannot  be  for  a  jirinciple, 
but  must  be  for  the  machine,  mode,  or 
manufacture  to  carry  out  the  principle, 
and  reduce  it  to  practice.  The  princi- 
ple thus  becomes  the  moJus  ojh'nimll, 
and  rests  in  the  mode  adopted  to  ac- 
coniplish  certain  results.  Smith  v. 
Downi/iff,  MS. — Wooduiry,  J. ;  ]\Iass., 
1850. 

G.  It  is  well  settled  that  a  patent  can- 
not cover  a  new  principle,  without  ref- 
erence to  any  mode  or  method  of  en- 
forcinpj  it.     J7)id. 

7.  The  plaintift*'s  invention  and  patent 
was  for  a  squeezer,  so  cilled,  for  con- 
verting pnddler's  balls  into  blooms,  and 
rolled  the  balls  between  reciprocating 
tables  or  plates,  or  between  a  revolving 
cylinder  and  a  stationary  curved  seg- 
mental trough  with  stationary  flanges. 
The  defendant's  machine  compressed 
the  ball  between  a  rotatuig  cam,  and 
two  small  rotating  cylinders  beneath  it ; 


Ifilif,  that  jdaintiff's  patent  was  for  a 
new  process,  moile,  or  method  of  ,.,,„. 
verting  pnddler's  l)alls  into  blo()iiiNj,y 
conlimious  pressure  and  rotalimi  li,.. 
tween  converging  sin'faces^and  tli:it  the 
defendant's  machine  was  an  iiilriiii^. 
ment  tipon  it,  if  it  converted  nucIi  Ii;i1I< 
into  blooms  i)y  continuous  pressiue  iind 
rotation  l)etween  converging  snrl'icc. 
although  its  mechanical  cnnstructinii 
and  action  might  be  dilferent.  /luri/m  v. 
Corning,  MS. — Conki.inc!,  ,1. ;  X.  y 
I  Hr>(». 

8.  An  exch'.sive  right  cannot  exist  in 
:i  new  power,  should  one  be  diseovcicil, 
as  steam,  t'loctrlcity,  or  any  other  [low- 
er of  nature.  In  all  such  eases,  the 
processes  used  to  extract,  modify,  ami 
concentrate  natural  agencies,  cdiistitiitt' 
the  invention.  The  elements  of  tliu 
p(»wer  exist ;  the  invention  is  not  iiulis- 
wverjng  them,  but  in  applying  them  to 
useful  objects.  The  right  of  the  inven- 
tor is  secured  against  all  wlio  use  I'lc 
same  mechanical  power,  or  one  substan. 
tially  the  same.  Le  Roy  v.  Tuthmii,  1 ; 
How.,  1 76,  1 70. — McLkan,  J. ;  Sup, 
Ct.,  1852. 

9.  A  process  eo  nomine,  is  not  the 
subject  of  a  patent,  under  our  laws.  It 
is  included  under  the  general  term 
"  useful  art."  And  an  art  may  roqtiiio 
one  or  more  processes  of  maeliiiii's  in 
order  to  in-oduce  a  certain  result  or  man- 
ufiictiM'e.  Corning  v.  Burden,  15  IIow., 
207.— GuiEU,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

10.  The  term  mac7i/«e  includes  every 
mechanical  device  or  combination  ot" 
mechanical  powers,  or  devices,  to  per- 
form some  function,  and  produce  a  cer- 
tain effect  or  result.  But  where  the  re- 
sult or  effect  is  produced  by  chemical 
action,  by  the  operation  or  application 
of  some  element  or  power  of  nature,  or 
of  one  substance  to  another,  such  modes, 


■s::^" 


MODE,  MKTIIOI),  OR  IMIOCKSS. 


485 


WIIKN    I'ATKNTAUI.K. 


thoils,  or  opi'ratioiiH,  uro  called  pro- 


cesses.   Ibid., 'Oil. 

11.  A  now  j»ro('i!HS  ih  usuully  tlu'  ru- 
suit  of  tliscovoi'y  ;  11  machine,  of  iiivcn- 


tlOM. 


Ibid.,  2(57. 


mj; 


12.  Thoartsof  laimiiif,',  dyoiiif;,  iiiak- 
water-jn'oof  doth,  viilcaniziiii^  iridia- 


rii 


ibhor,  Kiiu'llinK  <"'i'«t  &t'-i  arc  usually  [  ./A/«/.,  120 
.;irri»'tl  '"'  ''y  l»i'<»i'i'sst's,  as  (lisliiij^uish- 


iiiusl  hu  cuiiflni'il  to  the  mniiiioi*  aiul 
proccHrt  tluHuril)C(l  utiil  invontud  l)y  him. 
O' Jit  illy  \.  Morse,  15  How.,  llli-120. 
— Tanicv,  C'h.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  185.'). 

11).  A  palcnl  caimot  Ix?  for  an  ciroct 
produced  disiiiict  IVoiii  the  process  or 
machiiii-ry    necessary    to    produce    it. 


(;i 


I  ironi  niachiii 


llnd.,  201 


13.  One  may  discover  a  new  and  nse- 


fiil  iniprov 


emeiit  m 


Niicl 


I  a  process,,  irre- 


fiiictive  of  any  jinrticular  form  of  ma- 


il iicry, 


20.  There    is    a   wide   difTereiice  be- 
tween one  who  nuM'ely  invents  a 


WW 


me 


thod 


or  process    l»y   which    a 


w 


ell 


or  mei'hamcal  device.  An<l 
jiiiotlicr  may  invent  labor-savinj^  ma- 
cliliu',  hy  which  the  operation  or  pro- 
cess niiiv  he  ])erformed,  and  each  be  en- 
titled to  a  patent.     Jhid.,  2(18. 

U.  It  is  when  the  term  process  is 
used  to  represent  some  means  or  meth- 
(1(1  of  producin<jj  a  residt  that  it  is  i)at- 
iiitiihlc,  and  it  will  include  all  means 
or  methods  which  are  not  efVected  by 
luedianisin  or  mechanical  combinations. 
Ibid.,  208. 

15.  The  term  process  is  often  used, 
li(nvcver,  in  a  more  va<,'uc  sense,  as 
when  we  say  a  board  is  underjjoing  the 
process  of  beiiii?  planed,  jjjrain  of  being 
ground,  iron  of  being  hammered  or 
cooled,  in  which  it  cannot  be  the  sidj- 
ject  of  a  patent.     Ibid..,  208. 

16.  In  this  use  of  the  term,  it  repre- 
suiits  the  functiou  of  a  machine,  or  the 
tffect  produced  by  it  on  the  material 
subjected  to  its  action.     Ibid.,  268. 

17.  It  is  by  not  distinguishing  be- 
tween the  primary  and  secondary  sense 
of  the  term  "process"  that  error  is 
likely  to  arise.    Ibid.,  268. 

18.  A  patentee  camiot  have  a  patent 
for  an  exclusive  use  of  a  process,  as 
"the  motive  power  of  electro-magnet- 
ism, hoioevcr  developed,  for  marking 
characters  at  a  distance."     His  patent 


known  labnc,  product,  or  nninidac^turu 
is  produced  in  adujaper  and  better  way, 
and  the  discovery  of  a  new  corri})()imd, 
Hul)stance,  or  maimfactiire.  In  the  first 
case,  the  inventor  can  patetit  nothing 
but  his  process,  and  not  l»is  composi- 
tion of  matter;  in  the  latter,  both  are 
new  and  origimd,  and  both  patentable. 
Goodyear  v.  llailroadu,  2  Wall,  Jr., 
lioo,  :h)1.— (JuiKK,  J.;  N.  J.,  185;}. 

21.  The  (piestion  of  infringement 
w<tuld  depend  also  upon  different  con- 
ditions. AV'here  oidy  the  process  was 
protected,  every  other  person  would  bo 
at  liberty  to  devise  any  different  process 
lor  elfecting  the  same  purpose  ;  where 
both  process  and  product  were  ))rotest- 
ed,  no  one  could,  by  varying  or  improv- 
ing the  mode  or  process  of  i)roduction, 
rob  the  patentee  of  Ids  franchise.  Ibid.., 
301. 

22.  A  i)atent  for  a  discovery  of  a  new 
and  improved  process,  grants  nothing 
but  the  exclusive  right  to  use  the  pro- 
cess ;  and  the  sale  or  use  of  the  product 
is  no  violation  of  such  exclusive  right. 
Ibid.,  302. 

23.  In  order  to  constitute  patentable 
novelty  or  utility  in  a  2»'oces8,  it  must 
appear  that  the  result  produced  was 
an  improvement  in  the  trade  and  for 
the  public  good  or  advantage,  by  the 
manufacture  either  of  a  new  article,  or 
a  better  article,  or  a  cheaper  article  to 


-I*,   w    i 


48(1 


MODKLS. 


i 


•^M 


pfS. 


A    l>AHT  or  fATNNTI    OV    HM\r   KHIIKNI'E 


,H.f,.^^ 


tiit>  |iulilic,  than  tliiil  |ii<>i|iirt<.|  liy  \\\v 
•  'Id  iiiciIkmI.  ./ii)if<\.  W'l  til,  I'illy  MS. 
(A|'|».  (a.^*.)     M(ti;Hi:ii,,  .1.;   I ).  ('.,  ln:.ft. 

CI.  Tlio  tiTlHH  "  imftroiuiimutt  in  tfir 
trat/i"  iiM  a|)|)lii*iil)lt'  to  the  law  uf  |ial.- 
«'iils,  sliDiiM  lie  roiiniiliMtil  ill  a  fniimii'i- 
cial  st'iisc,  ami  us  mcaiiiiiLj,  nf  (lie  aili 
«'li>,  as  uf'xxt  ill  <|iialitv,  ainlal  a  cIu'iiiiim- 
ral<\  or  I>(>tt«<r  in  (|ii:ilil>  at  liii<  saiiio 
l'at«>,  or  with  lioth  thi>st>  coii^^ctiiKMU'cs 
partially  (-oiiiliiiu'il,  IcailiiiL;  to  a  cheaper 
protliKiioii.     /fill/, 

'J.>.  Ill  this  class  of  (-ascs,  vihuU  is 
coiisiilcriMl  all  important  ;  there  must, 
how  v\  cr,  he  evolved  a  priiiii|ile  such  as 
will  nifidiifli/,  not  nu'iclv  iU'tuminnitlh/, 
protliice  a  like  etlVct.      I  hid, 

'Jii.  A  pMleiit  may  he  ••.laiileij  ti>r  a 
new  inethoil  or  means  ol'  prodiu'ini;  an 
old  resnit.  l/>'iiii't<'li  v  l.iitlur,,  (I  Miv 
Lcan,  :1J8.— McI.KAN,  .1.;  Ohio,  IS.-):). 

l!;.  Where  !Miy  new  coiilrivaticcs,c«)ni- 
binations,  or  arraiiLrcincnls  arc  made  nsc 
ofin  machinery, nlthiuiuh  thechiel'aijenlH 
jin  known,  such  contrivances,  oonil)ina- 
ticiis,  or  arrani;cnioiits  m;vy  constitute  a 
».ewprinciple,and  thou  the  applicationor 
practice  will  be  new  also.  In  such  case 
the  new  and  iniprove<l  nutliod  of  pro- 
diicitiLj  :i  uselnl  result  or  eilcct  is  ;is 
much  the  subjci't  of  a  patent  as  an  en- 
tire i\ew  machine.  Wititcnnutc  \.  livth 
iiHjton,  MS.— ^^  ii.sox,  J.;  Ohio,  lS.")t). 

'JS.  I'nder  J;  Ks  of  the  acl  o{'  IH.'iti, 
the  assignees  and  ji^rantees  of  a  riu;ht  to 
use  a  patented  process  arc  continued  in 
the  right  to  use  it  durintx  an  extension 
of  the  patent,  equally  with  the  assijriu'es 
and  erantees  of  a  right  to  use  a  patent- 
ed iiiachiiu'. — Doy  v.  Union  Rub.  Co.,  3 
r.lnt.hf.,  :.();(.— IIali,,  J.;   X.  Y.,  185(5. 

20.  Where  the  chiiiu  was  for  .i  ntetJv- 
od  of  forming  lioop-skirts  by  applying 
the  hoops  and  tapes  to  each  other,  -wiiile 
they  arc  supported  in  the  rehitive  posi- 


tions they  are  to  occupy  in  the  finisl,,,,! 
skirt,  I'.ir  which  purpose  a  /••nmr  \\,r 
each  shape  of  skirt  was  nccessiuv,  //,/,/ 
that  \\\o  claim  was  not  for  \\\vj',,riiii,- 
or  apparatus,  iiM  Hiieh,  lint  that  tin-  In 
ventor  had  a  right  to  claim  the  iim<  ,,| 
the  apparatus  as  inciilenlal  and  Mil^iij. 
iary  to  the  practical  purpose  of  il,,, 
idea  constituting  his  invi^ntion,  and  ili.ii 
therefore  it  was  immaterial  thai  llii':i|, 
p.'iratus  or  /o/v/;/r  was  old.  Munu.  t; 
./.,  AV  i>,irfi;   IMS.  (App.  ("as.)-  ,M„|; 

hKM,,  .1.;    I).  ().,   jHtJO. 


JNlODKhS. 

1.  Tt  seems  a  model  cannot  be  refer 
red  to  :uid  usi'd  in  coiinectinn  with  ilir 
speciiication  and  drawings,  to  niak."  :i 
maehinc,  and  thus  determine  the  siitli' 
cii'iicy  of  the  patent.  (I'ninf  v.  Muhhh, 
1  Law  Int.it  Key.,  iJ:),  25.— TiioMCboN, 
.1.;  iN.  v.,  IS'2H. 

2.  Under  the  word,  patent,  used  In 
reference  to  the  description  of  the  tliiin,' 
patented,  is  included  the  iiateiil,  ilic 
speciti<'alion  attached  to  il,  ;m(l  tin 
modi'l  and  drawing,  all  of  wliidi  ;ire  in 
be  taken  together,  .as  making  uii  lliu 
«lescription.  Whitney  Y.J'Jtmtiett,  lialil, 
;n 4.— U.\i,i)Wi\,  .  . ;   l»a.,  l.s.tl. 

.'!.  On  a  motion  for  an  injunclioii,  tlie 
exhibition  of  models  likt'  wliieli  the 
parties  eonstructed  their  respective  iii.i- 
chines,  will  not  suftico  to  turn  the  scale 
either  way,  without  an  examination  iiite 
the  (h'tail  of  the  construction,  cDiiihiiia- 
tion,  and  operation  of  all  their  ])aitsl)y 
competent  mechanics.  Cooper  v.  Mat- 
thews, 8  Law  lieji.,  417. — IJaldwi.n,  J.; 
Pa.,  1842. 

4,  In  an  action  of  infringement,  (lie 
plaintiff  is  not  bound  to  produce  luoikls 


MUSK!. 


487 


oni'TRiniiT  in;  wiirit,  anii  ixthiit  or. 


pflii^  lialoiilnl  Hiiii'Ifs.     'I'lic  ildiiKliliit 
iimv,  liitwrvtr,   |in>|..'ily  uldikiii   llu-m, 

1,11,1     lIu'V      lll<'      <'iilll|Mlrlil       fviilrlli'c. 

lliit/iiiiPii!/  V.  /i'x'i'fi,  'J  WixmI.  &  Mill., 

►;|      -WtHtKIUUV,  J.  ;     MllHM.,    IHUJ. 

5.  MoiIi'Ih  anil  tli'iiwiiij^'K  tiro  n  piu-t 
„|' tilt'  I<'IH"'^«  pJitfiU,  .'Hill  limy  lie  If- 
Hoiird  to  liUM'h'ari'r  iiir.>iiii!ilii>ii  n'M|M'('t 
iir'llu'  iii\<'iili"'ii  ilt'sniln'il  in  llic  Mpfci- 
liculiiiii.  /fo'fl/  V.  Hinii-Hoii,  (I  Mow., 
4f,5__\Vnoiniriiv,  .1. ;  Slip,  l/'t.,  IHIV. 

It.  Miiilt'ls  iiml  (Iriuviii^'M  iiro  tn  Itc 
(•oii'<iili'H''l  .'iii'l  tiikcii  Inm'tlicr  ill  r\|il;i- 
iiiilidii  III'  llii<  Kpi'cilic!ttii>ii  III'  ii  p.'ili'iit. 
.Shii/iitix  V.  SollHhiinj,  MS.  (App.  C.'is.) 
-Moitsiix,  .1.;  I).  ('.,  IH.-.:,. 

7.  .Muijcis  iirc  il  Npcrirs  {)\'  cviilciiri' 
ol'  :ill  iitiiris  Ik'sI;  <^■li(•ll!!ltt•ll  to  coiHliii-t 
jiillii'  Iriilli — cviili'iirc  Hiipt'iioi'  (it  iiiiil 
iiiiaH'ccti'il  l»y  lli«'  iiiliTcslH  or  prrjiidicrs 
ul'  |i,'irtisiiiis,  or  l»y  (lie  opinioiiH  (llic 
rcM'iii'H  tiicy  iiiMV  ol'icii  In-  I'liilcil)  of 
(•xiii'i'tM.  Mt'(h>i'ini<'lc  V.  'I'lili'ott,  20 
jidw.,  400.— Daniki,,  J.  (DIh.  Opiii.); 
Siip.Ct,,  IKf.V. 

s,  No  witiicsscH  can  testify  no  cli'.'iily 
iuiil  ho  impart i.'illy  a.s  do  \\w  Hultji'cts 
(tlioii<,'li  inutc)  coiiciTiiinj^  \\\\'w\\  a  (!on- 
trovcisy  about,  idciitil.y  or  dixHiniiiarity 
Ih  lu'iidiiiijj.     J  hid.,  40!). 

9.  As  to  tlio  ipufstion  of  idt'iility, 
moilels  aro  not,  a  liviiijf,  but  a  Huro  and 
triui  witness — dumb,  but  spijakin;^  (^lo- 
(liuiitly,  as  you  in.'iy  iiit»M'pi\!t  tbc  laii- 
giiiij:;i!  it  employs.  To  cacli  piirt  a  voici; 
|)o(t'iitial  is  given.  Ptiije  v.  Feiry,  MS. 
— Wii.KiNS,  J. ;  Mich.,  1857. 

10.  Experts  may  bo  examined  to  ex- 
pLiiii,  if  necessary,  models  and  draw- 
ings. W'mana  v.  N.  Y.  tb  K  Ji.  It., 
21  How.,  100. — GiiiKB,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1858. 

11.  Models  of  machines,  Ji'bout  which 
there  is  a  (piestion,  is  a  kind  of  evidence 
which  is  entitled  to  the  hiiihest  credi- 


bility, and  wliii  II,  like  f'-{ut'e»,  cannot 
lie.  Miin-in  V.  ItniTttf,  MS. —Lkavii'i, 
.1.;  Ohio,  iM.'iH. 


MiTsir. 


I.  If  a  musical  compoNilioii  is  bor- 
rowed  from  a  former  one,  or  is  made  up 
of  dillereiit  purls  copied  from  older 
com|ioHitioiis  without  material  <liatiij;c, 
and  put  to;4ellier  into  one  tune,  with 
only  slight  altcralioiiN  or  .'idditioiiH,  thu 
person  NO  coiiibiniiig  is  not  an  author 
within  the  meaning  of  the  Ntatute. 
liiiil  V.  fJili'iiHi,  H  L;iw  Wep.,  4  11. — 
Tankv,  Ch.  J.;  Mil.,  lH4--i. 

'J.  Hut  the  ciniumNtaiices  of  its  cor- 
responding with  older  musical  compo- 
sitioiis,  and  belonging  to  the  njuik;  style 
of  iiiUNic,  does  not  constitute  it  a  plag- 
iarism, provided  it  is  in  its  main  design 
and  ill  its  material  and  import.int  piirts 
the  i'lfort  of  his  own  mind.    Ih'uL,  411. 

It.  The  coinposilioii  of  a  iu!W  air  or 
melody  is  entitled  to  proteiition ;  and 
tlieappropriiition  of  the  whole  or  of  any 
substantial  p.'irt  of  it,  without  the  li- 
cense of  the  author,  is  ])ir!icy.  Jollie  v. 
Jiif/iics,  1  JJliitc^lif,  025. — Niasu.N,  J.; 
N.  v.,  1H50. 

4.  A  musical  composition,  to  be  the 
subj(!Ct  of  a  copyright,  must  be;  Hiib- 
stantially  a  new  and  original  work,  .and 
not  a  (^opy  of  a  piece  already  produced, 
with  additions  and  variations,  which  a 
writer  of  mu.sic  with  experience  and 
skill  could  reailily  m;ike.     J  hid.,  020. 

5.  In  a  copyright  of  a  muNical  com- 
position, the  right  secured  is  the  jirop- 
erty  in  the  piece  of  music,  and  not  in 
the  mere  name.  In  th.at  there  nce<l  bo 
no  novelty  or  originaUty,  nor  need  it 
even  be  the  production  of  the  author. 


'**\>M 


v., 


-'4^', 


w>^WWwfUM^' 


.j^«l^^k^^^fe|. 


p*,1 


-f'i 


48H 


NKW  ArF'T.ICATroV. 


In 


.•».- 

*•«« 


I 


^"*Wr'- , 


^i 


WIIHN   I'ATKNI'AIM.Ki    «VII»;N    NOT, 


Tlio  titlo  or  tiniiH'  in  :ui  iipiu'iuliit;*'  f<> 
the  ImioIv  Of  piece  ^)^'  music,  ami  if  tlir 
i'(»|iyii^lil  nf  (lie  latter  fails  to  be  pro- 
teetetl,  the  title  f^ocM  willi  il.  /A/i/.. 
li'JT. 

(I.  Ill  the  case  of  a  valiil  copyriixlil  of 
Hucli  uorU,  ami  ati  iiitViii^'eiiuii!  ol'  the 
title,  whether  the  court  would  not  lie 
reipiiretl  to  i^enire  (he  tide  iVoiii  pirai')' 
to    proteit     (lie    work;     quifif.      Ihiil., 


NAMK,  IMiOl'KKTV  IN. 


Sec  'Pkaih^.mauk. 


NKW  ArrLK\vn()y  on  rsK. 

1.  The  application  of  an  ohl  {\\\\\\f  to 
a  uvtf  use,  without  any  other  invention, 
is  not  a  pateiitahle  contrivance.  Atmn 
V.  //iHCiirif,  I  Sunni.,  4hV. — Sroitv,  J.  ; 
3Iass..  is;!;t. 

•2.  Whore  ii  ])att'nt  was  lor  an  ini- 
]»rovotnent  in  the  applicsition  of  palm- 
leaf  to  Ptuttlng  beds,  ttc,  but  (he  same 
process  had  been  used  in  prepariiii;  hair 
for  like  uses,  //ihf,  that  tlu're  was  no 
invention  of  any  new  process,  but  only 
a  new  application  of  an  oM  process, 
and  that  it  was  not  a  patentable  inven- 
tion. Jfoire  v.  Ahhoft,  'J  Story,  l!>t. — 
Stokv,  J.;  Mass.,  IHt'J. 

3,  The  application  of  an  old  thing  to  a 
new  purpose  is  not  patentable.  A  pur- 
po.sc  is  not  patentable:  but  (he  machin- 
ery only,  if  new,  by  which  it  is  to  be 
accomplished.  In  other  Mords,  the  thing 
itsMf  which  is  patented  must  be  new, 
and  not  ihe  mere  application  of  it  to  a 


new  purpose  or  objeel.      Ihnn  v.  A'*,*,,/,'. 
(r.).»«/,  •.'  Story,  1 1  1.-  Sroitv,  .1. ;   .Mj„^ 
|H|;l. 

I.  A  new  adap(a(ion  itml  tirrm,,ff. 
tttiiif  of  applying  uiiii  living  old  ariiclci 
for  a  certain  purpose  a«»  using  n|i|  |,,.|,|, 
ofacas(or  with  ami  (heir  adaplaliun  |,| 
furnit'ire,  in  a  maimer  before  iiiikiiiim, 
—may  be  the  siibjeet  of  letters  paliin. 
/ll'dr  V.  Sprrn/,  '2  N.  Y.  Leg.  01,^, 
l'.'»r..--.Ii  iisoN,  .1.;  ('(.,  jHl.t. 

.'».  \Vher«'  a  patentee  desirilii'd  |ii,| 
invention  as  an  '^  improveineni  in  t||^ 
construclion  of  the  axles  ami  beariiiffs 
of  railway  and  other  wheeled  earriai^'rv" 
ami  it  was  shown  that  the  iiiveiitidii 
had  been  befoifl  applied  to  other  tar- 
ri:iges,allhougli  not  to  rail  way  carriiim's 
//(/(/,  (hat  the  invention  was  only  miku 
applic.'ition  of  an  old  invenlioii,  mnl 
therefore  the  patent  eoiiM  not  be  inain. 
t.ained.  ]\'in(iiis  v.  /lox.  «('r  /'/•,,/•.  /,' 
A'., 'jStory,  41'J,4!f>.— Stouy  .1.;  M-m<., 

IMIM. 

(I.  The  application  of  a  known  iiic. 
clianieal  ecpiivaleiit,  aH  the  endless  screw 
and  lever  to  a  maehino  to  which  it  Iia<| 
never  before  lu-en  applieil,  as  to  ih,. 
periphery  of  a  (piadrant,  to  niuvc  ainl 
lutld  the  rudder  of  a  vessel  with  imin 
ease,  is  not  invention,  although  it  iiiii.'lii 
make  the  machine  l)et(«'r.  ('orlmiir 
V.  WiftrritKin,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
CuANcii,  Ch.  J.;  1).  C^,  IH44. 

1.  It  is  not  a  new  invention,  if  all  tlic 
parts  of  a  combination  had  been  applinl 
to  a  dill'erent  object  before;,  and  tliiv 
were  now  only  applied  to  a  new  olijcd. 
IhtiHixj  V.  Jrc>iry\  ;i  West.  Law  .buir., 
155. — WooDHUUY,  J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

8.  The  apj>lication  of  a  known  tliin;; 
to  a  new  purpose,  as  tlio  use  of  rivets 
to  fasten  pjirts  of  a  shoe  instead  of 
sewing,  though  such  particular  jtarts  ot' 
the  shoe  had  never  before  been  so  fast- 


^^^4,. 


NKW  Al'l'iai  ATKI.V. 


4(10 


WNRN  PATr»T«lll.l!;   WllfM  MlT. 


rntHl,  U  ihH   ihc  Hiiliif.t    of   ft   palfiit. 
Jfiixinil  V.  <;r»r/»,    MS.   (,\|.|.,   (':h.)— 


('u,\N<n, 


Cli.  .F.;  I>.  (".,  IN4; 


«')iiii(>ry  JM  not  iirw  in  llit)  aliMtrai't,  yol 
if  iiNi'ii  ntnl  :i|i|)lii'i|  in  coiMit'i'linn  with 
lliu  pnttuiral  «l(>vfln|Mni'iit   nf  a  nrwlyk 


l».  Tin-  nM'n>   M|i|>lir!ili«in   of  nn    nIM    (iixcovfrcil  |irlii(i|il<',  |irnc|iiciii"4  a  n«'\v 

Mini  ii^xl'iil  ri'tiilt,  till!  Niiliji'i'i  is  |iati-nt- 


iiim-liint'  to  :i  nt-w   |hii|mimi'  w   nn)  pnl- 
,.nt:iljlt'.     Tj/lit  V.  />.*'«//,  I  {'.mI..  Ut.p,, 


.10 


ihi' 


— Mi;t!.\l,i:it.  .1.;   La.,  iwjH. 

1(1.  Tin'  ii«*i'  nl"  a  ni.'ili'iiiil  not   iM-rnrc 

i|  in  till-  siuut'  Htnii'tiu'c  or  iutirlc,  :m 
the  tis«<  of  |ii>ll<>r'H  clay  in  tint  nnil^inLi 
of  ijoDi'-knolm,  Miniilar  ItimliH  lia<  'm^ 
Immii  lu'lont  ina<l«'<>t'nn'lal,  .u;I!Ish,  wood, 
Ai'.,  u'ivi's  no  chiiin  lor  a  palrnt,  rvcn 
tlimmli  (III'  arlir!(>  Im>  iMon>  valnnMr 
lliiui  any  oilier  of" tin-  kiiwl.     lloti'hklna 


H«)\,  J.;   N.  Y.,  IH41). 

1.'^.  Tilt'  Mnl»sii(iiiion  op  one  niati-rift* 
for  anotlicr,  an  clay  lor  wood  m-  nit'lal, 
in  tint  const rnct ion  of  dooi-knolis,  tlin 
H|iindl(>  and  sliank  hcin^  I  lie  same  m  in 


coiiiinon  use,  a 


nd  tl 


ic  nioi 


Ic  nl' 


i'onncct 


/,    i    Mci.caii,    4(JI.— .M< 


V.  (Jin  II  wt Kit 

Ij:.\n,  .'■;  <>l'''<'i  l^"^-      I  AlViiiiicd./x).*/ 

11.  A  new  :i|i|ilica!ioii  o|  a  known 
iiriiH'lpIc  to  .a  iM'w  and  iisdiil  |iiir|iosc, 
liY  new  niccliaiiic.'il  contrivances  and  ap 
iiaratiis,  :.s  tlic  a|>|iricalioii  of  the  |ii'iii- 
linlc  fif  tlic  t'V|iaiisiv('  and  conlr.actini; 
iiowtT  of  .'i  niclairni  tod,  l»y  dilVcrcnt  dc- 
jrrocs  (if  litNit,  to  reinitiate  tin-  action  of 
tjic  (l:iiii|)ci'  aii<l  the  lii>nl  of  a  coiiiiiioii 
kIuvi',  is  the  Hiilijcct  of  a  |»;ilent.  /'aoff 
v..SY/%,  1  IMatdif.,  »(i;i,  104.  -Niii>»o.\, 
.1.;  N.  v.,  IH4». 

12.  Altlioii;xl>  t'i«'  pfiiK'iplt'  liJvd  before 
liccii  ii|i|iiicd  to  till!  l\  iriilatioti  of  lie.'it, 
aiiiltlic  ide:i  of  tint  :ipplic;itioii  of  kiicIi 


)f 


hiid 


HtOV(! 

liccii  lit'fofo  Hiit^f^ested,  witliont,  siidi 
,'i|i|ili('atioii  liaviiii^  Ik'cii  made,  it  is  not 
iiiati'Piil ;  tlie  pi-rson  wlio  tirst,  reduces 
the  idea  to  practical  iipplicatioti  and  use 
is  i';:titled  to  tlu!  patent.     Ifinl.,  4(54. 

i;i.  It  is  not  a  claim  for  a  discovery 
of  a  natural  proi»crly  of  the  metallic 
roil,  but  for  a  new  application  of  it  l»y 
ineansofinechanio.alcontrivjinces,  wliich 
is  always  the  siiltjoct  of  a  patent.  Ibid., 
404. 

14.  Though    a  combination   of   nia- 


iiii;  them  reipiiriiii;  only  ordinary  me- 
elianicid  skill,  is  not  the  Milijcct  of  a 
patent.  //ofr/tki.iM  V.  (tri'ritifnitil^  II 
ll<»w.,    200. — Nklmon,    J.;    Sup.    (!t., 

1  H.%(). 

III.  The  meaning  of  ihe  rule  laid  down 
in  Ifiiinr,  v.  Alifmlt,  '*  Story,  i!M,  and  in 
WiiimiH  V.  lioH,  «fc  I'fiir.  A'.  It.,  '1  Sto- 
ry, IHI,  that  a  new  application  is  not 
ciititlol  to  protei'iioii,  is  that  the  appli- 
cation of  :in  old  machine  or  old  compo- 
sition of  matter,  before  patented,  to  a 
new  object,  or  what  is  termed  !i  double 
use,  does  not  entitle  one  to  a  patent, 
connected  with  the  new  object;  J»ecauso 
there  is  no  now  in.achinery  or  new  com- 
biiiiition   of    itid    p.'irlM.      //>/(/.,    270.— 


W 


ooDiu  i:y,  .1 


T.;  Dis.  ()| 


nil. 


UK) 


17.  Ibit  it  is  entirely  diU'ereiit  if  < 
apply  an  old  earth,  or  old  inechanical 
power,  or  old  principle  in  physicrs,  to  » 
new  object.  There  is  then  a  new  form 
.adapted,  or  a  new  combination  for  the 
purpose  — !i  new  sliape,  consistency^  and 
use  f^iven,  or  a  now  nunlns  <>p  rinidi, 
which,  if  clie.ajxtr  and  better,  benefitfl 
tlie  world,  and  desorve.s  protection. 
//nil,  270. 

IH.  Where  u  party  lias  discovered  a 
new  application  of  sotne  property  in  na- 
ture, never  before  known  or  in  Use,  by 
which  he  has  produced  a  now  .and  use- 
ful result,  the  discovery  is  the  subject 


«r^ 


yw 


I.*/ 


^wL^wW^ii 


4m 


NKW  ArPi.n'ATloX. 


WlilCN    l'ATKKTAIII,K;    «II»:M   MOT. 


'!-'-.-il 


'**«h*' 


of  ft  |»:i(«Mif,  ltnl«'|»ci)il<'ntly  «>f  miy  |n'- 
•Miliiir  or  new  arriiiii;<'iiH'iil  of  m;i<'liiti«'fy 
for  till-  |iiii'|M><«t>  (>r  ii|t|ilyinj(  hikIi  tww 
proiM'fly.  /']ntte  V.  Silnl'if,  2  Hliilflif., 
2U4.— Xklsov,  J.;  N.  v.,  1H5I. 

10.  Itiit  ill  order  to  entitle  liiinsrlf  to 
n  pati'iil  tiir.'i  new  iippliiation  of  n  |iro|i- 
erty  of  nntiiro  to  w  iiMetul  purpose,  In* 
iniiMt  not  only  linvo  eonceiveil  the  Idea, 
liiit  iini'^t  liy  Hotne  ineiiiiM,  have  Hiiceexs- 
fiilly  j^iveii  Hpplicalioii  to  the  new  prop- 
erty; liiit  it  i«  not  neci'Nxary  thai  tlio 
application  nlioiiM  he  made  hy  the  very 
\w*\  apparatus  (hat  can  he  dovlHod. 
Jhiif.,  'liw,  'J 71. 

20.  The  :ipplicatioii  of  a  tiling  al- 
ready known,  to  a  now  and  iiseriil  pur- 
jiose,  may  bo  the  Huhject  of  a  patent, 
jirovided  the  new  use  is  not  aiialoLfoiis 
to  the  old,  ami  recpiin  s  the  exereise  of 
X\w  inveiitivo  fa<Millies.  Witntn(t  v. 
Mienec.  cO  7'roy  R.  Jioml,  2  Ulalehf., 
2o:i.— CoNKi.iN<i,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1H5I. 

'Jl.  The  discovery  that  a  refuse  or 
worthless  m.'iterial  ciiii  headvaiitajjfeoiis- 
ly  applietl  to  a  new  purpose,  if  that  rc- 
piilt  is  owinj;  to  the  presence,  in  Hiich 
refuse  material,  of  certain  iii<;redients 
or  suhstances  which  have  before  been 
used  for  the  same  jtiirposo,  is  not  a  pat- 
entalile  invention.  Mnulc^  Kj:  pnrti'^ 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoKSEi.r,,  J.;  I).  C, 

22.  A  patent  niay  bo  granted  for  tlie 
U80  of  a  known  tiling,  in  a  ktio wn  man- 
ner, to  ju-oduce  cfTocts  already  known, 
but  producing  those  effects  so  .as  to  b8 
more  icoHomical  or  heiiejici'dly  enjoyed 
by  the  public.  Sceley,  Ex  parte,  MS. 
(Apj).  Cas.)— MousKi.L,  J. ;  1).  C,  1853. 

23.  Though  there  may  bo  in  a  new 
application  some  dogreo  of  novelty, 
something  may  have  been  discovered  or 
found  out  that  was  not  known  before, 
yet  utiless  the  new  occasion  on  which  the 


principle  is  applied  h'ads  to  nonie  kltid  of 
new  iiianufacfiire,  or  some  new  iiMilt 
it  will  be   but    a  double  lue.      Illntxl,, 
Er  l»irh\  MS.  (App  Cum.)— Moiibu", 
J.-  I),  v.,  iHftR. 

21.  An  invention  or  ftrrftnp'iin'in  ot 
parts,  though  already  used  for  a  piirtir- 
ul.ar  purpose,  if  in  the  new  use  it  per 
forms  any  now  function,  or  an  old  fim,. 
tinii  ill  a  better  manner,  or  makes  n  Int. 
ter  and  cheaper  manufacture,  i«  p:it(>iitt|. 
ble.  Ni'irmiiH,  /i>  /nirft\  .MS.  (,\|,p 
Cas.)— MoKSKi.i,,  .]. ;  1).  C,  |H5{). 

2fi.  Theiiu're  use  of  a  mechanical  ntnic- 
ture,  before  applied  to  a  particnl;ir  pm-. 
pose  (as  a  valve  use<i  on  railway  Idcoimi. 
tives),  for  a  different  purpose,  ii  not  tmi. 
enlabh^  but  if  the  valve  be  so  cliiiii"(>(! 
as  to  be  applicable  to  n/l  engines,  niul 
producing  a  new  and  useful  result,  if  j, 
a  jtatentahle  subject.  Jiufno)!  v.  .V.).,rc, 
MS. — Lk.vvitt,  .].;  Ohio,  18(J(). 

2(1.  AVhero  there  is  nothing  new  in 
the  principles  involved  in  an  invcnlinn 
and  nothing  new  in  the  form  or  cliaiiic- 
ter  of  the  instrumentalities  by  whicli  it 
is  applied,  the  new  application  is  hut  an 
jm.alogous  use,  and  is  not  the  suljcct  ot' 
a  ]»:itent.  Alli-n,  Ex  fxirti;  I\IS.  (Apii. 
Cas.) — Mf.uiucii,  .T. ;  I).  C,  Ihoo. 

27.  The  applicjitiou  of  Huhstaiitiallj- 
the  same  means  to  produce  the  same  rp- 
Hult  in  a  different  form,  as  tubes  and 
double  walls  in  ;i  grain  bin,  the  siinu' 
having  been  before  used  in  cribs  and 
kilns,  is  only  .a  double  use,  and  not  pat- 
entable. MarxJi,  Ex  jxtrfc,  MS.  (App. 
C:is.) — MoKSKr.i,,  J. ;  J).  V.,  IHOO. 

28.  The  mere  new  application  of  an 
old  arrangement  of  parts  to  a  new  pur- 
pose, or  in  conneeti(m  M-ith  a  different 
machine,  is  not  patentable.  Jimcsoti, 
Ex  parte,  MS.  (Ai)p.  Cas.) — Moksell, 
J. ;  D.  C,  18C0. 

20.  The  application  of  an  old  coutii 


'-^^.^^ 


!      I 


NEW  TUIAIX 


401 


wan  wiu  im  iiiiiiKHr.il ;  wiiKx  Ntrr. 


vniK'O  to  n  ni>\(  |>iir|iop)(>,  nn  iiiakin^  iiiir- 
ror»  r»r  IiiiIm  iiclt'iiilli«-Hivi<,  no  thiil  \\\vy  \ 
c»ii  l>u  pliici'l  *»  ■'■'}  iiiil,  itr  n  iii()\t'<t 
tVotii  i)ii«<  liiit  to  allot  her,  H  not  invi-ii- ! 
tioii.     W'/i'tlf-r,  Kx  fxirfi,  MS.   (App. 
Cm)— AIoKHKi.^  .1.;  U  C,  Ih«o. 

XKWTKI AT-S  IN  PATKNT  CASKS. 

1.  Wliore  II  vcnlict  is  void  lor  iTpiij;. 
imiu'y  or  iiiu'crtiiinty;  n  lunv  trial  iiiiiNt 
1h'  oi'ilfrt'il.  Steartm  v.  Jhirrvtt,  1  Mas., 
172.— Si(»riY,  J. ;  Mass.,  Ihuj. 

2.  In  c.'isi's  ot"  Hiirprisc  at,  the  trial  liy 
now  matters,  roriiiiii;^  a  ;;roiiiitl  iinpor- 
tniit  to  I'itliiM'  party,  ami  cU'arly  iiiaiU.' 
out,  tliu  cause  will  lie  postpoMcil  or  con- 
tiniii'il.  Hut  if  I  In'  p:irty  iiitt'rcsti'tl 
iimki's  no  siu-li  upplifatioii,  but  t'lccts  to 
go  on  with  tlio  (.'aiiso,  lic!  is  iiiiiU'rstood 
to  waivo  till'  iiiattt'r  of  surprise ;  he 
coniiot  1)0  perinitteil  to  take  his  «-liaiiee 
with  a  jury;  ami,  if  uiisiieeessfiil,  then 
to  move  the  matter  as  a  jxrouiul  for  a 
new  trial.  Amen  v.  Jfoicard.,  1  Surnii., 
481),  400.— Stouv,  J. ;  MiLss.,  Xmw. 

3.  A  new  trial  will  not  be  f,'ranl«'<l 
upon  nieru  eiiimilative  evidence,  where 
tiicio  is  110  other  ground  of  objection 
to  the  verdict.     Ibhl.^  400. 

4.  A  jtarty  moviiiuf  on  affidavits,  for 
a  lunv  trial  or  the  like,  cannot  j)ut  in 
new  rebutting  evidence  to  (he  affidavits 
of  the  other  p:irty,  offered  in  reply  to 
those  first  offered  by  the  moving  party. 
/ftW.,401. 

5.  A  verdict,  though  giving  large 
damages,  if  not  against  evidence,  or 
not  supported  by  tlio  evidence,  is  not 
sufficient  reason  for  granting  a  new  trial. 
Stanley  v.  "Wliij^lc,  2  McLean,  40. — 
.McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1839. 


(K  Tlio  awarding  by  the  jury  gri'titer 
damages  than  went  iiiitt.  ipaled,  U  not 
tiuli  II  grosH  mistake  in  lli<-  jury  iim 
would  authori/e  setting  a<*ide  tli"ir  ver- 
dict. The  iph'slioii  of  dlimages  in  Niib' 
Miitt<'d  to  their  fair  judgment.  Ali/nn  v. 
y>fir»'y,  I  Story,  341.— Sroitv,  J.;  .Mai»»., 

IHIO. 

7.  Ill  nil  uction  for  n  violation  of  u 
patent,  n  now  trial  wilt  not  bu  ordered 
for  surprise  on  account  of  new  evitlenet*, 
if  by  reasonable  diligence  the  inlbrma- 
tion  might  liav(>  been  obtained  before- 
hand.  \\'iit</i/iiirn  v.  fJouli/,  '.]  Story, 
Ifi7. — Stouv,,!.;  Mass.,  |H44. 

H.  A  verdii't  on  an  issue  at  law,  in  u 
patent  case,  direct«'d  by  a  court  of  e<|iii. 
ty,  will  not  be  >et  a>ide  and  a  new  trial 
ordered,  on  the  ground  that  such  ver- 
dict was  ngiiinstthe  weight  of  eviilenec, 
unless  the  piepolideraiicc  of  evidt'lice  i«< 
very  clear  Jiroolm  v.  Jlirk/ittl,  4  JMc- 
L«'an,  72,  74.— M(  LKAX,J.;Oliio,  Ifjft. 

0.  On  a  motion  for  a  new  trial,  the 
fact  that  the  siiiiie  issues  had  been  siili- 
mittcil  to  a  former  jury,  who  were  dis- 
charged becur.su  they  could  not  agree, 
cannot  bo  entirely  overlooked.     JbiU., 

V2, 7;b 

10.  Anew  trial  will  not  bo  gr.-inted 
for  the  reason  that  the  court  construed 
the  specilic.'ition,  instrad  of  leaving  the 
jury  to  determine  itii  meaning.  Writ- 
t«>n  instruments  are  to  be  construed  from 
the  language  of  such  instruments  them- 
selves, and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to 
'construe  the  language  used  in  the  spe- 
cification. Davoll  V.  Urown,  1  Wood. 
&  Min.,  55, 50. — WoorMURv,  .1. ;  Mass.. 
1845. 

11 .  If  the  court  refuse  to  decide  up- 
on the  construction  of  the  patent  or  spe- 
cification, and  leave  such  point  to  the 
jury,  such  ruling  is  erroneous,  and  is 
sufficient  cause  for  a  new  trial.    Ji'mer- 


"^Vi 


•/>.-, 


•If' 


:^'^wL^yl^/ii^ 


''^*?'**6^ 


l^i^r'-'^ 


I 


^-t.w,. 


^i  I 


4N 


VV.W  TltlALH. 


ii 

III 
'I 

if 

I! 


Ii* 


■f\mi 


M. 


/     / 


im 


m  '^ 


•■■*<*  .wi^i 


WMM  WIU  M  OitiRHKii,   wiiM  ll<Jt. 


ton  IT,  //•></;/,  '.'  niui.hf.,  0.— IIktm,  J. ; 
N.  v.,  iHi.v 

I'i.  A  IM'W  tiini  H'ill  not  lit*  ^riuili'tl 
bccniiMK  llit>  Jury  tiiul  lilH>nil  iIiiiiiiij^i'n, 
•sci>|it  III  It  diNu  of  |>iit|)iil>li>  <>\irtivii- 
({lUK'i',  WliiTO  ill  an  iictittti  for  iiii  iii< 
I'riii^ciiifiit,  it  wiiN  |iri)Vr<l  li\  llic  iilain- 
lilV  lliiit  Mtili'K  Wfrit  highly  |)nilit:tlili', 
mill  lliiit  till*  tU't'ciiiliiiit  IiikI  niitiiiifac- 
tui'«'<l  •iikI  ^«i|i|  iIi<>  articti'  in  lar^c  i|iiiiii 
tilii>«,  iiiiii  the  ili'tt'n<liiiit  iitViri'il  no  |iriiiii', 
limiting  tin*  (•\ii|«'iii'c  nf  ilic  |ilaintilV, 
or  tiM  to  till)  fimt  or  vuliiv  of  tin*  iirtii'lc, 
y/»A/,  rliat  lli»«  jury  wrrn  wanaiiitMl  in 
f\riri«iiii;r  a  lilhTnl  <li^<ii'liiMi,  ami  that 
II  M'lillcl  iif  4i'.*,(iiio  wdiilil  lint  Ih>  intiT- 
ft'i-nl  Willi.  S/,ji/„tiMv.  /•ilf,  '2  lllalilif., 
8H,  no.— IlKriK,  J.;  N.  V.,  Ihkj. 

l.'J.  A  lu'w  trial  will  not  lie  ^rant«'<|, 
Id'cansc  of  tln'  ai|ini'«Nioii  in  fvifli'iicc  «)f 
ii  IrlhT  of  tli(>  Coniniixoiont'r  of  I '.at  cuts, 
nckiiowli'ilj;iii<;  tlio  rccciiit  of  an  .ippli- 
cittioii  for  u  |iat*>nt,  ami  introiliu-ol  to 
hhow  iilaintilV'N  in\cntion  at  tlic  tinic  of 
its  (lalf,  tlioiij^'li  <l(Mil»ts  may  Ih*  i-nti-r- 
taiiuMl  of  itH  ailinissiliijity,  if  otlii>r  t'vi- 
dt'noo  Ih  Hiil»MC'(iiiontIy  oti'rrt'd,  |»rovin^ 
filaintitrs  invention  earlier  tlian  tlu>ilati> 
of  null  U'ltiT.  .lllin  V.  J{/i4>if,  'J  Wood. 
&  Mill.,  12H,  120. — WooDHUUV,  J.; 
MnHH.,  1840. 

14.  Nor  will  !i  n«w  trial  bo  j»riiiiteil  be- 
o.liisf  parol  I'videiicc  was  refused,  ^oiii;,' 
to  jti'ovi' the  contents  of  a  letter,  alleged 
to  have  been  mailed  to  the  opposite  par- 
ty, it  not  having  been  shown  that  stieh 
letter  w.'is  lost,  «>r  had  been  actually  re- 
ceived by  such  party.  The  afildavits 
of  the  parties  may  be  received  to  pn)ve 
or  disprove  such  facts.  Ibul.^  130, 
132. 

IT).  If  one  of  the  jury,  boforo  reti- 
ring, ask  the  clerk  as  to  a  I'act  appear- 
ing from  the  records,  and  no  objection 
is  made  to  the  question  at  the  time,  nor 


1 

any  prele^irt*  miide  that  (lu>  iihHWt*r  ilkl 
lli>t  cori't-Mpoiid  uilli  llie  record,  i|  em^ 
not,  nt\er  '.erdict,  be  taken  ndvnntam 
of  on  »  motion  for  u  new  trial.    Ji^j^ 
I4». 

III.  ,\  new  trial  nhmild  not  Ik>  grniji. 
ei|  for  a  caii««i  existing  at  the  triiil,  but 
u  liicli  \(aH  not  Ntiited  or  vxct'ittcd  to 
then.     /hU.,  H\K 

17.  Damages,  in  a  ca»»e  Hubniittcd  to 
the  fair  judgment  of  the  Jury,  \ul|  |„,t 
lie   ileemed    eXcexnivi"   bi'caU'ie  tliey  iiri' 

niore  than  a  >\itiieNM  may  have  teitilinl 
to,  «>r  slightly  more  than  the  court  dei-m 
prop.r;  the  verdict  will  not  be  *<et  ii«i.li.' 
and  u  new  trial  «uder«'d,  imles-  the  rlnm- 
ages  are  very  exeeHiiivo  and  uiireaMtnu. 
bio.     /AiVA,  141). 

IH.  When'  a  motion  for  a  now  trial 
is  not  made  until  some  uceks  aftrr  llii> 
trial,  and  the  counsel  of  the  purlicM  ijif. 
fer  as  to  what  wan  dune  or  omitted,  it 
is  for  the  court  to  decide  on  tlicjiedir. 
tereiices,  and  the  court  will  not  awartl  a 
new  trial  if  it  is  apparent  that  o  injiis. 
tico  will  be  likely  to  happen  t'nuii  tho 
verdict  an  rendered.     //>»//.,  151. 

111.  Nor  will  the  <'omt  order  anew 
trial  because  of  the  neglect  of  the  court 
to  charge  as  to  certain  points,  as  rc(|iu'st- 
od,  where  the  couiihcI  fiirnisln  d  no  writ, 
ten  list  of  such  points  to  the  court,  nor 
verbally  called  .attention,  before  llic 
jury  went  out,  to  any  point  omitttJ. 
fhhf.,  161,  162. 

20.  It  is  no  ground  for  a  new  trial 
that  the  court  oinitteil  tt)  cliargu  on 
some  jioints,  unless  the  omission  influ- 
enced or  ch.anged  the  verdict;  hut  it  is 
too  lato  to  reniiiK-  the  court  of  lla; 
omission  after  the  jury  hare  retired. 
rfti,/.,  152. 

21.  It  is  tho  general  rule  not  to  dis- 
turb the  verdict  if  it  is  according  to  the 
j  ustice  of  the  case,  and  the  ruling  ia 


<^; 


K«W  TRIALS. 


4N 


nii'iwvr  dill 
onl,  it  OM^ 

int.    Ihid^ 

>t  )k<  Kraal' 
lut  triul,  bat 

LtXC('|)tt'il  to 

iiliinittxl  til 
iiry,  will  lint 
iii«*<  tlii-y  iiru 

11VI>  IrKtitlnl 

'  I'lMirl  ilvfiii 

:  \h>  M'l  HMilu 

lo!«-  till'  ilmii- 

i|   lini'r;iMiii:i. 

p  II  iii'w  trial 
t'kM  lift  IT  tilt) 

11'  |llirlir<t  lilt'- 

>i'  niniili'il,  it 

[nil   thi'M!  till- 

lint  uwiinl  !t 

lilt    o  iiijiis- 

'tl     iVdlll  till! 

i:.i. 

•nlor  u  new 

if  till'  I'oiirt 

ts,  as  ri't|iU'>t- 

slicd  no  writ- 

ic  court,  nor 

licfort'    tlu> 

lint  oiiiitti'tl. 

!i  now  trial 
clmru'L'  on 
nissioii  intlii- 
let ;  Imt  it  is 
court  of  lliii 
uire  R'tiroil. 

le  not  to  dis- 
jordinj:  to  the 
the  riilint,'  is 


WHRW    WIIX  MR  ORIiMHRti;    WMRM    tt<rr. 


^  AonUM  In  | 

If  tbtnili»U  I**'  •'(•'i>''ly  writii^.  It  will  !>•• 
.'(xmI  Kroitiul  for  a  imw  trial.     //»/«/., 

IVi. 
<.»■.•  'riioii'^h   lii'iitTiilly   ii    « ill  In*   n 


gro 


mill  for  It  iH» 


«y 


initit  III'  lin     iliiiii'^li   ilit'l  iiitiiino  lit'  nit  ntfont  in  rt'htioti  to 

till*  lHiiiiii(>M»  ill  ulili'li  )ii>  wiK  i>nKn){iMl, 
iiikI  iiiimIi'  wIiIIi'  Ii(<  wit*  ho  ciiuiip'ilt  M 
Hiicli  i|i'i-l,ir:iiiiiii<«  itrit  It  |iiirt  ni'  llii*  r** 
iji»(tp.     I  hill.,  :i."Vrt. 

'H\,  \  III'W  lrl:il  will  III*  i^ruiitt'il  on 
tliH  (jriiiHiil  of  iii'wiy  ilim-ovi'i't'il  i»vi« 
•  li'iii'i',  if  tltiTw  li  no  ^roiiiKl  for  iinpiit- 
iiii?  iii'}»li^i'in'i'  In  not  nltiiiiniii^;  it  I'nr 
till'  I'oriiii'r  triiil,  iiihI  if  it  ii  iiiuti'riiil,  iiinl 


w  Irml  if  il!'  u'lil  ti'iliiiio- 


in  lulmitli'il  -or  lliiTi'  ^  :\*  nny  iiiUill- 


not  nicroly  rmiiiil.itivo. 


Ami  oviili'nro 


will  lint  Ih>  ili'i'iiii'ii  I'liiiiiiliitlvi*  if  it  \*  nx 


thi'  llli';;!>l  ii'xlinintiy  li:i<«  not  projiiillcril 
till*  iMM',  or  till'  oliji'ilioii  WUH   iiicri'ly 

ll'cllllilMll,    or     tllO  «'Vilil'IU'U    iMM'tlllll'     ill|. 

ni.'iti'iiiil,  or  tlio  viTilirt  I'lin  Im' juxiitii'il 

without  if,  or  till'  ri'ji'ctinn  wni  rijflit,  i  to  mmiu' point  nr  fmt  imt  l»iliiri' itj;tliiti'i| 

tliiiiiirli  oil  iliU'cniit  j^roiiiii'lH,  iir  tlu'  in- 1  or  ;fniii'  into.     //</</.,  M.'V.I- :t:iH. 

'-'".  If  It  III'W  trliil  in  liowi'ViT  j(riiiit''il 
on  till'  f^roiiinl  of  lu'wly  liiHcnvi-ri'il  cvl* 
muliitivi',  or  not   controviTt'"!,  or  tin- j  iloiicc,  it  i«.  only  on  pnyini'iit  of  tln5ci>»t!« 
t'lct  V  iis  otliirwisi'   pfovi'il,   iir   if  tlic  '  of  llio  former  trial.     //»/»'.,  :i.'>!». 


luiiipi'Iciit  i'\iili'iici«    \\i\*  lint  iiiiilirial, 
or  no  iiijii-^tifr  wiii  iIoim-  hy  It,   or  rii 


nijoilir'-clioii  wasoii  an  iiiiinati-niu  |)iiinl, 
or  iliil  not  arti'i't  tin*  vi'nlict,  ami  Jiim- 
tict'  ftppi'urn  to  liavi*  lu'i'ii  iloiii',  or  if 
thi'  point  'viis  frivolous,  a  new  trial  will 
not  Itt' orilrri'il.     /A/V/.,  loj,  ir»t. 

23.  On  a  nintinii  tor  a  new  trial  in  an 
iiction  for  the  infriiij;i'int'iit  of  a  patent 
on  tliu  j,'roiinil  of  exeensive  ilania<,'es, 
the  suni  ^'iveii  must  Ix'  plainly  exorbit- 
ant, or  wlrit  is  sometimes  ealleil  "o»/<- 
ptijcoim,''^  to  require  thi*  interfereiieo  of 
the  court.  Ai^'rn  v.  /AmM,  .'t  Woixl. 
it  Min.,  362. — WooimriiY,  J.;  Mass., 

lsl7. 
'J4.  Whero  n  now  trial  Ih  it«l<o(l  lie- 

cause  the  vonliot  \n  ntyainst  the  weight 
of  I'viilence,  the  tiinlint?  of  the  jury, 
where  cviileiico  exiMtod  on  hoth  Hides 
and  had  to  bo  compared  and  weighed, 
will  not  he  disturbed,  even  tlioiijjfh  the 
court  might  have  coiiio  to  a  dirt'eront 
ronchision,  unless  tho  presumption  is 
very  strouf?  that  the  jury  either  wan- 
tonly abused  their  powers,  or  made 
some  inadvertent  mistake.  Ibid,  05:1. 
25.  A  new  trial  will  not  be  granted 
on  the  ground  of  the  admission  of  tho 


'JH.  The  court  will  imt  j;raiit  a  new 
trial  on  the  {^rotind  of  v-xcessive  damn- 
^I'H  if  the  verdict  wan  in  acenrdance 
with  the  direction  of  the  eniirt.  Sf!i>i/>- 
Hon  V.  77if  /i<n/i'o<fih,  I  Wall.,  Jr.,  lOti. 
— (Jiiint,  J.;  I'lt.,  1H47. 

2t>.  The  rule  of  law  that  a  verdict  of 
a  jury  will  not  be  net  aside  where  there 
has  been  evidence  nn  bnth  sides  of  a 
(piestion  of  fraud,  and  no  misdirection 
nn  to  the  law,  upplioH  with  like  Htriet- 
ncH8  to  all  eases  of  tot"t,  .as  to  an  in- 
friiiijement  of  a  patent.  lUa/n'/i,  (Hun- 
UtorK-Tiinii/H/Ftii'.  v.J'i'-ofig,  '2  lllatohf., 
VI.— »KTrw,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1847. 

.30.  Where,  in  Hiieh  a  ease,  it  was  Rub- 
niltted  as  a  ipiestion  of  fact  for  the  jury 
to  tind  whether  the  defendant  was  con- 
cerned with  another  in  iisinj;  an  infrinj^- 
inj^  machine,  or  was  merely  a  purchaser 
from  Huch  person  of  articles  manufiu'- 
turcd  under  it,  and  tlio  court  instructeil 
the  jury  that  tho  action  could  not  be 
maintained  .against  the  defendant  if  ho 
was  no  more  than  a  purchaser,  and 
the  jury  gave  n  verdict  for  the  plaintilT; 
Ilehl,   there  being   evidence    on   both 


*^%irM*i 


^*sfkttgi^' 


\i^\ 


L.L 


^ipfwii.:;. 


i  r 


4ni 


NEWSPArEll. 


I'KOI'KllTY   IV;    COI'YIllOIIT  Afl  TO. 


%• 


t 


i 


iin* 


[•^i; 


i«i{ 


Fh, 


k'kIos  of  (lie  (iiicsfioii,  iunl  It  ii(»t  apin'ar- 
iiij;  that  iho  verdift  wiis  i-loarly  iii;aiiist 
tli:^'  wi'iuflit  of  llio  cvliU'iico,  tliat  it  must 
stand.     If>i<f.,  70,  71. 

ill.  A  new  trial  will  not  l>c  granted 
in  any  case,  nnlcas  the  verdi(^t  is  clcjirly 
withoMt  fvidenco,  or  against  the  weight 
of  cvidonco;  nor  for  the  jjurpose  of  in- 
trodiu'in^^  new  evidence  to  points  ]»e- 
ibre  '.  I  eontrovcrsy.     If>id.,  71. 

32.  A  new  trial  will  be  granted  i^  ft 
witness  lias  been  ini])ro|)erly  rejected. 
liuckv.  Jftrmancc,  1  IMatchf.,  :V2'2,  ;i25. 
— XKf.soy,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

33.  A  new  trial  will  not  be  gr.anted 
on  .nccoiMit  of  surjjrise  caused  liy  the 
rejection  of  evidence,  when  insuflicient 
or  infornual  notice  had  been  given  of  the 
intention  of  introducing  such  evidence, 
or  when  such  evidence,  if  introduced, 
would  not,  in  the  jud  rnent  of  thecoiu't, 
have  constituted  a  defence,  or  varied 
the  result.  J^oote  v.  Sihinj,  1  IMatehf., 
4(56.— XKr.sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,'  1849. 

.34.  In  the  third  circuit,  where  •»  jury 
cannot  agree  and  are  discharged,  there 
cannot  be  a  second  trial  at  the  same 
term  of  the  court,  by  anew  jury  sele<''- 
cd  out  of  the  same  panel,  except  by  the 
consent  of  parties.  Wilnon  v.  Jsav- 
nmn,  1  Wall.,  Jr.,  3u3. — Gkieu,  J. ;  l*:i., 
1849. 

35.  It  nnist  be  a  A-ery  extreme  case 
where  a  judgment  will  be  reversed  by 
the  Supreme  Court  on  aceoimt  of  ex- 
cessive damages  in  actions  ex  delk'io, 
when  the  instructions  of  the  court  sug- 
gested to  the  jury  the  true  general  r>ile, 
and  the  leaving  ground  for  mitigation, 
as  well  as  against  excess,  and  Avhen,  if 
excessive,  a  new  trial  could  have  been 
moved  in  the  Circuit  Court.  Hogg  v. 
Emerson.,  11  How.,  COS. — Woodbury, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1860. 


NKWSPArKll. 

1.  A  newspaper  establishment  is  u 
subject  »)f  property,  and  so  far  as  tlin 
rights  of  such  an  estahlishnu'nt  are  iri- 
vate  and  exclusive,  this  species  of  prep, 
crty,  like  any  other,  is  entitled  fd  tliy 
pn.tection  of  the  laws.  /Snui'u/rn  y. 
Xoii/i,  Hopk.  Cli,,  351.— Walwi.uhi, 
Chan.,  X.  Y.,  1825. 

2.  The  g(M)d-will  of  an  estal»llsli(Ml 
tr.'ide,  the  custom  of  an  inn,  and  tlio 
right  of  a  publisher  of  books  may  W 
injure<l  by  acts  of  deception  and  piracy 
but  the  injury  for  which  redress  is  giy. 
eti  in  such  cases,  results  from  the  impos- 
tiu'e  jjractised  upon  the  cust  nucrs  of  an 
existing  establishment,  or  upon  llie  jmb- 
Vh:     Il.'ul,  352. 

3.  Th"  acts  of  Congress,  in  rcspwtto 
copyright,  are  for  the  encouragement 
of  learning,  and  were  not  intended  for 
the  encouragement  of  mere  industry, 
luiconnected  with  learning,  and  tlio 
vfiences.  Clayton  v.  intone,  2  raiiic, 
392. — TnoMi'soM,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1828. 

4.  A  newspaper  or  i)rice  current,  is 
not  such  a  jiublication  as  falls  under  the 
protection  of  the  copyright  laws.  Ibkl, 
293.   .. 

5.  A  court  of  equity  has  i)ower  to  is- 
sue an  injunction  to  restrain  a  dotend- 
ant,  if  he  has  assumed  the  name  of  the 
comj)lainant'8  newspaper,  for  the  finiul- 
ulent  purpose  of  imposing  on  the  jinb- 
lic,  and  supplanting  him  in  the  good- 
will of  his  established  paper,  by  simula- 
ting its  name  and  address.  Jiill  v.  Z'^ir, 
8  I'aigc,  70. — WALwonTH,  Chan.;  X. 
Y.,  1840. 

C.  Biit  the  simulation  must  be  such 
as  to  injure  the  circulation  and  patron- 
age of  the  complainant's  ])aper,  hy  de- 
ceiving the  public  and  inducing  the  be* 


Uoiic,  2  IVino, 


•ire  furrcMit,  is 

falls  uiulcr  the 

Kthnvs.  Ibkl, 


XOXSUIT.— OATn  OF  INVENTION. 


495 


[•DWKH  op  KKDKUM.  CDI  IMS  TO  OUDKK. 


nkoksshy  ok;  koii'.t.. 


lief  tli.'if  it  is  in  rosility  tho  samo  papcM-. 

Jbiiiy   7"' 


NONSUIT. 

1.  It  is  not  n  fonmlation  for  a  nonsuit 
tliat  tho  iloclanition  for  an  infiiiitxeniont 
of  a  l>:;ti'nt,  (loos  not  lay  the  act  coni- 
|il,iiiu'(l  of  to  Weonti'K  fonnum  Matuti. 
'I'lijs  is  matter  of  form,  tlie  want  of 
which  will  be  cured  by  verdiet.  IVijon 
V.  White,  Pet.  C  C,   97.— Wahiiin*;- 

To.v,J.;  X.  J.,  1  «!•'''■ 

2.  IJut  if  the  ileelaration  in  an  action 
for  the  infringement  of  a  jjatent,  j'-ro- 
ft'sscs  to  set  forth  the  speeiiit-ation  as  a 
iiiirt  of  tlie  grant,  aeeonling  lo  its  ten- 
or, liie  slightest  variation,  as  whcil  for 
whirl,  is  fatal,  for  wliieh  a  nonsuit  will  be 
granted.  Ibid^Ql.  [In  thiseasethejudge 
onlercda  nonsuit,  but  the  question  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  raiseil  as  lo  the 
power  of  tho  couit  to  order  it;  and  a 
rule  was  subsequently  gr.anted  to  sliow 
cause  why  the  nonsuit  should  not  be  set 
aside.    -£'t/.] 

3.  The  courts  of  the  United  States 
have  no  authority  to  order  a  nonsuit, 
without  the  consent  of  the  jilainlif!*,  on 
(he  trial  of  a  cause  before  a  jury.  Footc 
V.  Sihbii,  1  Blatchf.,  450,  4G1.— Nel- 
son, J. ;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

4.  It  has  been  repeatedly  decided 
th;it  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
iiave  no  power  to  order  a  peremptory 
nonsuit,  against  the  will  of  the  plain- 
tiff. Silshy  V.  Foote,  14  How.,  222.— 
Ciuns,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

5.  The  Supreme  Court  li.ive  also  held 
to  same  effect,  in  Elmore  v.  Grri/mcs,  1 
Pet.,  4G9,  1828;  De  Wolf  v.  Mayhaml, 
1  Pet.,  470,  1828;  Crane  v.  Morris,  0 
Pet.,  59,  1832. 


OATH  OF  INVENTION. 

1.  The  taking  of  the  oath  by  the  in- 
ventor is  but  a  prerequisite  to  the  grant- 
ing of  a  patent,  and  in  nodegi\'e  essen- 
tial to  its  validity.  If,  th.erefore,  not 
conformable  to  the  statute,  it  is  no  oIj- 
Ji'ction  to  tlie  patent.      Whittminrc  \. 

Cuthr,  1  (Jail.,  4y;J.— Stokv,  J.;  Mass., 
18ia, 

2.  Where  the  construction  of  the  pat- 
ent and  specification,  as  to  the  subject 
of  the  grant,  are  doubtful,  tho  aflldavi', 
if  more  |)recise,  may  be  resorted  (o  to 
explain  the  ambiguity.  It  seems  par- 
ticularly projjer  to  do  so  for  restraining 
general  expressions  in  the  specification. 
Pi  'tibone  \.  Dcrriuf/er,  4  AVash.,  217, 
218. — Wasminutox,  .1. ;  Pa.,  1818. 

.3.  Thus,  where  the  patent  recited  tho 
.ai)plicant  to  be  the  inventor  of  an  im- 
provement in  boring  muskets  by  a  twist- 
ed serew-.auger,  and  the  specilication 
described  tho  manner  of  making  tho 
auger,  its  form,  and  how  to  be  used, 
and  the  affidavit  confined  the  invention 
to  the  improvement  in  rnaking  (fin/ers 
for  boring  musket-barrels,  Jfehl,  that 
tho  patent  extended  only  to  the  auger, 
and  not  to  the  method  or  peculiar  man- 
ner, as  described,  of  using  it.  Ibid., 
218. 

4.  The  oath  of  originality  of  invention 
made  by  a  patentee  at  the  time  of  his 
application  for  a  patent,  cannot  be  con- 
sidered or  accepted,  in  an  application 
for  an  injunction  for  infringing  such 
patent.  Such  motion  must  bo  accom- 
panied by  an  affidavit  that  he  then  be- 
lieves himself  to  be  such  origin.al  inven- 
tor. Sullivan  w  lleJjiekl,  1  Paine,  445. 
— TiioMPSoN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1825. 

5.  Tho  taking  of  the  oath  in  due  form 
in  au  application  for  a  p.itent,  is  not  a 


^r;;^ 


\'^sm^ 


•■^1 


-'--i^ 

■..?<* 


•.'^■M 


I 


'if*: 


WVW^ 


406 


OATH  OF  INVENTION.— OYER,  1. 


OATII;    NKCKHSITT  OK;    FORCK  01". 


,._,, 


!*-t 


M 


-?■>«<: 


comlition  prorodciit  to  tin'  v.'ilidity  of 
the  piiti'iit.  J>i/ir  V.  Jiir/i,  1  Met.,  liU. 
— SiiAW,  CIi.  .1. ;  Mass.,  1840. 

6.  The  statute  is  <Hrectory  to  the  offi- 
cer siipciiiitemlinjjf  the  issuiiiuj  of  letters 
patent,  but  is  not  a  eonditioii  to  the  va- 
lidity of  the  patent.     Ibid. 

I.  The  oatli  of  first  invention  requir- 
ed by  law  of  tlie  patentee  prior  to  the 
issue  of  a  patent,  is  in  the  ease  of  an 
acti(J!i  for  an  infringement  of  the  patent, 
and  the  jury  are  entitled  to  judge  of  its 
foree,  and  may  take  it  into  eonsidera- 
lion,  or  weigh  it  against  the  oath  of  a 
witness,  th.it  he,  such  witness,  commu- 
nieated  the  invention  to  the  patentee — 
there  is  oath  against  oath.  Aldeu  v. 
Deiceij,  1  Story,  339,  341.— Stoky,  J.; 
Mass.,  1H40. 

8.  Under  §  6  of  the  act  of  1830,  the 
oath  recjuirc'd  in  an  ai)plication  for  a 
patent  cannot  be  taken  before  a  consul. 
Nor  can  the  "declaration,"  admitted 
imder  the  English  patent  act,  be  sub- 
stituted in  place  of  the  oath.  Anon. 
3  Oj)!!!.,  532. — Gilpin,  Atty.  Gen., 
1840. 

9.  The  oath  of  the  patentee  is  to  be 
considered  as  extending  to  all  the  sched- 
ule or  specification,  no  less  than  the  title 
of  his  invention.  Hogg  v.  Emerson,  6 
How.,  482. — WOODBUKY,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1847. 

10.  The  oath,  forming  a  part  of  the 
letters  patent,  is  in  evidence  to  the  jury, 
and  forms  a  legal  ground  for  the  pre- 
sumption of  the  novelty  and  originality 
of  the  patentee's  claim,  until  the  con- 
trary is  proved.  Parker  v.  Stiles,  5 
McLean,  60. — Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1849. 

II.  Under  §  7  of  the  act  of  1836,  an 
applicant  is  required  to  make  oath  anew 
only  when  he  persists  in  his  application, 
after  having  been  informed  of  the  errors 
or  defects  of  his  specification.     This 


happens    before  his  chiini   is   rcjccioil 
Crookcr,    Kit   jxirte   {l*ri)j»ll,r),   Ms. 
(.\pp  Cas.)— CuANcii,   Ch.  J.;    J).  ^■ 
1850. 

12.  Where  the  application  is  liiially 
rejected,  though  upon  a  first  i'.\:iiiiiii:i. 
tion,  no  new  oath  i.s  necessary  to  eiml)!,. 
n  party  to  appeal  to  the  judges  of  the 
Circuit  Court  of  the  District  of  Coliuii. 
bia.     Ibid. 

13.  There  is  no  act  that  requires  tlir 
jtirat  to  an  application  for  a  patent  to 

bo  dated.     JR'enc'h  v.  lingers,  313,— 
Gkiku,  Kank,  JJ.  ;  Pa.,  1851. 

14.  The  oath  of  an  ajjplicant  to  lii-, 
application,  though  not  in  itself  snip. 
icnt,  is  some  evidence  of  the  n(jveltv, 
invention,  and  usefulness  of  the  tliiiii.' 
for  which  patent  is  sought.  Fi/ltz,  Ex 
parte,  IMS.  (App,  Cas.)— Moi{si;i.i,,  J.; 
1).  C,  1853. 

15.  A  patent  issued,  grounded  on  tlio 
oath  of  the  patentee,  is  prinia  facie 
evidence,  in  an  action  of  infringonient 
of  such  patent.     Ibid. 

16.  The  oath  accompanying  an  appl! 
cation  for  a  patent  is  evidence  on  a  trial 
of  n  prima  facie  character,  and  is  the 
foundation  of  the  otiusjyrobandi  thrown 
upon  the  defendant.  Seeley,  Ex  }xt)% 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— M0K.SEL1,,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1853. 

17.  The  oath  of  the  inventor  accom- 
panying his  application  for  a  patent  is 
to  be  considered  as  extending  to  all  i\<i- 
scribed  in  the  specification.  Jung  v. 
Gedney,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moksell,  J.; 
D.  C,  1856. 


OYER  AND  PROFERT. 


See  Pleading,  C. 


;W.^. 


if  iulViiigemL'iit 


PAUTIKS.— PARTNERS.— PATENTS. 


40? 


PARTKRHIIIP  IK  I'ATKNTS ;    WHAT  CON8TITUTK8. 


PARTIES. 

Parties  to  Actions. 
See  Actions,  B.  3 ;  Equity,  B.  2. 

Pahties,  Declamations  of. 
See  Evidence,  D. 

Parties,  Examination  of. 
See  Evidence,  G.  I,  b.  3. 


PARTNERSHIP  IN  PATENTS. 

1.  A  joint  interest  in  a  patent,  does 
not  make  the  parties  partners ;  some 
agreement  is  therefore  necessary  to  ena- 
ble such  parties  to  work  the  invention 
at  their  joint  expense,  and  for  their 
joint  benefit.  Parkhurst  v.  Kinsman, 
1  Blatchf.,  496.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1849. 

2.  The  assignment  of  all  interest  in 
a  patent  by  one  joint  owner,  is  a  disso- 
lution of  a  partnershin  for  working  it. 
Ibid.,  498. 

3.  One  partner  in  the  manufacture 
and  sale  of  a  patented  article,  cannot 
acquire,  as  assignee,  an  outstanding 
right  or  claim  of  a  third  person,  as  an 
inventor  of  the  same  thing,  and  set  it 
up  against  his  joint  partner,  and  partic- 
ularly if  he  entered  into  such  partner- 
sliip  with  a  knowledge  of  such  alleged 
title.  Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst,  18  How., 
291.— Curtis,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1855. 

4.  The  relatiop  of  copartners  be- 
tween joint  patentees  does  not  result 

from  their  connection  as  joint  patentees, 
32 


or  betvr'cen  one  of  two  joint  i)atciitocs 
and  the  assignee  ol  ♦.Ise  other.  Tlio 
parties  are  simply  joint  owners  or  ton- 
ants  in  common,  of  the  rights  ami  prop- 
erty scoured  by  the  patent;  and  their 
rights,  powers,  and  duties  as  respcct» 
f^ach  oilier  are  substantially  those  of 
the  joint  owners  of  a  chiittel.  Pitt.tv. 
llaU,\\  Ulatchf.,  iiOO.— Hall,  J. ;  N.Y., 
1854. 

5.  One  joint  owner  of  a  patent  can 
legally  grant,  assign,  license,  or  sell,  only 
in  respect  to  his  own  share  or  right ;  ho 
cannot  sell  and  give  good  title  to  his 
co-owner's  right ;  and  if  he  appropriates 
any  portion  of  the  exclusive  right  or 
common  property  to  his  separate  use  or 
benefit,  either  by  a  sale  or  use  of  the 
patented  machine,  it  is  in  principle  the 
same  as  a  conversion,  by  destruction  or 
sale,  of  the  joint  property  by  a  tenant 
in  common,  and  for  which  the  other 
tenant  in  common  could  maintain  trover. 
Ibid.,  20Y,  208. 


PATENTS. 

A.    SuBJKCT  Matthr  op 498 

H.  Right  to,  how  lost  or  forfeitfd  . .  438 

C  Grant,  OR  Issue  or;  by  and  ro  whom  49S 

D.  "What  granted  oa  secured  by. 

1.  General  Nature  of  the  Grant 49S 

2.  Whether  may  include  more  than  one  In- 
vention    501 

E.  What  embraced  in   the  "Letters 
Patent" 504 

F.  Application  for  Patont 604 

G.  Interfering  Applications 504 

fl.    Term  or;  Date  of;  when  begins  to 

RU!I   505 

T.      Territorial  Extisnt  op 50G 

K.    Name  and  Title  of 6.0G 

Ki.    Prior  and  subsequent,  for  same  In- 
vention   607 

m.   Surrender  and  Iveissue  of 50F 


4^- 


'.>-C 


'Ht*,i 


iHttl/i 


li«Mi, 


'Ww/L"^'" 


''^\ 


.^i^WWyU^M^i 


Ill 


It* 


PATICXT,  A.-D. 


'%• 


m 


!  Swift 


IK' 


'#i|g.| 


SS 


-Iff  ill 


(IKNCRAIi  NATUIlt   OP  URANT. 


W.    Renewal  and  KrrassioN'  of 608 

©.     Mistakes  IX  CouuKcnoK  or 608 

!■,      CONSTIUJCTION  OF 

1.  General  I'rincifiks  of  Consiruction. . . .  608 

2.  Prima  Facie  Authonlij  of 613 

3.  llow  far  tonsirw.d  l>y  tlm  Court 617 

4.  How  far  coMtrui'd  by  the  Jury 619 

6.  Claim  in,  Force  and  Cimslruclion  of. . .  521 

^.    "Violation  OF 626 

R.    When   void 625 

8.     Tuanufku   of 630 

A.    ScnjECT  Mattkk  of. 

Soo  Art;  Colobahle  Alterations; 
CoMiuNATioN,  A. ;  Composition'  of 
3Iatti:i{,  A.;  Discovei'.y  ;  Doithlk  Use  ; 

Ei'I'ECT;    KcillVALENT;    Exi'EKIMENTS; 

Form;  iMTKOVEMENTS,  A.;  Intent; 
Invention,  A. ;  Machines,  A. ;  Man- 
UFAcri'uuE,  ARTICLE  OP ;  31aterial  ; 
Medicine;  ^Mechanic,  skill  of  ;  ]\Iode, 
Method,  or  Process;  Xew  Applica- 
tion ;  I'rinciple  ;  Process  ;  Purpose; 
Suggestions  ;  Theory. 

As  to  wlicn  an  invention  is  reduced 
to  practice,  so  as  to  be  patentable,  see 
Invention,  B. 

As  to  tlie  necessary  novelty  and  util- 
ity of  a  patentable  subject,  see  Inven- 
tion, D. 

D.    Right  to,  how  lost  ok  forfeit- 
ed. 

See  titles  Abandonment,  B.  ;  Ap- 
plication for  Patent,  A.;  Prior 
USE  BY  Inventor. 

See  also  in  connection  herewith. 
Prior  Knoavledge  or  Invention. 

C    Grant  or  Issue  of;  by  and  to 
Whom. 

See  Application,  B.  ;  Introducer  ; 
IirvENTOB,  A.,  B. ;  Joint  Inventor. 
See  also  Invention,  D. 


D.    What  c  ranted  oe  secuiied  bv 

1.   General  Nature  of  the  Grant. 

As  to  construction  of  Patents,  oee 
Patent,  P. 

1.  Tlio  general  law  declares  that  fhe 
right  to  a  iiateiit  belongs  to  lilm  who  is 
the  first  iiiv 'iitoi,  even  before  a  iiatcnt 
is  granted;  therefore  any  perf^on,  who 
knowing  that  another  is  the  lirst  inven- 
tor, yet  doubting  whether  that  person 
will  ever  apply  for  a  patent,  jiroceiMlsto 
construct  a  machine  so  invcntc"!  by  an- 
other, acts  at  his  peril,  and  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  law,  that  a  snljse- 
cpient  patent  may  cut  him  out  of  the 
use  of  the  machine  thus  erected.  Erans 
V.  Wiess^  2  Wash.,  345. — Wasuixc-ton, 
J.;  P.a.,  1809. 

2.  The  power  of  Congress  is  only  to 
ascertain  and  define  the  riglits  of  prop- 
erty  in  the  invention  or  work ;  it  dots 
not  extend  to  regulating  the  use  of  it, 
This  is  exclusively  of  local  cognizance. 
Such  property,  like  every  other  species 
of  property,  must  be  used  and  enjoyed 
within  each  state  according  to  the  laws 
of  such  state.  Livingston  v.  Yun  In- 
gen,  9  John.,  581. — Kent,  Ch.  J.;  X. 
Y.,  1812. 

3.  The  constitution  and  the  law  to- 
gether give  to  the  inventor,  from  the 
moment  of  discovery,  an  inchoate  proi> 
erty  therein,  which  is  completed  by 
suing  out  a  patent.  This  inchoate  right 
is  exclusive.  It  can  be  invaded  or  im- 
paired by  no  person,  and  no  right  can 
be  acquired  in  it  without  the  consent 
of  the  inventor.  Evans  v.  Jordan,  1 
Brock.,  252. — Marshall,  Ch.  J.;  Va., 
1813. 

4.  A  patent  is  a  bargain  with  the  pub- 


"-w^ 


PATKNT,  D.  1. 


400 


I  HKOUnED  BY 

'  the  Grant. 
)f  Patents,  see 


jclaroa  that  the 
s  to  him  who  is 
before  ti  \\[\\m 
ny  perfon,  who, 
\  the  lirst  invcii- 
Llicr  thiit  porsnn 
Lent,  proceeds  tn 
invente'l  hy  an- 
and  with  i\  full 
,   that  a  snhse- 
Viim  out  of  tlie 
orcotcd.  Heans 
. — WAsmxcrro}!, 

igrcss  is  only  to 
rights  of  pop- 
r  work ;  it  does 

Injx  the  use  of  it. 

local  cognizance, 
ry  other  species 

used  and  enjoyed 
ding  to  tlie  laws 
ston  V.  Van  In- 
ENT,  Ch.  J.;  X. 

I  and  the  law  to- 
v^entor,  from  the 
Ln  inchoate  proi> 
completed  by 
Ills  inchoate  right 
le  invaded  or  inv 
Ind  no  right  can 
Ihout  the  consent 
\ns  V.  Jordan,  1 
LL,Ch.  J.;Va, 

lain  with  the  pub- 


OESKIUL   NATrUE  or   GRANT. 


lie  in  whi<'h  tlie  snino  rules  of  good 
fiiitli  prevail  as  in  other  contnK'ts.  W'/u'f- 
„(.)/ V.  Eihin'tt,  Haklwin,  ;tl9. — Bam)- 

wiN,J.;  Pa-,  1H'*|1- 

5.  If  a  patent  is  valid,  it  gives  to  the 
patentee  a  riglit  of  property  in  the  thing 
patented,  which  is  entitled  to  full  pro- 
tection in  the  courts.     Ibid.,  322. 

6.  The  fact  that  a  party  has  a  patent 
friving  him  the  exclusive  rigiit  to  make, 
U!io  and  sell,  aparticui'ir  medicine,  docs 
not  confer  upon  i»im  the  right  to  practise 
as  a  physician,  and  use  such  medicine  in 
anv  i)articular  state,  except  in  conform- 
ity with  the  laws  of  such  state.  Junlau 
V.  Ooeneers  of  Poor,  4  Ohio,  310. — 
LvxK,  J.;  Ohio,  1831. 

7.  A  party  has  not  necessarily  a  right 
to  nse  an  invention  in  any  state,  merely 
because  he  has  a  patent  for  it  under  the 
United  States.  Vannani  v.  Paine,  1 
Harrington,  68. — RoniNsox,  J. ;  Del., 
18.33. 

8.  Where  V.  had  a  patent  for  a  plan 
for  constructing  and  drawing  lotteries, 
and  had  obtained  a  patent  therefor,  but 
there  was  a  state  law  prohibiting  lot- 
teiios,  except  under  certain  conditions, 
which  the  plaintiff  and  his  associates 
had  not  complied  with,  Held,  that  V. 
was  not  entitled  to  any  relief  by  way 
of  injunction  or  otherwise,  for  any  al- 
leged use  of  his  invention  in  the  state. 
Ibid,  69. 

9.  From  an  examination  of  tlie  various 
provisions  of  the  patent  law,  it  clearly 
iippears  th.at  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
legislature,  by  a  compliance  with  the 
requisites  of  the  law,  to  vest  an  exclu- 
sive right  in  the  inventor  only — and  that 
on  condition  that  his  invention  was 
neither  known  nor  used  by  the  public 
before  his  application  for  a  patent.  Shaw 
v.  Cooper,  1  Pet.,  319. — McLeax,  J,; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 


10.  Every  discoverer  should  realize 
ihe  benefits  resulting  from  his  discovery 
for  the  period  contemplated  by  law. 
Hut  f  fieso  can  only  be  secured  by  a  sub- 
Hlatithil  compliance  with  every  legal 
requisite.  His  exclusive  right  does  not 
rest  alone  upon  his  discovery,  but  also 
upon  the  legal  sanctions  whi(  h  have 
been  given  to  it,  and  the  forms  of  law 
with  which  it  has  been  clothed.  I/nd., 
320. 

11.  A  patent  authorizing  the  paten- 
tee to  make,  construct,  and  use  a  newly 
discovered  compound  of  medicine,  gives 
such  patentee  no  right  to  practise  as  a 
physician,  even  though  only  administer- 
ing such  medicine,  without  complying 
with  the  regulations  established  by  the 
laws  of  any  state.  2Viomp.^on  v.  Stuats, 
15  Wend.,  305. — Nelsox,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1836. 

12.  The  right  secured  to  the  ii.v^entor 
is  founded  on  considerations  of  public 
policy,  and  is  not  to  be  destroyed  by 
open  infraction,  or  mere  colorable  im- 
provements. Smith  v.  Pearce,  2  j\Ic- 
Le.in,  178. — McLeax,  J, ;  Ohio,  1840. 

13.  The  exclusive  grant  of  a  patent 
is  the  construction  and  use  of  the  thing 
patented.  Boyd  v.  Brown,  3  McLean, 
297.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1843. 

14.  Where  the  right  was  in  certain 
instruments  to  make  a  particular  kind  of 
bedstead,  the  exclusive  right  of  making, 
using,  and  selling  such  instruments  is 
that  which  is  secured,  and  not  the  bed- 
stead, which  is  the  product.  Ibid., 
297. 

15.  The  subject  matter  of  a  patent 
is  not  partible  except  in  respect  to  ter- 
ritorial assignments,  Suydam  v.  Day, 
2  Blatchf.,  23.— Nelsox,  Beits,  JJ.  ; 
N.  Y.,  1846. 

16.  At  common  law  an  inventor  has 
no  exclusive  right  to  make  and  vend  his 


^*"vw« 


'■"-  ^'^^k^^wM 


500 


PATENT,  1).  1. 


OBNIRAL  NATURE  OF  OUAifT. 


'%#' 


f^.'' 


I'* 


m 


z 


■M.. 


?V 


■i'v-,,  '.'la.-"'* 


l^k 


tS' 


%. 


invciitiitn,  iiftor  ho  l^as  itiilillsho'l  it  to 
till!  worltl.  Such  I'xchisivi!  ri;^ht  is  thf 
creature  of  tlio  wtiitutc,  wiii.h  also  j)ri'- 
Hcrilu'H  the  roiiu'dy  fur  its  vioiution. 
Dntlh  y  V.  Mnyhfie^  .1  Coins.,  13-17. — 
Snto.\(i,  J.;  N.  V.,  18 H). 

17.  An  oxchisivo  right  in  ft  composi- 
tion of  ninttcr,  as  a  inolioino,  can  only 
1)0  obtained  under  the  patent  law  by  a 
compliance  with  its  provisions.  Coffccn 
V.  lirioiton^  4  McLean,  517. — McLkan, 
J.;  Ind.,  1810. 

18.  A  patent-right  is  insuscepliblo  of 
loci'.I  subdivision.  As  a  privilege  or 
monopoly,  it  is  an  entire  thing,  and  in- 
capable of  apportionment.  BLtnchard 
V.  Eldruhje^  1  Wall.,  Jr.,  339.— (Jriku, 
J.;  Pa.,  18  0. 

19.  The  monopoly  is  capable  of  sub- 
division in  the  category  of  its  locality, 
nnd  in  no  other  way.  The  patentee 
cannot  carve  out  his  monopoly,  which 
is  a  unity,  into  a  hundred  or  more,  all 
acting  in  the  same  place,  and  liable  to 
come  in  conflict.     Ibid.,  340. 

20.  The  contract  of  the  public  is 
not  with  him  who  has  discovered,  but 
him  who  also  makes  his  discovery  use- 
fully known.  If  he  has  discovered 
much  and  discloses  little,  communicates 
to  the  world  only  one  or  more  of  the 
derivative  and  secondary  truths  of  the 
principle  he  has  discovered,  he  patents 
no  more  than  he  has  proclaimed.  Det- 
mold  v.  Heevcs,  4  Amer.  Law  Jour.,  N". 
S.,  189.— Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1851. 

21.  He  will  not  b«  allowed  afterward, 
when  the  extent  of  his  right  shall  be 
the  subject  of  ci>^ntroversy,  to  expand 
into  a  general  expression  what  was  be- 
fore limited  in  a  particular  form,  and 
argue  that  he  had  described  the  whole 
by  implication  from  the  first.  Ibid., 
189. 

22.  It  is  for  the  parts  claimed  as  the 


Invention  of  the  patentee,  and  as  sii,.|, 
particulaiiy  pointed  out,  that  ihf  |,:ii. 
ent  issues.  It  ov'ers  no  more;  and  uu! 
patentee  is  not  boinid  to  prove  thcori". 
inality  of  what  is  not  iti  it  to  make  ii  .j 
protection  for  what  is  in  ii.  J/n/i;,/,,,, 
v.  llhecm,  18  Peim.,  4(30.— IJla(  k,  Ch. 
J.;  Pa.;  1852. 

23.  Whether  a  patented  discovery  is 
partible  in  its  nature  so  as  to  enable  tin. 
patentee  to  make  separate  grants  of  the 
various  particulars  included  in  h^qwnj. 
Hitter  V,  Serrell,  2  Blatchf.,  a83.— . 
Ueits,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

24.  It  is  a  reason.'iblo  presumption 
that  the  intention  of  the  inventor  was 
to  obtain,  and  of  the  governnioiit  to 
concede  to  him  the  exclusive  richt  of 
what  he  had  invented.  ICittli;  v.  JAr. 
riam,  2  Curt.,  479. — Curtis,  J.;  Mass., 
1855. 

25.  The  Commissio!ier  of  Patents  in 
issuing  letters  patent  does  not  warrant 
the  same,  nor  does  the  patent  bind  the 
government  more  than  it  does  private 
persons ;  but  the  validity  of  such  pat- 
ent is  open  to  inquiry,  either  in  whole 
or  in  part,  whether  at  the  instance  of 
private  persons  or  of  the  governmeut. 
A  patent  does  not  conclude  any  body. 
Mortoti'a  Ance-^thetic  Patent,  8  Opb., 
270.— CusiiiNG,  Atty.  Gen. ;  1850. 

26.  A  patent  when  granted  becomes 
to  a  certain  extent  a  contract  on  the 
part  of  the  government  with  the  pat- 
entee, that  they  will,  through  their 
courts,  and  in  the  ordinary  course  of 
the  administration  of  justice,  protect 
hira  in  the  exercise  of  the  exclusive 
privileges  which  his  patent  gives  him. 
JRansom  v.  Mai/or,  die,  of  New  York. 
MS.— Hall,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

27.  A  patent  is  a  compact — an  execu- 
tory contract — rather  than  a  deed  of 
property.    Its  vitality  consists  in  the 


.L 


^^  ««► 


PATENT,  D.  2. 


601 


Wll 


MAY   IXCLDPB   liORB  THAN   ONiB  INTKNTIUN. 


tiiiikiiit;  f^nod  by  tlio  iHitontco  of  cer- 
tain provisions  which  arc  of  ihc  char- 
acter of  conditiot's  Hiibscquciit,  as  tliat 
ho  is  tlio  fi'"'^'  inventor  ;  that  the  inven- 
tion is  useful ;  and  that  tliere  is  a  suffi- 
cifiit  description  and  representation  of 
it  in  the  specification  and  drawinj^s. 
Smith  V.  Higgina,  MS.— IJetts,  J. ;  N. 

Y.,  1857. 

i!8.  A  patent  may  })o  considered  in 
tlie  light  of  a  deed  from  the  govern- 
ment, and  the  patentee  iH  bound  to  com- 
municate his  invention  in  so  full  and 
clciir  a  iianner  that  it  shall  bo  within 
the  comprehension  of  the  public  at  the 
(Xiiiration  of  the  term.  The  exclusive 
luivilcgo  granted  by  a  patent  is  not 
merely  as  the  reward  of  genius,  and 
for  the  cMi'ouragemcnt  of  useful  inven- 
tions and  improvements  \\\  arts  and 
raiinnfactures,  but  also  embraces  the 
imblic  benetit.  Page  v.  Ferry^  MS.— 
WiMCiNS,  J.;  Mich.,  1857. 

29.  The  limited  and  teniporary  mo- 
nopoly granted  to  inventors  was  never 
designed  for  their  exclnsive  profit  or 
iulvantage  ;  the  bcus-fit  to  the  i)ub!ic  or 
community  at  large  was  another  and 
doubtless  the  primary  object  in  grant- 
iiig  and  securing  that  monopoly.  Ken- 
dall V.  Winsor,  21  How.,  327,  328.— 
Daxiel,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 

30.  This  was  at  once  the  equivalent 
given  by  the  public  for  benefits  bestow- 
ed by  the  genius,  and  meditations,  and 
skill  of  individuals,  and  the  incentive  to 
further  efforts  for  the  same  important 
objects.    Ibid.,  328. 

31.  Letters  patent  issue  subject  to  all 
legal  objections  that  may  be  brought 
against  them.  Shreeve  v.  United  States, 
MS.— LoRiNG,  J. ;  Ct.  Claims,  1859. 

32.  An  inventor  has  no  legal  rights 
or  immunities  under  a  patent,  except 
puch  as  are  conferred  by  the  statute. 


With  whatever  solemnity  or  observ- 
ance of  legal  form  it  may  have  issued, 
if  wanting  in  any  substantial  statutory 
recpiisito  it  is  a  nullity.  Mcffitt  v.  Oarr^ 
MS.— Lkaviit,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

.13.  A  patentee  may  hold  a  closer  mo- 
nopoly of  his  right,  or  ho  may  grant  out 
his  entire  right ;  but  ho  cannot  divide 
his  right  into  parts  and  grant  to  one 
man  the  right  to  use  it  in  its  conncctiim 
with,  or  application  to  one  thing,  and 
to  another  in  connection  with  a  diffcr- 
ent  thing,  to  such  an  exteni  as  i\\\\\  pur- 
chasers  from  any  of  those  persons  may 
not  use  the  fabric  purchased  exactly  as 
they  like;  and  if  they  please  in  viol.i- 
tion  of  what  he  has  supposed  were 
rights  not  granted  by  him.  The  ]Vash- 
ing  3fai:hine  Co..  v.  Earle,  3  Wall.,  Jr. 
— Grieu,  J. ;  X.  J.,  1801. 

34.  Goodyear,  the  patentee  of  vul- 
canized india-rubber,  might  have  pre- 
vented any  person  from  using  his  fabric 
for  any  purj)ose.  But  if  he  grants  to 
A  the  exclusive  right  to  use  it  to  make 
"  wringers"  only,  and  to  B  the  right  to 
make  "tubes"  only,  A  cannot  restrain 
C,  who  has  bought  tubes,  from  convert- 
ing them  into  wringers  by  any  i)roce88 
whatever  th.at  he,  C,  pleases.  Neither 
can  Goodyear.     Ibid. 

2.   Wfiether  may  include  more  than  one 
Invention. 

1.  Whether,  under  the  general  patent 
laws,  improvements  on  different  ma- 
chines can  be  comprehended  in  the  same 
patent,  so  as  to  give  a  right  to  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  the  several  machines  sep- 
arately, as  well  as  a  right  to  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  these  machines  in  combina- 
tion, query.  Evatis  v.  Eaton,  3  Wheat., 
500. — Marsiia-li,,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1818. 


fe^ 


002 


IWIKN  r,  I).  'J. 


WUKIllKIl   MAY   IXCI.UUie  MUIUS  THAN  UHK  IXVttHnOH. 


(I*- 


l«f! 


m 


I 


"J 


'J.  A  puti'iit  caiiiiKt  t'iul»ia<'t'  viirlous 
and  liistiiict  !"i|in)vt'iii('iitH  oi*  iiivoii- 
tidiis;  hut  ill  such  (mmo  tht*  parly  luiist 
taki'  out  Hf|»ani«i'  patents.  Noroaii  tlio 
HUiiU'  pati'iit  hi!  for  t'ai'h  oiio  of  st'vcml 
iiiachiiK's,  each  capahlu  of  n  diHliiicl 
operation,  and  for  tlieir  roinhinaticn,  to 
pnxhiee  a  eonueeted  result.  Harrett  v. 
J/a/i,  1  Mas.,  47fi.— Stouv,  J.;  Mass., 
IHIH. 

;i.  Wliere  a  plaintilt*  claims  neveml 
distinct  and  iiidepeinU'tit  iinproveineiits 
in  the  s<ntie  niachiiie,  and  procures  a 
patent  Hu*  them  in  tlie  ajfijrei^ate,  ho  is 
entitled  to  recover  aj;ainst  any  person 
who  shall  use  any  <»ne  of  the  improve- 
ments so  patentt'(l,  iiotwilhstandiiij^ 
there  has  heon  no  violatirn  of  the  ether 
improvements.  Moiuhj  v.  Vif<ke,  2  Mas., 
115,  11!).— Stokv,  J. ;  IVfass.,  1H20. 

4.  I)Ut  though  several  distinct  im- 
provements in  oiu'  machine  may  be  unit- 
ed in  one  patent,  it  docs  not  follow  that 
several  improvements  in  two  different 
maehiiies,  having  distinet  and  indepen- 
dent operations,  can  bo  so  included. 
Ibul.,U9. 

5.  Nor  can  the  same  patent  bo  for 
a  coinhhiatlon  of  different  machines, 
and  for  distinet  improvomonts  hi  each. 
Ib'uL,  119. 

6.  A  single  patoTit  cannot  embrace 
two  machines  which  are  wholly  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  and  distinct  in- 
ventions for  unconnected  objects ;  nor 
for  several  distinct  improvements  upon 
different  machines,  having  no  common 
connection  or  common  purpose.  This 
was  the  meaning  of  the  court  in  liar- 
rett  V.  Hall,  1  Mas.,  447,  and  Moody  v. 
Mske,  2  Mas.,  115.  Wycth  v.  Stone, 
1  Story,  288.— Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1840. 
''  7.  But  a  single  patent  may  be  taken 
for  several  inventions  or  improvements, 
though  each  is  a  distinct  and  indepen- 


dent iii\eiitiiin  or  improveiiient,  uinl 
capable  of  a  distinet  use  and  a|i|ili(':,. 
tion,  if  lln'y  conduce  to  tla^  acc(iiii|i|i,||. 
iii'dit  of  OIK!  and  thu  Haiiui  general  iml, 
Ihid.,  21)1,  2yj. 

H.  A  patent  may  bo  nmintainoil  for  :i 
luaehiue  combining  several  disiinct  im. 
proveiiieiits,  if  I'ach  is  tin-  iiiveiiliou  „|' 
the  patentee,  and  also  include  a  v\:j^\^i 
to  each  of  the  several  and  distinct  im. 
provements.  In  other  words,  the  iiat- 
enlee  may  in  such  a  ease  take  out  a  val- 
id patent  for  the  combination,  and  uImi 
include  therein  a  right  to  each  distinoi 
innn'ovement  sevi-rally  coiitaiiied  in  iho 
same  machine.  This  doctrine  was  main. 
tained  in  Wyith  \.  Stvnc,  I  Story,  j',)! 
(Mass.,  1840),  and  it  is  conlirnied  by  \\w 
obvious  intent  of  §  1)  of  the  act  of  18;J7, 
which  gives  to  the  i)ateutee  a  riglit  of 
action  for  the  piratical  use  of  ,'iiiy  one 
of  his  invented  improvemenls,  wliich  j^ 
distinctly  stated  in  his  patent,  allli()iii;li 
he  may  have  included  soiuetliinj^  of 
which  he  was  not  the  inventor.  I'itU 
v.  Whitman,  2  Story,  021. — Stokv,  J.; 
Me.,  1843. 

0.  The  doctrine  intimated  by  tlie 
court  in  JtJcans  v.  Uatun,  li  Wliciit., 
500  {ante  1),  whether  improvenieiit  •«  on 
different  machine;;  can  be  coinpreheinl- 
ed  in  the  same  patent,  must  be  ac'cqit- 
ed  as  put  hypothetically — as  the  spcciiil 
statute  (0  U./S.  Stat,  at  Large,  7())  fiirnisli. 
ed  a  rule  in  that  case — and  as  not  being 
laid  down  as  a  settled  principle  to  govern 
the  construction  of  specilications.  Em- 
erson v.  Hogg,  2  Blatchf.,  7.— Ikirs, 
J.;  N.Y.,  1845. 

10.  The  case  of  Barrett  v.  Hall,  1 
Mas.,  475  (ante  2),  attempts  a  general- 
ization of  the  doctrines  of  the  patent 
law ;  but  in  Moody  v.  Fiske,  2  Mas,, 
118  (rtn^e  3),  that  case  is  explained. 
Ibid.,  8. 


I'ATKN  r,  1).  2. 


i'-w\ 


WUKTIIM  MAT  INOLUUI  MOM  TUAN  ONI  INVBItTIUK. 


11.  Tilt' HUj;;;»"Hti«)nH  in  nil  tliiw  niMfH 
wm'  l»y  W"y  '^^  «'!Mlt'u»ii,  :iii(l  wore  «|r- 
niiriM'tl  (••  iivnitl  tlu'  coiit  IiiHion  I  hill,  tlu- 
couil  I»!kI  |ii«'jml;»«'(l  or  wan  fuiiiiiiitU'.l 
on  llii't  <|iu'Htioii.     /fti<f.,  8. 

12.  Ii»  1f>'/*  V.  »S'/o/»f,  I  Story,  2HH, 
tho  court  rr\it'WH  tlu'ic  t-asos,  ami  IhiMm 
tlwit  a  tiatt'Mt  lor  st'\«'ral  iiiathiiu'^,  racli 
l^.iiijriKlislinct  ami  in<lc|n'iiil((iit  iiivfii- 
tioii,  if*  valitl  wlu'rc  llicy  liavo  a  cotn- 
iiioii  |)iir|)<)s*',  i>i>'l  iK»'  auxiliary  li>  tin- 

i;i.  Tli«"  priiiciplf  him-iiis  to  !)««,  fhiit 
llic  iiivoiitious  wlioulil  1)1'  capalili'  of  bo- 
ing  used  in  onniu'clinii,  ami  to  Hiiliscrvi' 
a  coiuiiioii  omi.  Hut  their  actual  viii- 
ployiiHiit  tof,'«'tlH'r  is  not  rt'nuiri'tl  to 
Biistiiin  tho  vaiiility  of  tho  patont  in 
which  they  may  bo  nnitod.  Tho  wronj;- 
iiil  uco  of  oitlu-r  Hoparato  niachirio  is 
a  violation  of    tho   patent  pro    tunto. 

Bid.,  8. 

14.  Wlioro  IV  patent  contained  throo 
claims;  (1)  n  inodo  of  convortinfjf  the 
reciprocating  motion  of  a  piston  into  a 
continuous  rotary  motion ;  (2)  a  spiral 
propcllinLf  wheel ;  and  (a)  tho  applica- 
tion of  a  revolving  vertical  shaft  to  tho 
turning  of  a  capstan  on  tho  deck  of  a 
vessel;  and  tho  specification  showed 
that  tho  three  were  contrived  to  be 
used  conjointly  and  for  a  coniinon  end  ; 
Held,  that  they  could  bo  embraced  in 
one  patent,  and  that  the  fact  that  they 
were  capable  of  bouig  used  separately 
and  independently  of  each  other,  did 
not  prevent  them  being  bo  embraced  in 
one  patent.    Ibid.,  8. 

15.  Two  inventions  cannot  be  imitcd 
in  the  same  patent  when  they  relate  to 
two  distinct  machines.  Jioot  v.  Hall, 
4  McLean,  179,  180. — McLean,  J.; 
Ohio,  1840. 

16.  But  the  same  patent  may  include 
a  patent  for  a  combination,  and  an  in- 


\ciition  of  some  of  tin*  p.-irts  of  which 
tho  coiuliiii.'Uion  consists.       //n'lf.,  IHO. 

17.  As  a  general  rule,  two  patentH 
cannot  Im>  united  in  the  Natin'  letters. 
Hut  it  is  a  well  established  exception, 
that  patents  may  bo  uiiiteil  if  two  or 
more  inelude<l  in  onv  set  of  letters  nv 
lato  to  a  lik«'  subject,  or  are  in  their  ii;i« 
tiiro  and  operation  eomieeted  together. 
^^".7.7  V.  Kntirito/i,  «l  How.,  48.1,— 
WouDiiiuv,  J.;  Sup.  ('!.,  ist7. 

|H.  A  patent  for  more  than  one  in- 
vention is  not  voiil  if  they  are  connect- 
ed in  their  design  and  oper.ation.  Ifmjfj 
v.  A'tnri'Hon,  1!  How.,  GOO. — WooD- 
nriiv,  J.;  Siiji.  Ct.,  IwriO. 

11).  It  is  coinpotont  for  a  patentee  to 
embrace  two  improvements  on  tho  samo 
machine  in  tho  samo  patent ;  and  if  a 
person  uses  either  or  both  of  the  im- 
provements, h(^  is  an  infringer.  Morria 
V.  Jiurrett^  MS. — Lkavitt,  J.;  Ohio, 
18.')  8. 

20.  There  may  bo  a  claim  for  two  in- 
ventions in  tho  same  patent  if  tlioy  both 
relate  to  the  samo  machine  or  structure; 
and  an  action  cm  be  sustained  for  tho 
infringement  of  either  one  or  the  other 
of  these  separate  inventions,  whero 
(daimed  as  separate  and  distinct  in  their 
(diaracter.  I>ee  v.  lihiudy,  MS. — M<> 
Lkan,  Lewitt,  JJ.  ;  Ohio,  ihoo. 

21.  A  party  may  unite  as  many  im- 
provements, having  relation  to  the  samo 
thing,  in  one  patent,  as  he  pleases,  but 
he  may  make  each  improvement  tho  sub- 
ject of  a  separate  patent  «Jf  ho  chooses. 
Ilayden,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
Meuuick,  J. ;  .1).  C,  18G0. 

22.  Where  the  features  of  novelty 
are  numerous,  prudence  .suggests  that 
the  danger  of  making  a  jt.itent  too 
broad  by  uniting  questionable  with 
plainly  novel  claims  bo  avoided  by  tak- 
ing separate  patents.    Ibid. 


V 


m^ 


'*«^L 


•<-{ 


Hu. 


"^^^.^^J 


•^c?: 


I) 


..< 


*0. 


^Ws' 


m 


—.^WwtVW^' 


il 


604 


PATKNT,  K.  F.  iJ. 


WIAT  TUI  "LITTSM  PAnKT**  RUMUOI. 


ii 


4 


J. 


^"'* 


Ij.      WiI.VT     KMIIUVi  KI)    IK   TIIK   '*  LkT- 
TKKH    I'aTKNT." 

1.  Under  ^  1  of  tho  act  «»f  1700,  tlio 
ath'^titioiiH  iitnl  Nii^^ciitionM  of  tlui  peti- 
tion tniiNt  1)0  Niilistantiiilly  rocitt'tl  in  tlie 
jKitcnt.  /''r<tnn  v.  ('/idtnfurti,  'J  Waxli., 
lUO.— Washington,  J.;  Tu.,  1H07. 

2.  The  richiMliilu  is  lo  bu  coiisiiU-ri'ii 
ns  a  part  of  tho  Icilfrs  pati'iif,  no  far  an 
It.  U  (h'»('rl|ifi\«'  of  till!  iiiiichiiii'rt,  l»iil  n(t 
farthiT.  f'Jratm  v.  /'Jiito/i,  iV-t.  C.  C, 
3tl.— WAsiiiNtiTON,  J. ;  I'a.,  IHIO. 

n.  Mrri'ly  (h-jtcnihiiiif  in  tho  Mpcciflca- 
tion  tiiu  purls  of  a  tiiin^',  or  (ho  /Hotfim 
opri'uiii/i,  and  as  to  w  hull  no  ci  litn  is 
iiiaili',  does  not  make  such  ihin^jfs  a  part 
of  th(!  patent.  Knenasv.  Schinjl.  Ihnik, 
4  Wasli.,   14. — WAsiiiNuroN,  J.;  I'a., 

IHI'O. 

•1.  Tiiu  patent  and  HpeciHcation  are 
eonnov'tcd  tof^ether,  and  tU-pt-ndent  on 
each  other  for  support.  Tiie  specidea- 
tion  should  maintain  the  title  of  the  pat- 
out.  The  latter  shouM  not  indicate  one 
tiling  and  the  former  describe  :mother 
as  the  subject  of  tho  grant.  t*<idlir(tn 
V.  Ucdjichf,  I  Paine,  450. — Livin(Jhton, 
J.;  N.  v.,  1H25. 

6,  In  using  the  word  patent^  in  refer- 
ence to  the  description  of  the  thing 
patented,  it  is  to  bo  under.stood  as  in- 
eluding  the  patent,  the  spe<ufication  at- 
t.ached  to  it,  with  the  model  and  draw- 
ing in  tho  Patent  Oflice,  all  of  which 
aro  to  bo  taken  together.  Whitney  v. 
Emmett,  Bald.,  314. — Baldwin,  J.; 
Pa.,  18:31. 

0.  Tho  specification  constitutes  a  part 
of  tho  letters  patent.  Pitts  v.  Whit- 
man, 2  Story,  014. — Story,  J. ;  Me., 
1843. 

7.  The  drawing  is  a  part  of  the  pat- 
ent, and  may  be  referred  to  in  order  to 


help  out  tho  deHcriptiou.     /''iii,r.ion\ 
Iloffih  'i  HIatehf.,  0.— UriTH,  J.;  X.Y. 

IHIS. 

H.  The  drawing  fornn  a  pari  df  d,,, 
Hpocitication  of  a  patent,  an<l  ix  i.,  |,„ 
taken  with  it  in  interpreting  the  paimt 
Knli/ht  V.  Oitvity  Mir.  Pat.  OIK,  133^ 
Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  1H40. 

1>.  The  Hchediile  or  Kpecificatiiin  ^„. 
nexed  to  tho  letttTs  patent  Ih,  under  our 
laws  and  practice,  to  bo  regarded  u  a 
component  part  of  the  letters  pati!iil 
and  m.iy  Iki  referred  to  to  explain  ur 
add  tu  the  title  of  tho  patent.  lli>m\, 
Phncrson,  0  How.,  478,  482. — Woor^ 
HI  UY,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1H47. 

I  10.  Models  atxl  drawingn  aro  a  part 
,  of  the  letters  patent.     Ihitl.^  485. 

11.  Drawings  umiexed  to  a  patent 
issued  under  the  act  of  IH,")?,  form  no 
part  of  the  patent  where  no  drawing 
was    .'imiexed    to    the    original   patent. 

Wilton  V.  liailrofi'h,  2  Whart.  DIl'. 
410.— Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  184R. 

12.  Pnder  the  act  of  17».'),  tho  speci. 
(ication  was  not  necessarily  made  a  part 
«»f  tho  letters  patent,  but  the  inventur 
had  a  right,  if  he  pleas(!d,  to  advise  tlu' 
I'atent  Onice  to  incorporate  it  into  tlif 
letters  as  a  part  of  them,  hy  express 
terms  of  reference.     Jlo</i/  v.  J'Jiiiii-non, 

II  How.,   004. — WOODBUUV,  J.;  iSiip. 
Ot.,  iH.'iO. 

1 3.  The  specification,  when  thus  vol- 
untarily  annexed,  bocimo  a  part  of  the 
patent  by  general  princijdes,  as  clearly 
as  it  does  since  by  the  words  of  the  law. 
Ibid.,  005. 

F.    Patent,  Application  for. 
See  Appucation  fok  1'atent. 

©,    Interfkbing  Applications. 
See  Interferences. 


i5 


r.VTKKT,  II. 


605 


TliMM  or;  luTR  or;  wiikx  »mns»  to  ki'N. 


Briptlon.     EnxfTMn  V, 
0.— UriTH,  J.;  N.Y., 

H  jorm«  11  jiiirl  of  tho 
\  |iatt>iil,  mill  i«  to  lit) 
ntcrpri't'm;:  tin-  |.!ittiit, 
,  Mir.  I'ul.  Oil'.,  l;i;i.- 
iH40. 

ilo  or  Bpcirtctitiiiii  an. 
(TH  ]iiit*>iit  is,  \iiuli'roiir 
i«,  to  l>«»  rf;;anli'i|  its  ;\ 
of  tho  li'ttcrs  |.!Uiiit, 
i^rrtul  to  to  cxpliiiii  or 
)f  tliH  piitcnt.  Ifi'ijg  V. 
»w.,  47H,  4«2.— Wooi>. 
Ct.,  1H47. 

lul  (lriiwii»j»H  fti-o  a  part 
itiiiit.     IhitL,  485. 
I  luitifxml  to   a  patent 
ic  act  of  1h;17,  form  no 
icwi  where  iio  iliawing 
to    tho   ori^iiKil   patent. 
ilroc'h,  2  Wliurt.  Dig., 
;  I'ii.,  IHtH. 
i«  act  of  1703,  tlioKpt'oi- 
ncccsHivrily  made  a  part 
itont,  but  till!  invontor 
10  ploascd,  to  ailvisi.'  tlif 
ini'orporali'  it  into  llie 
t  of  tluitii,  by  t'Xprojts 
ic'o.     Jf<></!/  V.  J'JunrsDii, 
-WoouBunv,  J. ;  Sui-, 

[fication,  when  thus  vol- 
1,  bccaino  a  part  of  tlic 
al  j)riiu-iples,  as  clearly 
jy  the  words  of  the  law. 


Application  fob. 
ION  FOE  Patent. 

SUING  Applications. 
Lences. 


II.    Tkkm   ok;  Datk  OV,    WUKN   UK* 

UlSM  TO  Ul  N. 

A*  to  extuniiion  of  torm,  sco  Ex ticm- 
gio!»  or  PATwrr. 

1.  A  pat  flit  may  be  iHHUed  for  n  less 
tiTin  of  yearn  than  loiirt«'i'ii.  T\w  re- 
(itiii'lioii  if*  on  tlu^  majrinium  only,  not 
on  the  tnhiimnm,  SiiUhmn^H  Ctiti'^ 
Opiii.  Atty.  (ien.,  lOH,  (iilplnn'  Kdit.— 
WiuT,  Atty.  (Jen.;  IHIH. 

'j.  Where  two  patents  are  iHsurd  to 
till'  i<aiiie  person,  but  «)n  ditVereiit  Hpeei- 
ficatioiis,  their  <lates  should  conform  to 
the  times  of  the  two  .applications.  It 
i-t  illegal  to  anledatt^  the  last  patent  to 
the  time  of  the  first  application,  as  it 
niiu'lit  overreach  iiiterincdiale  iinprov*'- 
nii'iits  inado  by  others.  JilnncloinVH 
CW,  5  Opin.,  722.— WiUT,  Atty.  Gen.; 
IS'20. 

;t.  The  date  of  a  jiatent  jiiay  be  al- 
tcrt'd  to  correspond  with  that  of  a  for- 
lii,'!!  patent  previously  taken  out  by  the 
inventor,  Mhere  the  mistake  has  not 
arisen  from  any  fraudulent  or  deceptive 
intention.  Jktmold's  Case,  4  Opin., 
y;t5.— Nelson,  Atty.  Gen.;  1H44. 

4.  Under  g  0  of  the  act  of  IH.'IO,  if  a 
party  apply  for  and  obtain  a  patent  for  an 
invention,  for  which  he  has  previously 
ol)taiiied  a  foreign  patent,  his  home  jiat- 
eiit  must  he  limited  to  fourteen  years 
from  the  date  of  such  foreign  patent. 
Smit/i\,  Ehj^ 5  3IcLeaii,  78. — McLean, 
J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

5.  If  such  domestic  patent  purports 
to  give  an  exclusive  right  for  fourteen 
years  from  its  date,  instead  of  from  the 
date  of  the  foreign  patent,  such  patent 
IS  void,  as  issued  in  violation  of  law. 
Ibul^  79.     [But  ^Qcpost  10.] 

6.  The  limitation  of  the    exclusive 


right,  U  a  mntcrini  part  of  the  patent, 
and  must  be  truly  Htated.     Ihitl..  ho. 

7.  Hut  the  error  \*  not  fatal  to  tho* 
rights  of  the  pt.t(>ntee,  and  may  be  cor- 
ri-cted  on  application  to  the  Patent  Of* 
rtce.      I  hid.,  HO. 

8.  The  provisions  of  g  8  of  the  net  of 
I  HMO,  and  of  g  0  of  the  act  of  I8:il),  iih 
to  the  obtaining  of  patent*,  at'tcr  for- 
eign patents  have  been  secured,  and  an 
to  the  date  of  the  home  patent,  in  such 
ease,  relateH  only  to  hiicIi  patentH  as  uro 
iipplUil  for  here  offer  the  issue  of  the 
foreign  p.alent.  J'Wufh  v.  /int/cm,  .MS. 
— (JitiKK,  Kank,  J.F.;  Pa.,  IH.'il. 

1).  Where  therefore  an  application  for 
a  patent  for  an  invention  watt  made  in 
April,  IHMH,  and  acted  on  in  that  moiitli, 
but  ;i  Mateiit  was  not  actually  issued  un- 
til .luiie  20,  IH40,  at  which  time  it  waH 
dated,  and  a  foreign  patent  was  (d)t alli- 
ed in  August,  18;iH.  //(7(/,  as  the  !ip- 
plication  here  was  before  the  foreign 
patent,  that  the  grant  of  the  patent  hero 
was  under  the  general  enactments  of 
the  law  of  1h;J0,  and  its  term  runs  prop- 
erly from  its  date.     Ibid. 

10.  A  patent  is  not  void  because,  on 
its  face,  it  does  not  bear  t!ie  same  date 
with  a  previous  foreign  patent,  taken 
out  by  the  patentee  for  the  same  inven- 
tion ;  the  monopoly  however  is  limited 
to  fourteen  years  from  the  (bite  of  the 
foreign  patent.  O'lleilly  v.  Morse,  15 
How.,  112.— Taney,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1853. 

11.  When  a  patent  has  expired,  what- 
ever of  invention  it  contained  belongs 
to  the  ])ublic,  and  may  be  used  by  any 
one.  McCormick  v.  JUaimi/,  4  Amer. 
Law  Reg.,  280.— McLean,  J. ;  III.,  1855. 

12.  A  j)atentee,  under  §  5  of  the  act 
of  1830,  is  not  obliged  to  claim  the 
whole  fourteen  years.  lie  may  waive 
his  claim  to  a  part  of  the  term  in  favor 


4-; 


^•V^ 


"^'^■w-iu^ 


ton 


J'ATKN T,  I    K 


'■**; 


*• 


••'V 


■.\- 


I 


uU. 


'*#WW'^ 


TMUUTOMAIi  U1MT  Of. 


■Am  AHI>  TITU  ur. 


•li'  tliM  pitblif,  Ity  luitt'iltttiii)^  it ;  or  hi' 
mil}-  tiiko  u  |>iili'iil  tt>r  u  tvriii  Ickh  ilmii 
liMirtct-M  }i>iiim;  or  )w  iiiiiy  Hiu'k  |)i'i)lit'- 
tiiMi  n({iiiiiMt    MtniiiKi'i'M,  i'or  mIk  iiiontliM 

|»l'«'Viulllt  to  lllt>  INMIIO,  it*  ill  llllll    lilllll  lit* 

]\M  tiitiilt'  n|)|>li('iitioti  iiihI  Im  M«'<'kiii)(  ill 
^ood  likilli  itihl  ^^  itii  r«':if«<)iml)lt>  ilili^tnct* 
to  luTf'i'fl  lii«t  Hin'iillfulioiiH.    Cunhmiin, 
W.  M.  r.,  /vtf-yw/-/,,  MS.  (ApiKCuM.) 
DtNLor,  J.;  I).  C,  1858. 

I*    TKidtnnutAi.  KxiKNT  or. 

I.  Tli«>  };raiil  of  tlu>  oxuluHivu  ri).{lit 
coiir»Triil  h}'  U'ttcm  piitvnt,  iiiflii»lr«» 
evi'ry  umo  of  tlii'  thiii^  |iut(>iiU'il,  liy  nil 
|ic>rHoiiM  within  tho  tfrrilory  ofthr  riiil- 
cil  Stuti's.  Iti'tiwii  V.  Dui'/imue,  iJ  Curt., 
371.— Cnnis,  J.;  Ma^s.,  IH.'>5. 

Q.  Siirh  j^ruiil  h«)wuver,  anil  thf  I'x- 
ohlMivo  rij;htH  cotilbrml  by  it,  aro  cri'u- 
ttirvH  of  the  iiiiiiru'ipitl  law  of  tho  coun- 
try;  luitl  iiowi'viT  finnju't'honsivo  ar*- 
itit  terniN,  I'luinot  bu  cuiiNtruod  to  in* 
duilo  I'itlier  jK-rHoiiH  or  thiii^^H,  not  wilh- 
iu  till'  jurisdii-tiuii  uf  tho  patent  hiWH. 
I/)l(f.,  .'ITI. 

;).  Whi'ro  a  vchhcI  was  built  and  rijj- 
gotl  in  Fruneo,  and  hail  in  umu  };atVH 
which  had  boon  patontcd  in  tho  Uiiilod 
Stall's,  //(/(/,  as  tho  ^alFs  woro  plaood 
on  thu  vosHol  whon  sho  was  built,  and 
UH  part  of  hor  origip  '.  otiuipiiiont,  in  a 
foreign  country,  by  y\'  soim  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  >i<\'.-  patont  laws,  that 
such  uso  was  not  within  tho  application 
of  our  patent  laws,  but  was  exempted. 
Ibid.,  375,  377. 

4.  The  patent  laws  wore  not  intended 
to  apjily  to,  and  do  not  extend  over  for- 
eign vessels  visiting  our  ports,  so  as  to 
effect  tho  structure  or  equipment  they 
bring  hither.     Ibid.,  370,  377. 

5.  Tho  power  granted  by  tho  patent 
laws  is  domestic  in  its  character,  and 
necessarily  contiued  within  the  limits  of 


llie  I'lilloil  StaJen.  The  pulont  tu'i»  ,1„ 
iiul,  ami  were  not  iiitcnded  to  oiHTatti 
bojiiiid  the  limitM  of  the  I'liiiod  Siatii 
-  and  the  patoiileo'N  right  of  pruinriv 
and  exclllMive  ime  I'Alilif.l  extend  hry.,!,,) 
tho  limilM  to  \tliioh  tho  law  ilMolf  Im  ,.„||. 
fined,  lirmrn  v.  I>uchf$nt>.,  )||  I|,,^ 
11>^.— Tankv,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  js.-Ki.  ' 
«J.  Tho  lights  of  property  imd  oxriu. 
Mivo  UNO  gniiitetl  to  n  palontoo,  dit  not 
extend  ton  foreign  venwl  lawfully  t-n. 
toriiig  our  ports  ;  and  tlm  iiMr  im  ,i,|,,|, 
vo-nol  of  an  improvoimjiit,  paloiitoil  in 
this  country,  is  not  nil  liifriii;;nii(.|ii  (,f 
tho  rights  of  an  Ainorii-an  patentee 
pro>idod  it  WU.S  placed  upon  lior  in  j 
foreign  port,  and  aulliori^etl  i)y  the  laws 
of  tho  country  to  which  hIiu  bclojjum 
Ibid.,  lOH. 

K.    Namk  and  Titi.k  cr, 

1.  An  inventor  has  a  right  to  call  liii 
inv.iition  or  patented  ariicle  what  lie 
pIoMHos,  provideil  he  do  not  asNuiiic  an 
already  existing  and  popular  name,  to 
tlu'  prejudice  of  those  who  have  prenc. 
cupiod  the  name.  JiiwoiCt  Vme,  i 
Opin.,  1()».— WiKT,  Atty.  (Jon.;  1828. 

'J.  Where  the  inventor  of  a  newly 
patented  medicine,  do'iirod  to  yive  it  tho 
name  of  Andernon's  ('oii;//i  Jhojhi^ 
which  v^-aa  already  well  known,  tho  ).at- 
out  was  ordered  to  be  withhold  until  liu 
should  assume  for  it  another  name. 
Ibid. 

3.  The  title  or  description  given  to  nil 
invention  in  the  grant,  is  never  expect- 
ed to  bo  specific,  but  only  to  iiidicatt' 
the  nature  and  design  of  the  invention. 
The  specification  must  bo  searched  fur 
tho  exact  description  of  what  the  pat- 
entee claims.  Sickles  v.  Glou.  Mamif. 
Co.,  MS. — Griku,  J. ;  N.  J.,  1850. 

4.  A  patentee   is  not  coutrollod  by 


•^^. 


rATKM  1\  L. 


ftOT 


rWoN   ANb  ■UMRMUNNT. 


llw  till'  '^  ^^*  |nilt'iil,  Imt  \>y  iill  llii«  jiii- 
M<r«-'thi<  |>nt«>iit,  llu*  K|M>citicitliMii  uimI 

„/j«,  MS.  -I.KAvm,  .1.;  OI.it),  IHftH. 
1^,    I'uiou  aniiSluhkqukni,  you  hamk 

IliVKM'l«>X. 

I.  It  U  A  pri'f  iinplinii  iif  l:iw  tli.'il 
when  n  |i!»t»'i>t  huM  l>«'fii  nlit.iiiii'il,  t-vt-ry 
111:111  who  Niil)!««>i|iit'iitly  tiikt'M  out  II  put- 
cnt  i<»r  n  Hiiiiilnr  iiiitrliiiH>,  liii^  11  kiiowl* 
,.i|i'i'  of  tin-  |)ri't'i'«liiijx  f'lu't.  Oilinritf  V. 
Winkl'ij,  J  <»iill.,  ft'V. — SroK\ ,  J.;  MutH., 

'.*.  It  \f>  hIho  !I  prfHiiiiiptioii  of  t'lkct  that 
eviTV  niiiii,  h.iviii;;  within  his  po\\frlln> 
iiu'aiH  "I'  inl"'>iiiinli<m,  ami  (It^iroiH  of 
iiii'iiiiiij,'  to  hiiUMilf  the  l»fiu'til  of  a  pat- 
ent, will  ascertain  wlu>lhi!i'  any  oih<  on 
tlif  piil)li('  I'o'onU  huH  ai'tjiiit'cd  a  prior 
ri}?ht.     Ihid,,  T).'!. 

.!.  ,\  ijrant  of  a  Hul»st'(|iit'iit  putent  for 
an  iiivciiiion  is  an  e.stoppfl  to  tlu>  pat- 
I'litcu  to  Hct  up  any  prior  {{rant  for  i\w 
lainu  invention  which  is  inconNi.Ht*'nt 
with  tlu'  ti'rnirt  of  i\\v  last  j;rant.  linr- 
Pit  \.  //"//,  1  iMas.,  17a.— SiuKY,  J.; 

MUH.S.,   |H|H. 

4.  Wlu'ther,  when  n  patent  is  once 
(jiantcd  to  any  person  for  an  invention, 
lie  can  i«'>:;ally  luqiiire  any  rij^ht  under 
a  HiiliHiMjiU'iil  patent  for  the  same  inven- 
tion, unless  his  lirst  patent  be  repealed 
for  Hoino  original  defect,  su  that  it  might 
truly  be  said  to  be  a  void  patent ;  query. 
Ibid.,  47.J. 

5.  If  several  i)atent8  are  taken  out  by 
^  Hoveral  patentees  for  11  several  invention, 

and  the  sanjc  patentees  afterward  take 
out  a  joint  patent  for  the  same  as  u  joint 
invention,  the  parties  arc  not  absolutely 
estopped  by  the  former  patents  from  as- 
serting the  invention  to  be  joint,  but 
tho  former  patents  are  very  strong  cvi- 


dencu  a){iunMt  the  Joint  invuntloii,  /A/*/., 
474. 

U.  A  patenti'O  ennnot  have  in  u»o  At 
the  name  lime  two  valid  patent*  for  tho 
Mume  invention.  The  lirst,  while  it  re- 
maim*  unrepealed,  it  an  entopprl  of  any 
future  patent  for  the  Mnme  invention. 
Oflinrne  V.  Aimntmnj  S'uil  t''it<t,,ry^  '2 
.MaM.,  :I0,  :il.— .S^roiiv,  J.;  .Ma»s.,  1m|{». 

7.  Where  lwoparti<-s  obtained  sever- 
al patents  for  an  invention,  and  after- 
ward applied  for  and  obtained  a  joint 
patent  therefor,  llebl,  that  neither  party 
could  xel  up  the  prior  Neparate  patents, 
and  that  neither  was  estopped  by  the 
separate  |iatentH  from  asserlin;;  that  thu 
invention  wan  joint.  SUuirnr*  v.  lUtr- 
ni(,  I  Pick.,  447. — WiU)K,  J.;  MasN., 
iM2:J. 

H.  A  prittr  patent  must  b«>  ^ot  ri*l  of 
before  a  second  can  be  taken  out.  If  u 
prior  pati'iit  is  not  surr»'ndered,  repeal- 
et|,  or  tleclared  void,  it  is  a  good  ile- 
fence  to  an  action  on  the  second  patent. 
iVo/y/rt  V.  Jfuutinytun,  I  I'aine,  354. — 
Tu«)Mi'HON,  J.;  N.  Y.,  lH2t. 

l».  Xor  will  a  verdict  of  a  jury  in  an 
action  on  the  second  patent  avoid  thu 
first  one.     //>/</.,  M.'jO. 

10.  A  person  catmot  liave  two  sub- 
sisting valid  patents  at  tlu!  s:iine  tlmu 
for  the  same  invi-ntion.  Hut  where  a 
jtatentee  had  taken  out  a  patent  for  an 
orif/innl  invention,  and  upon  an  action 
for  iin  infiingement  thereof,  it  was 
proved  that  as  to  a  part  of  the  inven- 
tion he  was  not  t!ie  ^V.-^^  inventor,  and 
therefore  the  court  Indd  that  his  patent 
was  void,  as  being  too  broad,  an<l  aller- 
ward  he  took  out  iinother  patent  for 
those  parts  of  his  invention  not  known 
before,  Ildtl,  that  the  two  jiatents  wero 
not  for  the  same  iiivention.  TreachoeU  v. 
Jiladenj  4  Wash.,  700. — Wasuington, 
J.;  Pa.,  1827. 


■'■  ■  .    '■'  ^,-^>-^ 

8f?5^,^^.«fe^ 


'.WMWOw^- 


m>^^\miJ^ 


608 


PATENT,  M.-P.  1. 


OONSTKUUTION  Of,   OE.Si:nAL  PRINCIPLES  AS  TO. 


l),^Mt^ 


8^ 


11.  But  if  such  patents  were  substan- 
tially for  the  Hunio  invuntiun,  query^ 
-wiifthcr  a  diHchiinicr  of  all  title  under 
the  first  patent  to  tlio  material  parts  of 
the  invention  for  which  granted,  would 
not  operate  as  an  estoppel  to  any  reme- 
dy for  a  violation  of  that  patent.  Ibid., 

12.  If  a  person  has  obtained  a  patent 
for  a  thing  which  he  claims  to  have  in- 
vented, he  cannot  at  any  future  time 
chiim  another  patent  for  a  substantial 
part  of  the  same  thing.  Smith  v.  Ely, 
5  McLean,  88. — McLkan,  J.;  Ohio, 
1849. 

13.  A  patentee  cannot  take  out  a  sub- 
sequent patent  for  a  portion  of  his  first 
invention,  and  thereby  extend  his  mo- 
nopoly beyond  the  period  limited  by  law. 
O'ltcilly  V.  Morse,  15  How.,  114.— Ta- 
JfEY,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

14.  But  the  validity  of  a  patent  can- 
not be  impeached  upon  the  ground  that 
it  is  an  improvement  upon  a  former 
invention,  for  which  the  patentee  has 
already  obtained  a  patent.     Ibid.,  122. 

15.  No  subsequent  patent  can  take 
away  rights  secured  by  a  prior  pat- 
ent. ISicklcis  V.  Tlhston,  4  Blatchf. — In- 
OERsoLL,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

10.  Where  an  invention  is  substan- 
tially described  and  claimed  in  one  pat- 
ent, it  cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  a 
claim  in  a  subsequent  one.  Sickles  v. 
The  Falls  Co.,  4  Blatchf. — Nelson,  J.; 
Ct.,  1861. 

]fl.    SuBnEKDBB  Ain>  Reissfb  of. 
See  title  Reissub  of  Patent. 

IW*    Kenewal  and  Extension  of. 
See  title  Extension  of  Patent. 


0.  Mistakes  in  Cohruction  or. 
See  title   Mistakes  in  Patent. 

P,      CONSTBUCTION   OF. 

1.  General  Principles  of  Construction. 

See  also  Ambiguity;  Patent,  D.- 
Specification,  A. 

1.  The  patent  determines  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  thing  granted  and  He- 
cured  to  the  pater^.co,  and  the  piaiiiiifr 
can  claim  no  right  which  is  not  incliuleii 
in  the  patent,  even  though  the  patent  in 
issued  under  a  special  act  of  Congress 
and  is  not  as  broad  as  the  law  under 
which  it  was  issued.  His  right  is  under 
the  patent,  and  not  under  the  law. 
Evans  v.  Uaton,  Pet.  C.  C,  340.— 
Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  181G. 

2.  The  grant  can  only  be  for  the  dis- 
covcry  as  recited  in  the  patent  and  spec- 
ification.   Ibid.,  342. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  patents  may  truly 
be  said  to  constitute  the  metaphysics 
of  the  law.  The  diflSculty  lies,  not  so 
much  in  the  general  principles,  as  in  the 
minute  and  subtle  distinctions  which 
arise  occasionally  in  the  application  of 
those  principles.  Sarrett  v.  JIaU,  1 
Mas.,  472. — Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1818. 

4.  Tliough  the  construction  of  the 
patent  must  certainly  depend  on  the 
words  of  the  instrument,  where  the 
words  are  ambiguous,  there  may  be  cir. 
cumstances  which  ought  to  have  great 
influence  in  expounding  them.  The  in- 
tention of  the  parties,  if  that  intention 
can  be  collected  from  sources  which  the 
principles  of  law  permit  us  to  explore, 
are  entitled  to  great  consideration. 
Therefore  a  special  act  may  be  referred 


PATENT,  P.  1. 


80» 


0ON8THU0TION  Or ;    OENIBAL  PRINOIFLKS  AS  TO. 


as  woU  iis  tlio  piitentcc's  petition, 
jj„,l„ueli;icoii^(trm-ti(>n  should  1»««  given 
totlie  grant  as  will  make  it,  with  .such 
documents  forming  a  part  of  it,  not  con- 
traJictory  with  itself.  Eocms  v.  Eaton, 
3  Wheat.,  500,  512. — Maushall,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 

5.  The  patent  and  specification  are 
connoeted  together  and  dependent  upon 
each  other  for  support.  The  specifica- 
tioii  should  maintain  the  title  of  the  pat- 
ent •  the  latter  should  not  indicate  one 
thing,  and  the  former  describe  another, 
as  the  subject  of  the  grant.  Sullivan 
V.  liedjlehl,  1  Paine,  450.— Tiiompson, 
J.jN.Y.,  1825. 

C.  In  deciding  on  the  sufficiency  of  a 
patent,  the  court  inspect  the  whole  de- 
scription as  one  paper,  which  they  as- 
sume to  be  true  in  fact,  and  if  found  to 
be  in  conformity  with  the  requisitions 
of  the  law,  so  that  it  appears  with  rea- 
sonable certainty,  either  from  the  words 
used  or  by  necessary  implication,  in 
what  the  invention  consists,  though  the 
description  may  be  somewhat  obscure, 
or  imperfect,  or  defective,  in  form  or 
mode  of  explanation,  as  claimed  by  the 
patentee,  they  will  adjudge  it  sufficient, 
Whitney  y.Emmett^  Bald.  Rep.,  316. — 
Baldwin,  J.;  Pa.,  1831. 

7.  Where  the  invention  is  substan- 
tially new,  is  useful  to  the  public,  and 
the  disclosure  by  the  specification  and 
other  papers  is  made  in  good  faith, 
and  fairly  communicated  in  terms  intel- 
ligible to  men  who  understand  the  sub- 
ject, juries  ought  to  look  favorably  on  the 
right  of  property,  and  to  find  against  a 
patentee  or  plaintiff  only  for  some  sub- 
stantial defect  in  his  title  papers  or  proof. 
lUd.,  322. 

8.  Patents  for  inventions  are  not  to 
be  treated  as  mere  monopolies,  odious 
in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  and  therefore  not 


to  be  fivorod  ;  nor  are  they  to  bo  con- 
.strued  with  the  utmo.st  rigor  as  atrictia- 
aimijuria.  Amca  v.  Howard,  1  Sumn., 
485.— Storv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1833. 

9.  Tlie  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  in  giving  autho/ity  to  Congress 
to  grant  such  patents  for  a  limited  peri- 
od, declares  the  object  to  be  to  promote 
the  progress  of  science  and  the  useful 
arts,  an  object  as  truly  national,  and 
meritorious,  and  well  founded  in  public 
policy,  as  any  which  can  possibly  be 
within  the  scope  of  national  protection. 
Hence  it  has  always  been  the  course  of 
the  American  courts — and  latterly  of 
the  English — to  construe  patents  fairly 
and  liberally,  and  not  subject  them  to 
any  ovor-nice  and  critical  refinements. 
Ibid.,  485. 

10.  If  the  court  can  clearly  see  what 
is  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  claim, 
by  a  reasonable  use  of  the  means  of  in- 
terpretation of  the  language  used,  then 
the  patentee  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  oi 
it,  however  imperfectly  and  unartifici- 
ally  he  may  have  expressed  himself;  and 
for  this  purpose  particular  phrases  are 
not  to  be  singled  out,  but  the  whole  is 
to  be  taken  in  connection.    Ibid.,  485. 

11.  It  is  a  clear  rule  of  our  law  in 
favor  of  inventors,  and  to  carry  into  ef- 
fect the  obvious  object  of  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws,  to  give  a  liberal  construc- 
tion to  the  language  of  all  patents  and 
specifications,  ut  ra  magis  valeat  quam 
pereat,  so  as  to  protect,  and  not  to  de- 
stroy, the  rights  of  real  inventors.  Jiy- 
an  V.  Goodwin,  3  Sumn.,  520. — Stoey, 
J. ;  Mass.,  1839. 

12.  Under  the  laws  of  the  United 
States,  patents  for  inventions  are  treat- 
ed as  a  just  reward  to  ingenious  men, 
and  as  highly  beneficial  to  the  public. 
They  are  therefore  clearly  entitled  to  a 
liberal  construction,  since  they  are  not 


.-'wLfwj.^fUwf' 


^' 


510 


PATENT,  P.  1. 


COXSTBUCTION  Of,   QENEUAI,   PIUNTIPLKS   AS  TO. 


m^ 


'■*.„, 


bw!f' 


v., 


•**^«/- 


grsmtod  as  restrictions  upon  the  rights 
of  the  oonimunity,  but  are  granted  "  to 
promote  science  and  the  useful  arts." 
Jiliinchird  v.  Spragne,  3  Suum.,  539, 
540.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1839. 

13.  Every  patent  is  a  monopoly,  and 
nothing  can  justify  it  but  the  natural 
right  of  property  which  a  man  lias  in 
th(!  products  of  his  own  labor  and  in- 
genuity. It  ib  in  derogation  of  common 
right,  and  should  be  strictly  confined  to 
the  case  excepted.  Kemper,  Ex  parte, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— Cbancii,  Ch.  J. ;  1). 
C,  1841. 

14.  In  "patents"  the  court  looks 
through  the  whole  patent  and  specifi- 
cation, in  order  to  ascertain  what  is  the 
thi  ng  claimed  and  patented  in  it.  There 
is  no  artificial  or  universal  rule  of  inter- 
jiretation  of  such  an  instrument  beyond 
that  which  common  sense  furnishes, 
which  is  to  construe  the  instrument  as 
a  whole,  and  extract  from  the  descrip- 
tive words  and  the  claim  what  the  in- 
vention is  which  is  intended  to  be  pat- 
ented, and  how  far  it  is  capable  of  ex- 
act ascertainment,  and  how  far  it  is 
maintainable  in  point  of  law,  supposing 
it  clear  from  all  ambiguity.  Carver  v. 
Braintrce  Manuf.  Co.,  2  Story,  44G, 
447.— Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1843. 

15.  In  conptruing  a  patent  we  are  not 
to  look  alone  to  the  descriptive  words 
contained  in  the  letters  patent,  but  we 
are  to  construe  those  words  in  connec- 
tion with  the  specification  which  is  al- 
Avays  annexed  to  and  made  part  of  the 
letters  patent.  Pitts  v.  Whitman,  2 
Story,  C21.~Stoby,  J.;  Mo.,  1843. 

16.  Therefore,  Avhere  in  the  specifica- 
tion the  patentees  began  by  saying  that 
they  "have  invented  a  new  and  improv- 
ed combination  of  machinery  for  separ- 
ating grain  from  the  straw  and  chaff  as 
it  proceeds  from    the  threshing   ma- 


chine," Ifehl,  that  this  showed  that  tlio 
patentees  claimed  the  entire  eoinbimi. 
tion  of  the  machinery.     Ihid,  Vi-j,^, 

17.  In  the  summing  up  of  their  i|,. 
vention,  they  also  claimed  four  distinct 
improvements  in  the  machinery,  //,;,/ 
the  two  being  construed  togetiier  (aj 
they  should  be),  that  the  patentees  not 
oi.ly  claimed  the  entire  maeliinoiv  in 
combination,  but  also  the  four  improve. 
ments  enumerated.  Held,  also,  that  if 
they  are  their  invention,  there  is  no  ol> 
jection  in  point  of  law  to  their  claim, 
Ibid.,  021,  622. 

18.  A  patent  must  be  construed  ami 
passed  upon  according  to  the  laws  in 
force  at  the  till  H  01  i  granting  of  it, 
The  subsequent  repeal  of  such  acts  can- 
not impair  the  right  of  property  exi>tiiig 
in  a  patentee.  J/l-  Clurg  v.  Khiriskml 
1  IIow.,  206. — Baldwin,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1843. 

19.  The  patent  law  gives  a  monopoly, 
but  not  hi  an  odious  sense.  It  takes 
nothing  from  the  community  at  lar-je, 
but  secures  to  them  the  greatest  benefit. 
To  remunerate  inventors  for  "their 
time,  ingenuity,  and  expense,"  the  law- 
gives  them  the  exclusive  right  of  selling 
their  invention  for  a  limited  T  ■  ^^  ^  'I ,  and 
to  secure  them  this  remunej  i  '  ...  lib- 
eral construction  should  be  gi.  ..  ^n-  « 
law.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  M.I  ;in, 
437. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

20.  A  liberal  construction  is  to  be 
given  to  a  patent,  and  inventors  sus- 
tained, if  practicable,  without  a  depar- 
ture from  sound  principles.  BavoU  v. 
Brown,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  57. — Wood- 
bury, J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

21.  Sometimes  the  preamble,  even, 
may  be  resorted  to  for  ascfntaining  the 
object  of  the  specification,  sometimes 
the  body  of  the  specification,  some- 
times the  summing  up,  and  sometimes 


PATENT,  r.  1 


fill 


tion,  sometimes 

ificatioii,  some- 

and  sometimes 


CONHTKUCTION  OF;   OKNKRAL  PRINCIPI.KH  AH  TO. 


the  formal  clause  at  the  end  of  the  spco- 
ificjitioii.  (U'liorally,  all  of  tlit'tn  are 
gjjaniiiK'd  togotluT,  uiiloss  the  formal 
diiusc  seems  exi>lieitly  to  exclude  the 
rest.    Ibkl.^  59. 

2:.'.  Matters  described  therein  sliould 
be  considered  in  a  practical  manner,  and 
not  be  decided  on  mere  metaphysical 
distinctions.     Ibid.,  00. 

23.  One  patent,  though  very  useful 
and  economical  in  the  nianufacturo  or 
use  of  another  invention,  before  patent- 
ed, c.innot  be  treated  as  a  part  and  par- 
cel of  such  other  patent,  so  as  to  ren- 
der available  in  an  action  upon  one  of 
such  patents,  long  possession  under  and 
recoveries  upon  such  other  patent,  where 
the  several  patents  and  speciticitions  do 
not  refer  to  each  otlicr  as  being  auxiliary 
to  one  another ;  but  each  patent  must 
stand  upon  its  own  merits.  Ilovey  v. 
fitemns,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  295,  296.— 
WoooauuY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1840. 

24.  A  patent  is  to  be  construed  or 
tested  by  the  acts  in  force  at  the  time 
of  its  issue.  Hogg  v.  Emerson,  0  How., 
479._\Voom»uuv,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1847. 

25.  The  true  rule  of  construction  in 
respect  to  patents  and  specifications,  is 
to  apply  to  them  plain  and  ordinary 
principles,  and  not  to  yield  to  subtleties 
and  technicalities  imsuited  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  not  in  keeping  with  the  liberal 
spirit  of  the  age,  and  likely  to  prove 
ruinous  to  a  class  of  the  community  so 
inconsiderate  and  unskilled  in  business 
as  men  of  genius  and  inventors  usually 
are.    IhicL,  485. 

26.  The  description  of  an  invention 
by  the  patentee  in  his  own  language,  as 
contained  in  the  specification,  is  the 
hi^liGSt  evidence  of  the  thing  or  instru- 
ment which  he  claims  to  have  discov- 
ered. Many  v.  Jagger,  1  Blatchf.,  377. 
—Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1848. 


27.  Patents,  securing  to  inventors  the 
just  reward  of  their  labor  and  industry, 
are  to  be  construed  liberally.  Theso 
exclusive  rights  are  not  to  be  viewed 
in  the  light  of  odious  monopolies,  but 
as  the  result  of  a  policy  at  once  bene- 
ficent and  wise.  Parker  v.  JStiles,  5 
^IcLean,  54. — Lkavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

28.  The  whole  instnunent — that  is, 
the  patent,  embracing  the  specification 
and  drawings — is  to  be  taken  together ; 
and  if  from  these,  the  nature  and  ex- 
tent of  the  claim  can  be  perceived,  the 
court  is  boiuid  to  adopt  that  interpre- 
tation, and  give  it  full  effect.   Ibid.,  57. 

20.  A  patent-right  is  not  a  monopoly 
in  the  general  sense  of  that  term.  Tho 
inventor  takes  nothing  from  society, — 
he  confers  upon  it  a  benefit  by  his  labor 
antl  ingenuity,  and  the  law  designs  to 
give  him  nothing  more  than  a  com- 
pensation therefor.  Bloomer  v.  Stolfey, 
5  McLean,  102. — McLeax,  J.;  Ohio, 
1850. 

30.  In  construing  a  patent,  regard 
may  be  had  to  what  is  contained  in  a 
caveat  in  the  first  specification,  and  in 
the  original  ]>atent,  and  a  broader  con- 
struction should  not  be  put  on  the  lan- 
guage of  the  patentee  than  the  whole 
subject  matter,  and  description,  and  na- 
ture of  the  case  seem  to  indicate  as  de- 
signed. No  fancied  construction  trav- 
elling too  far  on  a  ni  .  and  doubtful 
ro.ad,  is  to  be  adopted ;  bui,  raliier 
what  is  natural  and  clear,  considering 
what  already  exists  on  the  same  sub- 
ject. Smith  V.  Downing,  MS. — Wood 
BURY,  J.;  Mass.,  1850. 

31.  The  drawings  as  well  as  the  Avholo 
specifications  may  be  looked  to  for  ex- 
planation of  any  thing  obscure  in  tho 
patent.  And  the  drawings  may  be  re- 
stored when  burnt,  and  if  appearing  in 
some  respects  erroneous,  may  be  cor- 


i< 


nl 


"---;CS 


'>w^MMm^44«j< 


612 


PATENT,  P.  1. 


CONHTUL'CTION  OF;   GKNERAL  rRINCII'LKS  A8  TO. 


J  ^N||IP 


Ik 
.A. 


m 


rcctud.     IF'xjf/  V.  J'Jmi'r.ii»i,  11    I  Tow., 
000.— WooniiiKV,  J.;  Siij).  Ct.,  iHoO. 

n2.  Tliu  ()|)iiiioii  of  t'XpurtH  (•.•uinot  be 
received  as  to  I  lie  fonstnictioii  of  u  pat- 
ent. Experts  mny  bo  examiiicil  as  to 
tlu!  mcaiiiiii^  of  tenna  of  art,  on  the 
principle  of  cuique  in  sua  arte  crcden- 
dmn;  but  not  as  to  tlie  construction  of 
written  instruments.  CornuKj  v.  liiir- 
den,  15  IIow.,  270. — GiuFii,  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1853. 

33.  I'atonts  are  granted  "  to  promote 
science  and  useful  arts."  Tliey  are  not 
odigus  monopolies  or  restrictions  on  the 
rights  of  the  public;  and  courts  are 
bound  to  give  the  specification  a  liberal 
construction,  and  not  annul  its  benefits 
by  formal  or  subtle  objections.  Good- 
year V.  JRailroads,  2  Wall.,  Jr.,  303. — 
Geiek,  J.;  N.  J.,  1853. 

34.  The  patent  shotild  be  carefully 
examined  to  find  the  thing  discovered, 
and  if  it  be  clearly  set  forth,  the  paten- 
tee should  not  suffer  for  the  imperfec- 
tion or  vagueness  of  the  language  used. 
The  description  ought  not  to  be  repug- 
nant to  the  specification,  but  if  it  hon- 
estly sets  forth  the  nature  and  design  of 
the  patent,  it  is  suflicient.    Ibid..,  364. 

35.  The  specification  must  be  looked 
to  for  the  full  disclosure  of  the  discov- 
ery and  the  extent  of  the  inventor's 
claims.  The  extent  of  the  patentee's 
rights  must  be  judged  from  the  whole 
instrument  taken  together,  and  not  from 
any  one  sentence.     Ibid.,  364,  365. 

36.  The  construction  to  be  given  to  a 
specification  should  not  be  too  strict  and 
technical,  but  the  proper  inquiry  is,  has 
the  inventor  communicated  to  the  i>ub- 
lic  the  manner  of  carrying  his  invention 
into  eflfect,  so  that  a  skilful  workman  can 
carry  it  into  execution.  Stephens  v. 
Salisbury,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moksell, 
J.J  D.  C,  1855. 


37.  A  patent  is  not  a  monopoly.  i\ 
monoimly  takes  from  the  public  what 
belongs  to  it,  and  gives  it  to  the  ^'rantet. 
whereas  the  right  of  a  pateiitut!  vn^u 
entirely  on  his  own  invention  or  discov- 
ery of  that  which  was  useful,  and  wliieh 
was  not  known  before.  The  law  givi's 
liim  the  exclusive  right  and  use  of  the 
thing  invented  or  discovered  as  a  coin- 
pensation  for  his  ingenuity,  labor,  nnd 
expense  in  producing  it.  Allen  v.  Hun- 
ter, 0  JMcLean, 300. — McLean,  J.;  Oliiu 
1855. 

38.  The  words  of  the  specification  aio 
to  be  taken  together,  and  they  are  to 
be  so  construed  as  to  give  effect  to  tlio 
meaning  and  intention  of  the  persmis 
using  them.  Words  are  not  to  be  dis- 
torted, so  as  to  affect  what  may  be  sup- 
posed to  have  been  the  intention  of  the 
one  using  them ;  but  they  are  to  have  a 
reasonable  construction,  as  connected 
with  the  sentence  in  which  used.  /i/(/., 
307. 

39.  A  specification  as  to  a  riiciniial 
compound,  is  not  addressed  to  those 
who  are  not  acquainted  with  chemistry. 
Ibid.,  307,  310. 

40.  Courts  will  always  construe  spe- 
cifications favorably  to  the  patentee,  but 
they  cannot  make  a  new  specification 
with  more  extensive  claims  than  the 
original,  or  stop  the  course  of  inventors 
by  a  fonciful  application  of  the  doctrine 
of  equivalents.  Sickles  v.  Glou.  Mamif, 
Co.,  MS.— Grieb,  J. ;  N.  J.,  1856. 

41.  It  is  a  presumption  of  law  that 
what  a  patentee  does  not  distinctly  as- 
sert to  be  his  invention  was  known  be- 
fore. Smith  V.  Higgins,  MS. — Betts, 
J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

42.  In  the  construction  of  a  patent, 
the  entire  specification  ia  to  be  taken 
together,  as  embracing  the  particular 
description  which  the  law  requires  of 


-  ''^SMv^ 


S^i^. 


!^,C- 


PATENT,  P.  2. 


613 


OONHTUUCTIOX  OF;    PRIMA  FAt'llC   AUTilORITT. 


tho  discovery,  the  manner  of  construc- 
tion niicl  tlio  cluira  of  the  patentee. 
TIh'V  emanate  from  tho  same  pen — the 
one  cannot  contrjulict  tho  other.  I^age 
V.  Ferry,  MS.-^Wilkin8,  J. ;   Mich., 

1857. 

43.  The  intention  of  the  inventor,  so 
as  to  effect  the  object  designed,  is  to 
(Tovern  the  construction  of  the  language 
employed.  Courts  look  to  tho  manifest 
(k'si"n  in  order  to  remove  any  ambigu- 
ity arising  from  the  terms  employed ; 
but  tliis  ambiguity  must  not  be  such  as 
would  perplex  an  ordinary  mechanic  'n 
tho  art  to  which  it  applies.     Ibid. 

44.  Patents  are  to  bo  construed  liber- 
ally—tho  rights  secured  are  to  be  pro- 
tected against  any  substantial  violation. 
Formal  and  subtle  differences  are  to  be 
disregarded,  Imlay  v.  Nor.  <b  Wor. 
R.  E.,  MS. — Ingebsoll,  J. ;  Ct.,  1858. 

45.  Patents  are  to  be  construed  liber- 
ally, and  not  rigidly  interpreted ;  and 
it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  Commis- 
Bioner  of  Patents  has  done  his  duty,  and 
not  granted  a  patent  when  he  ought  not 
to  have  granted  one.  Potter  v.  HoUand, 
MS.— Ingebsoll,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

46.  A  patentee  is  not  controlled  by 
the  title  of  his  patent,  but  by  all  the 
papers,  the  patent,  the  specification,  and 
drawings  taken  together.  Bell  v.  Dan- 
ids.,  MS. — ^Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1858. 

47.  In  construing  the  patent — the  spe- 
cifications and  drawings — the  court  will 
examine  them  with  a  liberal  spirit,  so  as 
to  give  to  the  patentee  all  that,  as  an 
inventor,  he  is  fairly  entitled  to,  though 
nothing  more.    Ibid. 

48.  All  exclusive  rights  in  the  na- 
ture of  patents  are  created  and  must  be 
controlled  by  statutory  provisions,  and 
therefore  it  must  appear  that  all  the  es- 
sential requisites  of  the  law  have  been 

complied  with.    In  deciding  this  ques- 
33 


tion,  the  patent,  specification,  and  draw- 
ings are  to  be  looked  to,  and  aro  to  be 
fonstrut'd  in  a  liberal  spirit.  latta  v. 
Shatek,  IMS.— Lea vi it,  J. ;  Ohio,  1850. 
49.  Specifications  sho\ild  be  construed 
according  to  thoir  spirit,  and  so  that 
they  shall  receive  an  interpretation  that 
will,  if  practicable,  etfect  the  end  and 
object  designed.  Judson  v.  Moore^  MS, 
— Leavut,  J. ;  Ohio,  1860. 

2.  Prima  Facie  Authority  of. 

1.  Of  the  novelty  and  utility  of  an 
invention,  the  patent  is  to  be  considered 
merely  prima  facie  evidence  of  a  very 
slight  nature.  Lowell  v.  Lewis,  1  Mas., 
184.— Stoby.  J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

2.  Upon  a  trial  at  law,  a  patent  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  a  right ;  but 
it  is  not  a  matter  of  course,  to  grant  an 
injunction  upon  the  mere  exhibition  of 
a  patent,  and  an  allegation  that  it  has 
been  infringed.  Sullivan  v.  Redfield, 
1  Paine,  447. — Thompson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1825. 

3.  As  a  patentee  is  required  to  make 
oath  that  he  is  tho  true  inventor  of  the 
thing  patented,  before  he  can  obtain  a 
patent,  the  patent  is  regarded  by  the 
courts  of  the  United  States  as  prima 
facie  evidence  that  he  has  made  the  in- 
vention. Fhil.  <k  Tren.  R.  R.  v.  Stimp- 
son,  14  Pet.  459. — Stoey,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1840. 

4.  In  an  action  of  infringement,  the 
patent  is  prima  facie  evidence  in  the 
case — the  patent  recites  and  also  in- 
cludes the  oath,  and  the  oath  throws 
the  onus  probandi  on  the  defendants. 
Alden  v.  Dewey y  1  Story,  341. — Stoby, 
J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

5.  A  patent  gives  to  the  patentee  a 
prima  facie  right,  unless  the  defend- 
ants show  it  to  be  invalid,  or  that  it  can- 


>wJ! 


^ 


'  ^^1 


•:ia'.' 


v4»\ 


'umi 


"^■^ 


'*4. 


'"■'  '•■<*» 


»f:> 


014 


PAIENT,  P.  2. 


CONHTRUCTION  OF;    PRIMA   rACIB   AirTUOHITT. 


1« 


l4' 


-'.-x; 


wwC" 


Jirookn  V. 


not  operate  nfj^.iiiist   them. 
Jiivkiidl,   W    McLean,    440 
J.;  Ohio,  1H44. 

0.  A  patent  iKHUOtl  under  the  patent 
actH  (tfinee  IHHO),  re<|iiirinjj  un  exami- 
nation of  nkilfiil  persons  into  tlie  Hpeei- 
ficntion  and  the  snltject  oi*  the  elaim, 
affords  more  evideiieo  of  the  originality 
of  the  invention,  than  when  granted  as 
a  matter  of  course,  under  (he  former 
acts,  and  only  8U{iported  by  the  oath 
of  the  patentee.  Orr  v.  lituh/cr,  7  Law 
Kep.,  407. — Si'i!A(iiK,  J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

7.  The  patent  itself  is  sufficient  evi- 
dence that  all  the  preliminary  steps  re- 
(piired  by  law  in  reference  to  the  grant 
or  issuing   of  it,  were  j)roperly  taken. 

Wilder  V.  McCormick,  2  IJlatehf.,  34. 
—Beits,  J.;  N.Y.,  1840. 

8.  A  joint  patent  is  prima  facie  ev- 
idence that  the  invention  was  joint,  but 
Buch  fact  may  bo  disproved  at  tlie  trial. 
Ilotchkiss  V.  Greenwood,  4  McLean, 
462. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1848. 

9.  The  i)re8umption  of  novelty  and 
usefulness,  arising  from  W\g  prima  facie 
character  of  the  patent,  may  be  rebut- 
ted by  affidavits  on  the  application  for 
an  injunction,  where  the  patent  is  not 
ancient.  Whether  it  may  be  when  the 
patent  has  been  renewed  under  the  act 
of  1830  ;  query.  Wicker shaffw,  Jouca, 
Whart.  Dig.,  vol.  2,  p.  413. — Kane,  J.; 
Pa.,  1848. 

10.  The  provisions  of  the  act  of  1836, 
give  a  (7««s«-judicial  character  to  the  ac- 
tion of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents;  and 
it  has  accordingly  been  generally  and 
justly  held,  that  the  patent  itself  is  to  be 
taken  ii^  prima  facie  evidence  of  the  nov- 
elty and  usefulness  of  the  invention 
specified  in  it.  Wilson  v.  JBarnum,  1 
Wall.,  Jr.,  349.— Kane,  J.;  Pa;  1849. 

11.  The  patent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  patentee  is  the  original 


inventor  or  discoverer  of  the  thing  p.-n. 
ented,  and  that  the  Bamu  is  now  anil 
useful,  (jli)odyear  v.  Day,  MS. — (iiuKit 
J.;  N.  J.,  1H52. 

12.  A  patent  issued,  groimdcd  on  fli^ 
oath  of  the  patentee,  \v, prima fnri,;y,y. 
idence  in  an  action  of  infringement  of 
such  patent.  J'^ultz,  Ji'x  p<trte,  JIS. 
(App.  Cas.)— MoiwKix,  J. ;  1).  c.,  inri  i. 

13.  Under  the  act  of  1700,  a  patfiit 
was  made  ;  r^iua  facie  evidence;  that 
ai^t  was  rejieuled  by  the  act  of  I79;j 
and  that  i)rovision  was  not  rc-enactcMl 
in  it.  Hence  a  patent  was  not  receivcil 
in  courts  of  justice  as  even  pi'inxifuvic, 
evidence  that  the  invention  ])ati'ntc'(l 
was  new  or  useful,  but  the  plainliirwas 
bound  to  prove  these  facts,  in  order  to 
make  out  Jiis  case.  IJut  the  act  of  ]8;tO 
introduced  a  new  system,  and  under 
it — its  inquisition  and  examination— a 
patent  is  received  as  prima  fade  evi- 
dence of  the  truth  of  the  facts  Jiesertod 
in  it.  Corning  v.  Jiurden,  15  How., 
270,  271.— Gkieu,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

14.  A  defendant  in  a  patent  suit, 
using  a  machine  patented  to  him,  should 
have  the  benefit  of  a  like  presumption, 
in  his  favor,  arising  from  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  originality  of  his  invention, 
as  the  plaintiff  has  by  reason  of  his  pat- 
ent.    Ibid.,  271. 

16.  Though  ordinarily  a  patent  is  jorj- 
ma  facie  evidence  that  the  discovery 
claimed  is  new  and  useful,  if  it  is  appa- 
rent from  the  specification  that  the  jiat- 
ent  is  for  an  invention  which  is  mani- 
festly frivolous,  and  which  cannot  be 
sustained,  it  is  competent  for  the  court 
to  declare  it  to  be  inoperative  for  such 
cause.  Wilson  v.  Jones,  3  or  4  Blatclif. 
— Betts,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1854. 

16.  Under  the  patent  laws,  the  claim 
of  a  patent,  before  a  patent  is  issued, 
being  subjected  to  a  thorough  exatnina- 


*f.4i- 


PATE>rr,  p.  2. 


61S 


roNHTRiroTioN  or;  rHiMA  rA(;iR  autiioritt. 


the  thiiijT  j»;it. 
ic  in  iit'w  lunl 
',  MS.— (iuiKll, 

rountU'tl  on  the 
}»'ltmt  fiU'ii]  vv- 
iilViiif^i'inent  of 
Kx  parte,  MS. 
J. ;  D.  C,  185;t. 
'  IVftO,  n  imti'iit 
evuU'iicf ;  that 
>c   act  of  ITOii, 
I  not  re-L'nactcd 
viW  not  rt'cciviMl 
sveti  jirhiKi  fwk 
■cntion  ])iiti'ntt'(l 
the  i)]iUiilitVwas 
facts,  in  order  to 
ttbeact  of  18110, 
item,  and  under 
i  cxaininution— a 
prima  facie  evi- 
[tho  facts  asserted 
urdcii,  15  How., 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 
n   a  patent  suit, 
ted  to  him,  should 
ik(;  presuini)tion, 
oia  an  iuvestigiv 
of  his  invention, 
reason  of  his  pat- 

•ily  a  patent  is  pri- 
lat  the  lUseovory 
ieful,  if  it  is  appiv- 
ation  that  the  pat- 
1  which  is  mani- 
which  cannot  be 
•tent  for  the  court 
.perative  for  such 
les,  3  or  4  Blatchf. 
1854. 

■nt  laws,  the  claim 
patent  is  issued, 
borough  examina- 


tion, madi'  by  cxnminerH  appolntcil  for 
that  iiurpose,  j^ives  to  tlic  patciitt-t'  a 
fiiiiiKi /(K'iti  right  to  the  invention  or 
discovery  claiiu«'il.  lie  Avho  diHputeH 
dtich  ri};ht,  must  produce  (^viden«'o  to 
couiiturlmlaiice  (liat  legal  presumption. 
All'ii  V.  Jfuntci;  0  McLean,  304,  .'lOo. 
— McLkan,  J. ;  Ohio,  1855. 

17.  Tlie  prima  facii;  right  of  a  pat- 
oiitee  in  a  patent  is  derived  froni  the  ex- 
nniiiiation  of  the  invention,  before  i)at- 
eiit  is  issued,  by  one  or  more  examitiers, 
and  a  comparison  of  it  with  the  patents 
issued  in  this  and  other  countries;  if 
found  to  be  new  and  usefal,  and  the  ap- 
plicant swears  be  is  the  first  and  origi- 
nal inventor,  th<!  patent  issues.  //<'»/<- 
rich  v.  Luther,  0  McLean,  340.— Mc- 
LhAV,  J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

18.  The  patent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence tliat  the  jdaintiff  was  the  first  and 
orii'inal  inventor  of  the  improvement 
claimed,  and  of  its  utility.  Winana  v. 
N.  r.  lb  liar.  li.  Ji.,  31  Jour.  Fr.  Inst., 
3d  Ser.,  320. — Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

19.  The  p.atent  itself  is  prima  facie 
evidence  of  novelty,  and  thinjyrima  fa- 
cie evidence  is  strenjjthened  by  the  fact 
of  renewal  of  the  patent.  Wintermute 
V.  Humphrey,  MS. — Wilsox,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1850. 

20.  The  patent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence of  the  novelty  of  the  thing  pat- 
ented. Teese  v.  Phelps,  1  McAllis.,  4i). 
—McAllister,  J.;  Cal.,  1855. 

21.  A  patent  \%  prima  facie  evidence 
of  the  facts  of  first  and  original  inven- 
tion and  utility,  and  must  prevail,  un- 
less there  is  other  evidence  to  overcome 
such  prima  facie  presumption ;  and 
wherr  there  has  been  a  renewal,  such 
renewal  is  also  prima  facie  evidence 
upon  these  questions,  and  of  course 
adds  Aveight  to  the  prima  facie  evi- 
dence furnished  by  the  original  patent. 


Raunnm  v.  Mayor,  ttc.,  of  New  York, 
.M.S.-IIam,,  J.;  N.  v.,  1h5(J. 

22.  A  patent  when  introduced  hi  evi- 
dence, whether  it  bo  an  original  or  re- 
issued oru',  is  prima  facie  evideneo 
that  the  thing  granted  w'<s  new  ;ind 
us»'ful,  and  that  the  patentee  was  tho 
inventor  or  discoverer  thereof.  Serrdl 
v.  Colllna,  IMS. — In(iku8oli,,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
185  7. 

23.  A  foreign  i>atent  is  only  jyrima 
facie  evidence  as  a  patent  gra-ited  by 
our  own  government,  tluit  the  invention 
was  of  some  prob.'ible  value.  GatliiKj 
V.  Ncwall,  9  Ind.,  582. — 1'kkkins,  J. ; 
Ind.,  1857. 

24.  The  ])atent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  thing  patented  was  new, 
.and  the  invention  of  tiio  patentee  at 
the  time  the  patent  was  granted.  Gib' 
herd  V.  Baffot,  4  Blatchf. — Ingkusoll,  J. 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

25.  Since  tho  act  of  1830  pntontM 
stand  upon  a  diflfcrent  footing  from  that 
upon  which  they  stood  formerly.  Upon 
an  application  for  a  ])atent,  the  oflicers 
of  the  Patent  Office  give  their  judgment, 
and  that  judgment  \s  prima  facie  a  good 
one ;  when  one  party  contests  that,  and 
offers  another  patent  in  opposition  to  it, 
both  parties  stand  upon  an  equal  foot- 
ing. Cony.  Rub.  Co.  v.  Amer.  J'Jlai^. 
Cloth  Co.,  MS.— GniEU,  J.;  I'a.,  1857. 

20.  A  patent  when  produced  in  evi- 
dence, is  prima  facie  evidence  that  tho 
patentee  was  the  inventor,  that  tho 
thing  patented  was  new  and  useful, 
and  that  in  the  specification  there  is  a 
description  in  such  full,  clear,  and  ex.act 
terms  as  will  enable  any  one,  skilled  in 
the  art  to  which  it  appertains,  to  put  it 
in  practice.  And  such  prima  facie  evi- 
dence must  control  until  it  is  rebutted 
by  countervailing  evidence.  Poppcn 
heusm    v.    N.    Y.    O.    P.    Comb     Co 


•^Ui  i 


M^l 


Ml 


y^. 


m 


»i<^.. 


T 


ri^ 


„«/wWUO; 


%K,I] 


*^M-U4 


5te 


PATENT,  P.  2. 


ooNvrnuoTioir  or;  niUK  facii  authomtt. 


Ip4 


4  lilatt-hf. — Inukkhull,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1858. 

'27.  Tlu!  p.itcnt  itHi'lf  in  prima  fwle. 
ovlflcnco  of  ail  factH  upon  which  it  i« 
fountl(>(l,  and  roqiiires  no  support  until 
it  iH  iinp(>ucli(Hl,  or  attctnptod  to  ho  iin- 
poaclic'cl.  Sherman  v.  Champ.  Trans, 
Co.,  31  Verm.,  176. — UKi>riici.u,  J.; 
Vt.,  1858. 

28.  A  patent  in  prima  facie  ovidcncc 
that  the  thing  deHcribcil  in  it  is  now, 
nnd  muHt  control  the  question  uuIosh 
countervailed  by  the  defenclant's  evi- 
dence. Waterbtiry  Jiraaa  Co.  v.  N.  Y. 
d>  Brooklyn  Brass  Co.,  MS. — Inkek- 
80U.,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1858. 

2d.  A  patent  in  prima  facie  evidence 
that  the  prant  of  right  in  it  is  valid, 
that  the  things  described  in  it  are  new 
and  useful,  that  they  required  invention, 
and  that  they  were  the  invention  of  the 
patentee;  and  8uc]ijt>rtma^at7'e evidence 
must  have  full  effect  unless  rebutted  by 
sufficient  countervailing  evidence.  Pot- 
ter V.  Holland,  MS. — Ingkksoi.l,  J.; 
Ct.,  1858. 

30.  The  patent  furnishes  a  presump- 
tion in  favor  of  the  originality  of  the 
invention  described  in  it.  Bell  v.  Ban- 
iels,  MS. — Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1858. 

31.  The  patent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  patentee  is  the  first  and 
original  inventor  of  the  improvements 
described  in  the  specification.  Gahoon 
v.  Binff,  MS. — Cliffobd,  J. ;  Me.,  1869. 

32.  The  patent  is  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  the  patentee  was  the  first  in- 
ventor of  the  thing  patented,  which  will 
control  in  determining  the  question  of 
fact  unless  there  is  evidence  to  rebut 
this  presumption.  Bartholomew  v.  Sate- 
yer,  MS. — Ixoebsoll,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

33.  There  is  a  presumption  arising 
from  the  patent  itself  in  favor  of  the 
novelty  of  the  invention  which  it  cov- 


ers.   Hut  thiM  proHuniption  may  ho  ovpr< 
come   by  showing  that  tht!  tliiipf  f,.,,) 
been  previously   known,     i'oknuui  \ 
lAiaor,  MS. — Lkavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  Issg 

34.  The  patent  itself  ntforils  iriwn 
facie  evi<lence  of  utility ;  but  tlio  d,.. 
fendant  may  rebut  this  presumption  hy 
evidence,  and  if  he  makes  it  appear  that 
the  invention  is  utterly  worthless,  ji  i^ 
a  good  defence.  Vance  v.  Cainjihi'!, 
MS.— Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1859. 

35.  The  patent  is  j/ritna  faclf,  evi- 
dence of  the  right  of  the  plaintiff  to  all 
that  is  contained  in  it,  giving  it  itR  trtiu 
and  proper  construction.  Johnson  v. 
Moot,  MS. — Spbaoue,  J. ;  Mass.,  lusn. 

86.  It  is  always  presumed  from  the 
patent  itself,  that  the  invention  is  now 
and  if  the  party  sued  would  avail  him- 
self of  the  want  of  such  novelty,  it  [% 
incumbent  upon  him  to  prove  it  by  giv- 
ing a  proper  notice  to  the  plaintiff,  to 
prevent  surprise.  Latta  v.  Shawk,  MS. 
— Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1869. 

37.  There  is  a  presumption  arising 
front  the  patent  itself,  that  an  invention 
is  of  some  degree  of  utility ;  but  this  is 
not  conclusive,  and  the  other  party  may 
show  that  it  is  useless  and  worthless. 
Lee  V.  Blancly,  MS. — McLean,  Leav- 
itt, JJ. ;  Ohio,  1860. 

38.  The  prima  facie  force  of  a  pat- 
ent, as  to  priority  of  invention,  on  the 
part  of  the  patentee,  when  once  de- 
stroyed by  evidence  of  prior  invention 
on  the  part  of  another,  cannot  bo  re- 
stored by  the  patent  itself,  but  only  by 
specific  testimony  from  witnesses.  Bar- 
stow  v.  Swan,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— Meb- 
KICK,  J.;  D.  C,  1860. 

39.  The  granting  of  a  patent  affords 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  novelty,  as 
well  as  utility  of  the  invention.  Jxd- 
son  v.  Moore,  MS. — Lkavtit,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1860. 


'''^^. 


PATENT,  l\  3. 


617 


cx)MvrauoTioN  or;  it  thi  ooubt. 


nmy  hv  over. 
Ii»i  thill;,'  Ii;i,l 

Coleman  v. 
;  Ohio,  ls5a. 
itfDnlH  priwii 
;  hill  tlit<  ilr. 
I'smnpliiin  hy 
it  ftppfiir  tli;ii 
/•orthU'ss,  it  is 

V.   CampfH"., 

1H59. 

uta  facie  evi- 
pliiiiitin'  to  all 
nn)r  it  its  true 
.  Johnsnn  V. 
;  MiiHS.,  1H50. 
imed  from  tlie 
ention  is  now, 
)ul(l  nvail  liim- 
I  novulty,  it  is 
irove  it  by  giv- 
he  plaintiff,  to 
V.  Shatok',  MS. 
60. 

mption  arising 
It  an  invention 
ity ;  but  this  is 
ther  party  may 
and  worthless. 

cLean,  Leav- 

brce  of  a  pat- 
ention,  on  the 
^hen  once  de- 
)rior  invention 
cannot  bo  re- 
f,  but  only  by 
ritnesses.  Bar- 
I.  Cas.)— Meb- 

patent  affords 
the  novelty,  as 
mention.  Jttd- 
niTjJ.;  Ohio, 


3.  JloiO  far  conalrued  by  the  Court, 

1.  Whether  on  invention  be  npeeifie- 
ttlly  described  with  reuHonuble  eertiiiii- 
ty  is  A  (lueHtlun  of  law  \ipun  the  eon- 
itruction  of  the  putcnt.  Lowell  v.  Lewisy 
1  Mom.,  18S.— Story,  J.;  Muhs.,  1817. 

2.  Though  the  qucHtion  iih  to  the  util- 
ity of  ail  invention  is  one  for  the  jury, 
if  on  the  pliuntifTH  own  Bhowinfj,  the 
invention  appearH  tu  be  UHelesH,  and  an 
imiiosition  on  the  public,  it  may  be 
doubtful  whether  the  court  would  tran- 
Hcciid  its  liinitH  in  deciding  that  the  in- 
vention wiiH  not  useful.  Lanydon  v. 
De  Uroot,  1  Puine,  204. — Livinuhton, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1822. 

a.  It  is  the  province  of  the  court  to 
construe  every  written  instnunent  of- 
fered in  evidence,  and  therefore  to  coii- 
Btrue  a  patent  and  determine  whether 
it  is  80  uncertain  in  its  terms  as  to  have 
no  meaning.  Davis  v.  J'almer,  2 
Brock.,  308.— Marshall,  Ch.  J. ;  Va., 

1827. 

4.  The  court  decides  whether  there 
is  in  the  patent  a  substantial  description 
of  the  thing  patented  ;  the  papers  will 
be  looked  at  in  the  same  light  as  a  dec- 
laration in  a  suit  at  law.  The  court, 
looking  at  the  specification  as  a  state- 
ment of  the  patentee's  right  and  title, 
will  overlook  all  defects  in  the  mode  of 
Betting  it  out,  if  it  contains  a  substan- 
tial avermc  it  of  such  matter  as  suffices 
in  law  to  make  out  a  cause  of  action. 
The  court  does  not  look  beyond  the 
patent  and  papers.  Whitney  v.  Em- 
mett,  Bald.,  316. — Baldwin,  J. ;  Pa., 
1831. 

6.  Whether  the  invention  is  sufficient- 
ly describea  in  the  patent  is  a  question 
of  law  for  the  court,  it  being  the  con- 
BtructioD    of    a   written    instrument. 


Ilrook»  v.  IlickneU^  3  McLean,  442. — 
M<  Lkan,  J.;  Ohio,  IH44.  | 

0.  Hut  if  technical  terms  arc  used, 
evidi'iicu  may  be  heard  in  exphuiiitiou 
of  those  terniH,  and  in  such  cuho  a  Jury 
may  be  necesHary.     IhiJ.,  442. 

7.  Ah  a  general  rule,  the  court  is  to 
determine  the  invention  claimed  by  the 
patentee,  so  fur  as  the  conMtrtiftion  of 
the  words  of  the  patent  and  specitlco- 
tion  are  concerned  ;  but  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  words  of  art,  and  ttM-hnical 
phrases  in  commerce  and  mainifactures, 
which  may  materially  affect,  enlarge  or 
control  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  the 
patent  and  specification,  the  jury  are  to 
judge.  Wtiahl/uni  v.  (would,  '.)  Story, 
167,  168.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1H44. 

8.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  court  to  give 
the  legal  construction  of  the  specifica- 
tion of  a  patent,  when  such  construc- 
tion does  not  depend,  which  seldom  is 
the  case,  on  facts  to  b<>  proved  by  parol, 
or  when  it  does,  if  tho-  facts  are  proved 
or  admitted,  and  are  without  dispute. 
Davoll  V.  Brown,  1  Wood.  <fc  Min.,  66. 
— Woodbury,  J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

9.  It  is  a  question  for  tho  court,  and 
not  the  jury,  whether  the  specification 
can  bo  read  and  construed  intelligibly 
in  a  particular  way.    Ibid.,  CO. 

10.  It  is  the  province  and  duty  of  the 
court  to  settle  the  meaning  of  the  pat- 
ent, and  if  that  cannot  bo  satisfactorily 
ascertained  upon  the  face  of  the  specifi- 
cation, the  law  declares  it  insufficient 
for  ambiguity  and  uncertainty.  Emer- 
son V.  Hogg,  2  Blatchf.,  6. — Bktis,  J. ; 
N.  y.,  1845. 

11.  The  specification  is  laid  before 
the  jury  as  defined  and  settled  by  the 
exposition  of  the  court,  and  the  matters 
of  fact  presented  to  support  or  defeat 
the  patent  are  to  bo  examined  and  ap> 
plied  as  if  the  construction  fixed  by  the 


^'  ^^\ 


<:^'k 


610 


I'ATKN'r,  1'.  3. 


ooMvrftUOTiov  or;  by  t>b  oovrt. 


If  1^ 

^4 


tp"''\ 


'I 


^ 


Kli- 


It  ir^i 


*^^ 


court  liitd  boon  iiicorporulcd  in  llio  Mpec- 
illcHtioii.     //>/(/.,  0. 

I'.'.  NVluT*!,  tluTcforo,  tho  court  hi'M 
tli:it  lli«'  (iiU'Htioii  ut'  iiiul)i}{ui(y  was  li 
niixoil  (|ut>Nttoii  ot'liiw  iiud  t'lict,  ami  it-tl 
•  fact  to  be  found  hy  the  jury,  iiidieat- 
iii^  the  rule  of  law  that  wouKl  ^ovi-ru 
ulu'ti  lliat  fact  Hhould  lie  asi-ertaiiii-d, 
J/tl<l,  that  Nuch  action  or  ruling  of  the 
court  was  vrroueouH,  and  watt  cauHu  for 
ordering?  a  new  trial.     //>/</.,  0. 

l.'J.  The  Hufliciency  of  a  description 
ill  a  Npecitication  iH,  in  general,  in  )>al- 
cntti  for  u  coniiM)Nition  of  inattor,  an 
well  as  in  pntcntH  for  niachineH,  a  (|ues- 
tion  of  fact  ft)r  the  jury  ;  but  when  the 
Hpecification  of  a  new  coinposilion  of 
matter  givuH  only  the  naine^  of  the  uub* 
stances  to  bo  mixed  togetlier,  without 
Htating  any  relative  proportion,  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  court  to  declare  tho  patent 
voiil.  Wood  V.  l/nihr/till,  5  How.,  5. 
— Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

14.  The  question  whether  the  patent 
irt  Hurticiently  clear  and  certain  in  its  de- 
Hcription  of  the  invention  is  one  of  law 
only  in  part,  or  so  far  as  regards  tho 
construction  of  tho  written  words  used. 
Jlo[/j/  V.  JhJineraon^  0  How.,  484. — Wood- 
iiuitv,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1847. 

15.  It  is  for  tho  court  to  decide 
whether  the  patent,  as  to  the  de8crii>- 
tioii  of  the  uivcntion,  conforms  to  the 
requirements  of  tho  law. — Parker  v. 
Stili-a,  5  McLean,  55. — LEAvirr,  J.; 
Ohio,  1849. 

16.  What  a  pateutcc  claims  as  his  in- 
vention is  a  question  of  law,  and  one  to 
be  determined  by  the  court,  in  order  to 
give  to  the  jury  a  guide  to  apply  to  tho 
facts  in  the  case.  Jiuck  v.  Hermance, 
1  Blatchf.,  401.— Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1849. 

17.  The  interpretation  of  the  specifi- 
cation of  a  patent  is  a  matter  exclusive- 


ly for  the  court,  \tho  must  explain  it. 
The  import  of  the  iuMtrtunent  is  purely 
a  (|iiesli(>n  of  lnw.  I\irk<r  v.  //(//)„,' 
7  West.  Law  Jour.,  419.— Kan k,  J,; 
I'tt.,  1849. 

18.  What  is  tlio  thing  patented,  i,., 
question  of  law,  to  be  deterniiniil  hy 
the  court  from  the  letters  patent,  an'l 
the  description  «)f  the  invent  ion  uii,| 
claim  annexed  to  thorn.  Winnnt  v. 
iJeumcatf,  1.5  I  low.,  'MiS. — Ci'Uiis,  J.' 
Sup.  (!t.,  1H5;J. 

19.  The  construction  of  the  specififa. 
tion  of  n  patent,  so  far  as  the  lan|,Mi:Rf(. 
is  concerned,  is  u  question  for  tho  coiiii, 
Ttene  v.  P/wlpn,  1  McAllis.,  40.— 3I(- 
Ai.i.isTKit,  J. ;  C'al.,  1855. 

'20.  It  is  the  business  and  duly  of  thu 
court  to  construe  tho  p.itunt  and  spwi. 
lications  for  the  purposu  of  dcterniiiiiiR' 
what  tho  claim  of  the  discovery  or  in. 
vention  is.  Wintennnte  v.  licdhnjtm, 
MS. — Wilson,  J.;  Ohio,  i860. 

i!l.  Tho  construction  of  the  claiiiii 
of  a  patent  is  a  question  of  law,  exclu- 
sively for  the  court,  and  not  for  the  do 
termination  of  a  jury,  unless  there  may 
bo  technical  terms, or  terms  whiclinecil 
explanation  by  tho  evidence  given  be- 
fore the  jury.  Jiansoin  v.  Jlai/ar,  etc., 
o/Mw  Vork,  MS.— IIaix,  J.;  N.  Y,, 
1850. 

22.  Tho  question,  what  is  tho  grant 
which  a  patent  purports  to  make,  is  a 
question  of  law,  and  must  be  detv  iiiiii- 
ed  by  tho  court;  and  the  jury  arc  to 
consider  that  the  patent  grants  tiiat 
which  tho  court  determines  it  to  gram, 
Serrell  v.  Collins,  MS. — Lnojjiisoi.l,  J, ; 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

23.  It  belongs  to  tho  court  to  con- 
strue tho  patent,  and  declare  what  tiiu 
discovery  or  invention  is  which  the  pat- 
entee describes  and  claims.  Smithy. 
IliffffinSj  MS. — Bbits,  J.  j  N.  Y.,  1857. 


uit  is  the  gnuil 
s  to  iiiako,  is  :t 
ust  bo  delv  'iniii- 
the  jury  arc  to 
eiit  grants  tlmt 
lines  it  to  graul. 
-Ingkhsoi.l,  J.; 

ic  court  to  con- 
leclaro  what  tlio 
8  which  the  Jial- 
aims.  Smith  v. 
J.;  N.Y.,185L 


I'A'riCNT,  P.  4. 


ftl9 


oonmivcTioM  or(  st  tub  jvbt. 


'j4.  So  fur  HH  iho  ptitunt  luul  Npci-ill- 
cation  nrit  coiicornotl,  tlio  iiittTprota- 
tioti  of  »•'«'  l!"iK«i»Ko  emphiycl  l»y  On- 
lattiiti't'  i'*  w'tl'  I*"'  •'oiirt.  J*<i(/''  V. 
fari/,  MS  — Wii.KlNM,  J. ;  Mich.,  IHM. 

US.  It  '■■*  rt  (jucMtiuii  «»f  hiw,  to  be  tlu- 
ciilutl  oy  tlic  court,  what  tlic  patent 
imrpoitH  to  >;raiit.  Wutrrlmry  Jifana 
Co.  V.  N.  )'•  «6  JiriHikhfn  Ilntnn  C'o., 
MS.— IxtiKUhoi,!,,  J. ;  N.  v.,  185H. 

L'().  In  tlic  trial  of  a  suit  for  the  viohi- 
tioti  of  a  patcnt-rigiit,  the  court  cannot 
be  coiiipdU'tl  to  H'Ci'ive  thi'  testimony 
of  experts  us  to  tlie  proper  or  h'>j;al  con- 
struction of  the  patent.  A  jililgti  may, 
however,  obtain  information  from  them 
if  liu  ilchirc  it,  on  matters  whicli  he 
(locM  iKtt  clearly  apprcheml.  Wi/nma 
V.  ^V.  V.  tb  K  li.  li.  Co.,  21  How.,  lUl. 
— (iKIKIt,  .1.;  Sup.  Cl.,  1H5H. 

'.'".  The  court  tletcrniincs  what  the 
patent  jiurports  to  j^rant.  Jidrtholomcir 
V.  Savi/er,  MS. — iMiKUsoLi-,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

28.  The  construction  of  a  patent  falls 
to  the  court  as  a  matter  of  law,  depend- 
ing soaietinics,  perhaps,  upon  the  tcch- 
iiicttl  use  of  terms,  if  there  bo  such, 
wiiicli  have  a  use  different  from  the 
usual  and  ordinary  accei)tation  of  theni, 
and  thus  far  may  be  matters  of  fact 
for  the  jury.  Jolmson  v.  Itoot^  IMS. — 
Si'BAUUK,  J. ;  Mass.,  1858. 

4.  Sow  far  construed  by  the  Jury. 

See  also  Juby. 

1.  Whether  the  specification  contains 
the  whole  truth,  and,  if  not,  whether 
the  concealment  was  with  intant  to  de- 
ceive, and  whether  it  is  as  to  a  material 
point,  are  questions  for  the  decision  of 
a  jury.  Reutgen  v.  Kanowra,  1  Wash., 
171.— Wasuington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1804. 


2.  Whether  n  concealment  in  a  pat- 
ent  arose  from  any  fraudulent  intent,  i« 
a  ipiestion  fur  the  jury.  (I'ruy  v.  Jaincn, 
Pet.,  C.  C,  401.— Wamiu.nuton,  J.; 
Pa.,  1817. 

:i.  It  is  for  the  jury  to  de.idu  wheth* 
er  the  specilication  is  st)  uncertain  as 
not  to  enabh>  a  skilful  workman  t(»  un- 
derstand the  impr«ivement,  and  carry 
into  execution  the  plan  of  the  inventor. 
In  deciditig  such  (|ueHtioii,  however,  the 
jury  will  give  a  lilieral,  (*ommon  sense 
construction  of  the  directions  cont.ained 
iu  the  specification.  DatHn  v.  Palmer^ 
2  Brock.,  :jOH.— Mausiiai.l,  Ch.  J. ;  Va., 
IH27. 

4.  The  «'0urt  decide,  as  to  the  sufll- 
ciency  of  a  patent,  wlu'ther  the  state- 
ments are  sufiicient  in  law  ;  it  is  a  ques- 
tion for  the  jury  to  decide  whether  the 
statements  are  true  in  fact.  The  court 
does  not  look  beyond  the  patent  and 
other  jtapers,  but  the  jury  decide  from 
the  Jtapers,  the  evidence  of  the  wit- 
nesses, an  inspection  of  the  old  and  new 
machine,  and  the  models,  to  ascertain 
whether  in  point  of  fact  the  spccilicii- 
tion,  us  nnide  out  at  the  trial,  is  sufii- 
cient. Whitney  v.  Emmett,  Jiald.,  '^  1 5. 
— Baldwin,  .1.;  I'a.,  I8ai, 

5.  Objections  to  a  patent,  th.it  the 
specification  does  not  sufticiently  de- 
scribe the  invention ;  or  that  the  inven- 
tion is  not  new ;  that  a  renewed  and 
the  orighial  patent  are  not  for  the  same 
invention ;  or  that  the  patent  was  ob- 
tained with  a  fraudulent  intent ;  all  in- 
volve matters  of  fact  which  belong  to 
the  province  of  the  jury,  upon  the  evi- 
dence. Carver  v.  J}  rain  tree  Manuf. 
Co.^  2  Story,  441. — Stokv,  J.;  Mass., 
1843. 

6.  It  is  a  question  of  law  for  the  court 
whether  the  invention  is  sufticiently  de- 
scribed iu  the  patent.    But  if  technical 


...''jsJii 


tt'-'^-  ;; 


020 


PATENT,  P.  4. 


covvniuoTioN  or;  it  tn*  ji'BT. 


trrmti  nrv  imrcl,  cviilcnco  mnjr  bo  ^Ivcn 
ill  t>x|tliiimlioii  of  Niich  tortni,  nii<l  in 
RUcli  A  riiMO  n  jury  iiiay  \w  lu'ocHMary. 
Jlrooki  V.  JfirAniU,  A  MfL«'iiii,  44*2. — 
Ml  I.KAN,  J. ;  Oliid,  IN  14. 

7.  It  ix  II  i|ii(»«ti(iii  of  fm-t  for  tin*  Jury, 
wlit'thor  tlif  ilfHcriplioii  iit  no  pttrticiilur 
M  to  ciiulth'  iuni>cli)uiic  t<»  roiiHtrilct  tho 
ttiiii);  ill  (jiK'Nlioii.     ihitl.,  442. 

H.  Thf  court  in  I»ouih1  to  Ntiito  wliut 
ill  law  ix  till'  itivi'iitioti  claiiiii-tl,  ho  t'lir 
iiH  the  coiiNtriictiiiii  of  tliu  piitciit  ami 
the  Hpcciiicatioii  in  coiiiTriwil.  Hut  tlu' 
jury  nvo  to  juil^'o  of  tln'  iiu'aiiiiij^  of 
wohIh  of  art,  and  tt-rlinifal  pliruM'H  in 
ooiiiiiirrrfiiiiil  iiiaiiiifurturfH,  and  of  tlu 
Hurrouiidiii;{  cirtMiiiiHtaiuH'H,  whioh  may 
afToct,  ('iilur){i>,  or  control  lIu'  iiu>aniii){ 
uf  the  words  of  |lu>  patriit  and  H|>i'rilli!a- 
tion.  ]\'ti«/ifmrn  v.  (t'ould,  :J  Story, 
187,  158.— Stouy,  J. ;  Miihm.,  IH44. 

0.  Till-  Hurtlrit'iiry  of  the  dcNcription 
in  a  Kpccitication  is,  in  ^oncral,  in  pat- 
ents for  a  ooinposition  of  matter,  as 
Avcll  ttH  in  patents  for  macliini's,  a  ques- 
tion of  fai^t  for  the  jury.  Witod  v.  l/n- 
(fer/iill,  5  llow.,  4. — Tankv,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

!U,  It  iti  for  the  jury  to  decide,  wheth- 
er from  the  evidence,  the  description  of 
an  invention  in  si  patent  is  siitliciently 
full,  clear,  and  exact,  to  enable  a  skilful 
mechanic  to  construct  the  thing  de- 
Bcrihed.  Parker  v.  Stiles,  6  McLean, 
65.— Lkavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1840. 

11.  Where  the  eft'ect  and  operation 
of  mechanical  contrivances,  which  are 
matters  of  skill,  and  to  be  determined 
by  experts,  enter  into  the  question  of 
the  extent  of  a  patented  combination, 
the  question  is  a  nuxed  one  of  law  and 
fact,  and  proper  to  be  determined  by  the 
jury  under  the  instruction  of  the  court. 
Foote  V.  JSilsbi/,  1  Blatchf.,  458,  465.— 
Nelson,  J. ;  K.  Y.,  1849. 


I '2.  Where  tho  qtiniitinn  nn  !»» tli,.  ,,. 
tent  of  a  conibitiatioii  an  pati>iiti<i|,  y^^ 
treated  by  the  ilefendiiiitH  uh  n  ipii><ttii)n 
of  fiict,  and  wiiM  Hci-ordiiijxly  Niiimiiiti'tl 
as  Hiiih  to  the  jury,  the  defi-ndiinl  dm,, 
not  atVerward  object  to  such  artinn  of 
the  eiHirt,  on  the  ground  thai  the  nmrt 
should  have  determined  the  iiaturo  mnl 
extent  of  the  combination,  us  a  iicitlir 
of  law,  from  the  Mpecilication.  Jki,i 
4<»rt. 

I  ."I.  Wher(>  a  claim  was  for  a  eoinhj. 
nation  which  did  not  point  out  mnl  i|i>ft. 
igiiate  the  particular  elenieiits  wliich 
couipimed  the  combination,  but  unly  i|i>. 
clarud  that  the  combination  wan  maile 
up  of  HO  much  of  the  described  iiiai>liiii. 
«ry  ai  effected  a  particular  result,  /A/,/, 
it  was  a  (|uestion  '>f  fact  whirli  »(  ilm 
described  partH  o  essential  to  that 

result ;  and  to  t  tent,  not  the  con- 

struction,  but  the  application,  of  tliii 
claim  should  bo  letl  to  the  jury.  ,Siliiliy 
V.  Fuote,  14  How.,  220.— CuKTis,  .1.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1H62. 

14.  The  jury  are  to  deterniiiift  from 
the  facts  in  a  case,  whether  the  specili- 
cations,  including  the  claim,  are  so  pri'- 
cise  iiH  to  enable  any  skilful  person  to 
make  the  thing  described.  Jiuttin  v. 
Tayyert,  17  How.,  85. — MiLka.n,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1854. 

15.  The  application  of  the  facts  to 
the  sj»ecitication  or  patent,  as  constnii'J 
by  the  court,  in  for  the  jury.  Tecsey. 
Phelps,  1  McAlIis.,  40. — McAm.ibteb, 
J.;  Cal.,  1855. 

10.  It  is  a  question  of  fact  for  the 
jury,  whether  the  description  in  the 
patent  is  ho  vague  or  uncertain  that  a 
competent  workman,  in  the  particular 
busineoH  covered  by  the  patent,  could 
not,  from  the  Hpecitication  and  drnwini,', 
construct  the  machine.  Page  v.  Ferry, 
MS.— WiLKiNS,  J.;  Mich.,  1857. 


IVXTKNT,  P.  8. 


8)1 


or;  otAiM  w. 


I'tt'i'miiif'  rniin 


17.  Il  I*  «'x<'I»«lv»'ly  th«  provlni'o  of 
th(*  J)>''y  '**  it'*<'«'rtitiii  ami  (h'trriiiiiH' 
wlii'tlxT  tli*t  piiti'tittH*  irt  till*  ori^innl  in- 
VfDtor  uf  tlitt  tliiii({  patt'iitf*!,  aihI  wIi«<- 
tb«'r  it  fin)>rnc«'H  tiitt  tl-iii^  um«><I  hy  the 
.h-lintlftiit*.  Sm'th  V.  //iijf/ina,  MS.— 
Uicrrs  .'• ;  N'-  V.,  lMft«. 

IH.  Wlirthcr  tlui  <U>m>ripti«m  in  a 
n|R-fill('ulioii  i**  Hiillldi'iilly  full,  <'l««r»r, 
ami  cxiii't,  to  t'liablo  n  (mthoii  HkillctI  in 
tlii>  nrl  to  conslrnct  tin-  invention,  in  » 
(iiioHtion  of  li"'t  •"•■  til"  jory.  Jm/unn 
V.  .Voorj-,  MS.— Leaviit,  J.;  ()lii«», 
1860. 


5.  Force  and  ConHtrurtion  of  Clitim. 

1.  Tn  all  casoH  wlioro  tlio  y.'  utcc 
oljiiiiiH  any  tliin;?  an  liin  own  inviitinn, 
iu  hin  »|)i!ci(ication,  coiirtH  of  law  «'annot 
rojoct  till'  clainj ;  anil  if  inchnh'il  in  tin- 
iKitont,  ninl  fiMMitl  not  to  lt»^  now,  tin- 
mWwl  is  voiil,  liowi'viT  Hinall  antl  ini- 
iiii|)(irtaiit  such  assorted  invontiiui  may 
be.  il/iio'/y  V.  FMe^  2  MaH.,  IIH.— 
Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1H'20. 

2.  WluTo  a  i)atenti'o  in  his  HiH'cifici- 
tion  stiiti's  anil  sums  up  th«  particulars 
of  his  invention,  and  his  invention  cov- 
ers thoin,  ho  18  couHned  to  Buch  HUtn- 
mary,  and  cainutt  aftcrwanl  bo  permit- 
ted to  sustain  his  patent  by  Hhowinj^ 
tliat  Home  part  which  ho  claims  in  his 
summintj  up  as  his  invontion,  though  not 
in  fact  his  inventicm,  is  of  Hlight  value, 
or  iinportaiuu-  in  his  p.'itcnt.  Ibid,,  118. 

."J.  The  summinj^  up  of  the  invontion 
ill  a  ripecltlcation  is  a  limitation  to  the 
tliiiij,'  patented.  Whitnc/  v.  JiJ/nmett, 
Dald.,  31.'>.— Ham)Wkv,  J. ;  Pa.,  18;U. 

4.  If  the  court,  taking  the  whole  p.at- 
eut  together,  can  porceivo  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  claim,  it  is  bound  to 
adopt  such  interpretation,  and  give  it 


pfll'ft.  Kt/iin  V.  ffooiftfiin,  n  Muniti.,  fl20. 
— Srouv, .?.;  .MasH.,  Immo. 

A.  Whi*r««  II  pat«<ntct>  diNclaimod  thit 
mechanical  powcrN  by  which  the  inovo* 
mcnts  of  liiN  invcnlinn  were  obtained, 
and  claimed  "an  IiIn  in\i>ntioii  the  meth- 
od or  mo<le  of  operation  in  the  abstract 
explained  in  the  Hccond  article,*'  and  in 
Huoh  Hocond  article  described  a  maehinn 
of  n  particular  Ntruciure,  whose  modes 
of  iiperalion  were  pointed  out,  to  ac- 
complish n  particidar  purpose  or  end, 
/ft/d,  by  the  court,  that  the  invention 
was  of  a  particular  machine,  coiiMtituted 
iu  the  way  pointed  out,  fur  the  itccoin- 
plishmeiit  of  u  particular  cud  or  obj«>ct, 
and  that  the  patent  was  for  a  machine, 
not  a  function  or  principle  detached  from 
machin«'ry.  Jtlani'lutrd  v.  Spraijuf,  n 
Suinn.,  630, 63 7, 640. — S toky,  J. ;  Mass., 
IH.'JI). 

0.  In  order  to  aHcertain  tho  true  con- 
struction of  the  specitication,  as  to  wh.it 
is  granted  by  the  patent,  we  must  look 
to  the  summing  up  of  the  invention,  aiul 
tho  claim  therefor  asserted  in  tho  Hpc- 
cification  ;  for  it  is  tho  duty  of  the  pat- 
entee to  sum  up  his  invention  in  clear 
and  determinate  terms,  and  his  sum- 
ming up  IH  coneluHivo  upon  his  rights 
and  title.  Wyeth  v.  Statu,  1  Story, 
'28.').— Stouy,  J. ;  Mass.,  1 840. 

7.  Tho  patentee  must  describe,  with 
reasonable  certainty,  in  what  his  inven- 
tion consists,  and  what  his  particular 
claim  is.     Ibid.,  280. 

8.  Resort  can  bo  had  to  tho  introduc- 
tion of  the  specification,  as  well  as  the 
summing  up  at  the  close,  to  ascertain 
the  true  extent  of  the  claim.  Homy  v. 
Stevens,  1  Wood,  tfc  Min.,  294.— Woou- 
BUKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

t/.  Where  there  is  a  summary  setting 
out  the  claim  to  some  particular  novel- 
ty, that  is  to  govern;  but  if  it  refera 


%t    J 


v.->i 


./J 

m 

^^ 

*^ 

T 

r 

.Am.                                   A 

u 

m 

W^  ^^'^ 

P*M 

*»«' 

"'"  ^^ 

h 

'■'.>!!(1 


w  -t^-'-^i 


628 


PA  TENT,  P.  B. 


c()S8iiiu(nioN  or;  ci-a'm  ik. 


•'^t^:& 


-I  :•-  ^'-l 


'WTl 


:C^. 


to  (itlicr  j»:irts  of  the  sporificution  and 
tliawitigs,  those  jiurts  arc  to  Ix*  exiiinin- 
cd  in  coimtH'tioii  with  it,  in  ordur  to  as- 
fortain  what  is  ohiiinod  in  the  Huiinnary 
llovcy  V.  tStercnn,  ii  Wood.  &  Min.,  21. 
— WooimiiiY,  J.;  ]\Iass.,  1H4«. 

10.  Tho  claim  in  a  specification  waH, 
that  any  incj^uhir  Hiirtacc  or  form  conld 
1)0  turned  l)y  the  maeliinu  like  the  model, 
but  in  fact  a  si|uaru  Nhoulder  could  not 
be  turned;  J/ihf,  that  it  was  too  remote 
and  extreme  a  d*'fcct  to  vitiate  the  pat- 
ent. BlanchariVit  Gun-Stock  I'lcruin;/ 
Co.  V.  Warner,  1  Blatchf,  280.— Nki,- 
sox,  J.;  Ct.,  184G. 

11.  If  ;i  patentee  chooses  to  cover  the 
material  of  wliidi  a  part  of  his  machine 
is  made,  lie  entirely  endangers  his  right 
to  prosecute  when  a  ditteicnt  and  infe- 
rior material  is  employed,  and  especially 
one  rejected  by  himself.  Aiken  v.  Jie- 
mis,  3  Wood,  tfc  Min.,  354. — Woon- 
BUKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1847. 

12.  Where  a  patentee  claimed  a  ham- 
mer in  a  saw-set,  of  wrought  iron  faced 
with  steel,  alleging  that  he  found  upon 
experiment  that  all  steel  hammers  were 
much  more  liable  to  break,  and  wrought 
iron  ones  more  durable,  and  therefore 
confined  .his  specification  to  wrought 
iron  ones  with  steel  points.  Held,  in 
an  action  for  infringement  against  a 
person  using  a  hammer  wholly  of  steel, 
that  it  was  a  matter  of  doubt,  whether 
the  use  of  such  a  hammer  Avas  a  viola- 
tion of  the  patent.     Ibid.,  354. 

13.  The  claim  is  the  most  material 
part  of  the  specification.  It  is  the  at- 
tempt on  the  part  of  the  inventor  to 
describe  tho  very  thing  which  he  sup- 
poses he  has  invented,  and  for  which 
he  asks  a  patent.  Many  v.  Jagger,  1 
Blatchf.,  378.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1848. 

14.  If  an  inventor  sums  up  the  par- 


ticuhirs  of  his  invention,  he  is  contiiitMl 
and  held  to  sucli  summa'-y  and  his  |);ii. 
ent  must  stand  or  fall  by  it.  Pttrkcr  v 
aSVy//-s,  3IS. — (iiUKU,  J.;  Pa,,  1850. 

15.  Tho  claim  or  summing  up  is  not 
to  be  taken  alone,  but  i:i  connucliuu 
with  the  spjcification  and  drawiiifrs. 
Tho  v.holo  instrument  is  to  be  con- 
trued  together ;  but  the  other  ])iirts  arc 
to  be  looked  to  only  for  the  purpose  of 
correctly  interpreting  the  claim.  Jirouh 
v.  Fiakc,  MS.— Spuaulk,  J. ;  MaMg 
1851.  '     ' 

10.  Where  the  claim  does  not  point 
out  and  designate  Mie  particular  de- 
ments  which  comi)o  >!  a  combination 
but  only  declares  that  the  combination 
!«<  made  up  of  so  much  of  the  descrilnd 
machinery  i\s  eflects  a  particular  result, 
it  is  a  q  lestion  of  fact  which  of  the  de- 
scribed ^i.'vrts  f.re  essential  to  that  result- 
and  to  this  extt.it,  not  the  construction, 
but  tho  application  of  the  claim  should 
be  left  to  the  jury.  Silshg  v.  Foote^  14 
How.,  226.— Cuims,  J.;  Sup. Ct.,  1852. 

1 7.  TJie  use  of  a  known  cipiivalent  is 
an  infringement ;  although  the  i)ateiitce 
has  not  expressly  claimed  eiiuivalents, 
he  is  understood  to  embrace  thcni,  and 
in  contemplation  of  law  does  enihraco 
them,  without  any  express  mention. 
By  am  v.  Farr,  1  Curt.,  2G3.— Cuktis, 
J.;  Mass.,  1852. 

18.  But  the  patentee  is  not  obliged 
to  erabr.ace  equivalents  in  his  claim. 
He  may,  if  ho  choose,  confine  himself 
to  the  specific  ingredients  or  things,  and 
expressly  e>  dude  all  others ;  or  express- 
ly exclude  some  or  one  other.  If  lie 
does  so,  the  use  of  the  thing  disclaimed 
is  no  infringement.     Ibid.,  203. 

19.  It  is  for  the  parts  claimed  as  tho 
invention  of  the  patentee,  and  as  such 
particularly  pointed  out,  that  the  pat- 
ent issues.    It  covers  no  more ;  and  the 


^^^4.. 


PATENT,  P.  6. 


bT,i 


ouxHTiaoTiuN  or;  ulaiu  in. 


lio  is  conliiieil 
ry  and  his  pat. 
■  it.    Pnrktr\. 

1*11,,  1H50. 
iiiiiif,'  up  is  not 

in  ooniiec'tiuii 
and    di-iiwiiitrs. 

in  to  bo  t'on- 
other  i)arls  uru 

the  ))iirpose  of 
)  claim.  Jii-oiih 

LK,    J.  ;    Miiss,, 

does  not  point 
particular  de- 
a  coinhiiiation, 
he  combiiiatioii 
)t'  the  descrihi'd 
artiouKvr  result, 
kluc'h  of  the  (le- 
al to  that  result; 
}io  construction, 
he  claim  should 
'sf>!/v.Foote,U 
;  Sup.Ct.,185'2. 
^vn  c(iuivalent  is 
gh  the  patentee 
led  C(piivalents, 
)race  them,  and 
does  embrace 
)ress  mention. 
203.— Curtis, 


itatc'iitee  is  not  bound  to  prove  the  orig- 
inaiitv  of  what  \h  nut  in  it  to  uuiku  it  n 
|irolc»5tion  for  \v  ii.ii,  is  in  it.  Jlolliday 
s.liheenh  IS  Penu.,  400. — Black,  Ch. 
J.;  Pa.,  1852. 

20.  The  claim,  or  surnni'.ng  up,  is  not 
to  bo  taken  ulono,  but  in  connection 
with  the  s|)ccification  and  drawings; 
the  whole  instrument  is  to  be  construed 
together.  But  the  latter  aro  to  bo 
looked  to  only  for  the  purpose  of  en- 
jil»lin<'  the  court  correctly  to  interpret 
the  claim.  Brookn  v.  Fiske,  ]5  How., 
yi5.— Catuon,  J.;  Sup.  Ci.,  IbS.l. 

21.  A  patentee  may  so  restrict  bis 
claim  as  to  cover  less  thai'  bo  invented, 
or  may  limit  it  to  one  particular  form 
of  machine,  excluding  all  other  forms, 
though  ihcy  embody  bis  invention,  yet 
such  an  iiiterjjretation  sboukl  not  be 
put  upon  his  claim  if  it  can  fairly  be 
construed  otherwise.  Winana  v.  Den- 
mewl,  15  IIow.,  341. — CuKTis,  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1853. 

22.  Patentees  sometimes  add  to  their 
claims  an  express  declaration  to  the  ef- 
fect thivt  the  claim  extends  to  the  thing 
patented,  however  its  form  or  propor- 
tions maybe  varied.  But  this  is  un- 
necessary. The  law  so  interprets  the 
claim  without  the  addition  of  these 
words.    Ibid.^  343. 

23.  A  patentee  may  limit  his  claim  in 
his  specification  to  one  particular  form 
of  machine,  and  exclude  all  others.  In 
such  a  case  he  is  secured  only  to  the  par- 
ticular form  claimed.  The  patent  law 
was  intended  to  secure  to  the  invent- 

^  or  his  whole  invention  or  discovery, 
but  not  unless  he  claimed  to  be  secured 
in  the  w^hole.  If  he  claims  only  a  part, 
each  part  is  only  secured  to  him.  Amer. 
Pin  Co.  v.  Oakville  Pin  Co.,  3  Blatchf. 
193;  3  A.  L.  R.,  138.— Ingeksoll,  J.; 
Nelson,  J.,  concurring;  Ct.,  1854. 


24.  No  more  can  bo  secured  by  the 
|)atenteo  than  ho  has  invented  or  dis- 
covered ;  and  no  more  can  bo  secured 
than  is  claimed  to  be  secured  in  the 
specification.     Ibid..,  138. 

25.  The  phrase  "  or  tlio  equivalent 
therefor,"  in  machinery,  extends  to  im- 
provements substantially  the  same  as 
those  described  involving  the  8.ime 
pri'iciple,  and  embracing  all  alteration.s 
merely  colorable,  but  does  not  include 
a  claim  to  any  other  invention  equiva- 
lent or  equal  to  the  one  described — this 
would  be  to  include  all  modifications  or 
improvements  iii  the  machine.  McGor- 
mick  V.  Mimuy,  0  McLean,  557. — Mc- 
Lean, J.;  111.,  1855. 

20.  In  construing  a  claim  we  must 
look  at  the  entire  speci'-cation  and 
drawings,  and  view  each  part  by  the 
light  thrown  on  it  by  tlie  wliole;  ami 
though  there  is  an  erroneous  descrip- 
tion as  to  how  a  certain  part  enters  into 
a  combuiation,  if  there  is  enough  left 
clearly  and  certainly  to  correct  the  mis- 
take, the  patent  will  be  sustained.  Kit 
Hex. Merriam,  2  Curt.,  479,  480.— Cur 
Tis,  J. ;  Mf'ss.,  1855. 

27.  Formerly  a  strict  construction 
was  given,  in  this  country  and  in  Eng- 
land, to  the  claims  of  a  patentee,  but  a 
more  favorable  and  liberal  view  is  now 
taken  of  his  claim.  He  nmst  describe 
it  within  the  law ;  but  courts  do  not  go 
beyond  the  law  for  technical  objections 
to  defeat  it.  Allen  v.  Hunter,  0  Mc- 
Lean, 311. — McLean,  J. ;  Ohio,  1855. 

28.  When  a  patentee  claims  several 
distinct  improvements,  he  must  estab- 
lish his  right  to  each,  to  sustain  an  ac- 
tion. Ileinrich  v.  Luther,  6  McLean, 
346. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

29.  Patentees  should  not,  in  their 
claim,  confound  specific  with  generic 
description,  and  so  set  up  a  claim  to  a 


Mof 


yu 


^*%»!f 


'*«i»i^ 


M'k^^\ 


Li 


'"Hl-i'V 


'**^^-A,^i 


Pi» 


PS 


••^'U4»fUf^ltH' 


II 

i 


li 


^u. 


.i^ 


'] 


I 


(i'24 


PATENT,  P.  «. 


OOMHTHUOTIOW  OF;   OI.AIII   IN. 


grout  rliiM  of  *'  iiif?H,  wlii'n  their  triui 
olaiiii  is  only  (■  ;i  limilcil  viirioty  of  tho 
fiftH^.  L'ltuinfi'  Vane,  7  Opiii.,  i;U. — 
CusiiiNd,  Atty.  (Jen.;  IH55. 

ih).  All  Hiu'h  ov<»r-l»roii(l  pn'tenHioiiH 
nvnil  notliiiig  iif^niiiHt  the  puUlio,  mid 
impair  tli<>  HhTiif^tli  of  wliiitever  tlu'ro 
iiifty  truly  bo  of  orij^inal  in  the  imrticu* 
liir  ]mtonl.     /"A/VA,  1M4. 

3L  When  tlio  oxiict  nature  and  ex- 
tent, (»r  ossenoe  of  tlio  elaim  oan  l»e  por- 
oeived,  tlie  ooiirt  '\h  bound  to  adopt  that 
interpretation  of  the  patent,  and  to  give 
it  fill  etfoot.  Wintermute  v.  Ilediny- 
tOH,  MS.— Wilson,  J.;  Ohio,  1856. 

32.  Tn  determining  the  construction 
of  the  claims  «)f  a  patent,  the  court 
eho  lid  refer  to  tlie  whoU>  specification, 
and  consider  tlie  whole  in  connection, 
although  the  claim  at  the  end  of  the 
specification  is  usually  intended  to  de- 
fine and  limit  the  extent  of  the  claim 
made  by  the  patentee.  Itanaom  v.  May- 
or, cDc,  of  N.  K,  MS.— Hall,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1850. 

f.3.  The  construction  of  the  claims 
of  a  patent  is  .a  question  of  law  exclu- 
sively for  the  court,  and  not  for  the  de- 
termination of  ?  jury,  unless  there  m.ay 
be  technical  terms  or  terms  which  need 
explanation  by  the  evidence  given  be- 
fore the  jury.     Ilnd. 

34.  Where  a  claim  may  be  open  to 
objection  of  any  kind,  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  court  in  construing  it,  to  so  con- 
strue it,  if  it  can  be  done,  without  doing 
violence  to  the  language  used,  as  not  to 
affect  the  claim  of  the  patentee,  but  to 
give  him  what  and  all  he  has  actually 
invented — in  other  words,  to  make  the 
claim  commensurate  with  the  invention 
actually  made.     Ibid. 

35.  While  it  is  true  that  the  summing 
up  is  to  be  looked  at  to  discover  the 
parts  of  the    machine    the    patentee 


claims  as  his  invention,  still  if  any  ihin,, 
is  noeilod  to  give  the  propn-  mtani,,,, 
of  expressions  used  in  the  cluim,  tlu, 
previous  portions  of  the  Hpeci(lciiii„n 
may  bo  referred  to  for  such  ('X|iluiin- 
tioiis  as  may  bo  necessary  to  undoiNiand 
the  office  and  purpose  of  that  which  Ih 
claimed  as  new.  Morn's  v.  Uarrclt 
MS. — liKAvirr,  J. ;  Ohio,  lH.^8. 

;Ul.  If  by  an  oxamination  of  tlio»|»(v. 
ification  ami  applying  it  to  the  then  ex- 
isting state  of  the  art,  it  can  be  Iciiriu'il 
wh:it  the  invention  was,  tluMi  the  cliiitn 
whi(rh  is  designed  to  be  a  coikIciihciI 
summary  of  the  invention,  is  to  \w  con. 
Htruod  so  as  to  be  coextensive  with  the 
invention,  if  that  can  be  done  witlioiii 
d«»ing  violence!  to  its  language.  Wltti). 
pie  v.  Middlrscx  Co.,  MS. — Spkacli; 
J.;  Mass.,  1850. 

37.  In  construing  the  claitn  of  a  pat- 
out,  the  court  take  into  view  the  wlioleof 
what  precedes  it  in  the  i)ateiit,  and  jilso 
such  extraneous  facts  jiresented  by  tiio 
evidence  as  may  aid  in  giving  the  true 
construction  to  the  patent,  particularly 
documents  from  the  Patent  Office  wlilth 
preceded  the  granting  of  the  patent  it- 
self. Johnson  v.  Itoot,  MS. — Si-kagie, 
J.;  M.ass.,  1859. 

38.  Whoie  there  is  any  doubt  as  to 
the  extent  and  meaning  of  the  inven- 
tion of  an  appl.oant,  the  whole  specifi- 
cation should  be  taken  together  in  con- 
struction, and  not  confined  to  the  more 
words  of  the  claim.  The  phraseolo- 
gy of  a  claim  "/br  the  jntrposcs  set 
forth,"  embraces  the  Avhole  specifica- 
tion. Sprague,  Ex  parte,  ]\IS.  (App. 
Cas.) — MousELL,  J.;  I).  C,  1859. 

39.  Where  necessary  to  explain  any 
ambiguity  in  the  summing  up  or  claim 
of  a  specification,  resort  should  be  had 
to  the  body  of  the  specification,  that 
the  whole  may  be  taken  together,  that 


PATENT,  R. 


028 


(WNHTIIUCTIOII   or;    WUKN    VOID. 


in  (tiipport  ff  ♦'"'  clni"«  n  lil»cml  nnd  not 
•i  nlri''t  (M)iiHlnirt'nin  hIioiiUI  |)r(>v»il. 
ruhii'ui,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  CaH.)— 

MOUSKIX,  J.  ;    I>.  C\,   IHOO 

40.  |{iit  there  hIiouM  not  1)0  pjivon 
any  forced  couHtructioii  to  tlio  lioily  of 
tliti  Hpccillfution,  HO  UH  to  extend  the 
clnim  of  tho  imtciitiU! ;  on  tlio  contrary, 
only  wiiiih  II  construction  oiif^ht  to  bo 
nindo  us,  consiHlcntly  with  the  fiiir  im- 
port of  language,  will  make  tlie  chiiin 
cocxtenHivo  with  the  actual  dincovory. 
Ibiil 

||.     Violation  of. 

See  Actions,  A. ;  Comiunation,  W.  ; 
CoMPOsrrioN  ok Matikk,  JJ.;  Dkhiuns; 
Form;  Inkki.n(jkmknt,  U. 

R,     WllKN  Voiu. 

Sec  also  in  connection  herewith,  Aiian- 
DONMKNT,  IJ. ;  Defkncks;  PnioB 
KNOwLBuaK;  Pkior  Usk. 

1.  Under  §  1  of  the  act  of  itoo,  if 
the  allegations  and  suggestions  of  the 
petition  are  not  substantially  recited  in 
the  patent,  the  i)atent  is  void.  JCvana 
V.  Chambers,  2  Wash,,  120.— Wash- 
ington, J.;  Pa.,  1807. 

2.  If  an  inventor  bo  not  an  inventor 
of  the  whole  machine,  but  only  of  an 
improvement  thereof,  and  the  patent  is 
for  the  whole  machine,  the  patent  is  too 
broad  and  is  utterly  void.  Whittemore 
V.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  479.~Story,  J.; 
Mass.,  1813. 

3.  If  an  inventor  obtain  a  patent  for 
an  entire  machine,  when  he  is  the  in- 
ventor only  of  an  improvement  thereon, 
his  patent  is  too  broad,  and  therefore 
void.  Odiome  v.  Winkley,  2  Gall.,  63. 
—Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1814. 

4.  If  a  patent  be  taken  out  for  an  en- 


tire machine,  when  the  invention  con- 
HiHtH  only  of  an  iniprovcnicnt  on  such 
machine,  the  whole  jtateiit  Ih  not  void, 
but  the  patentee  is  not  entitled  to  more 
than  his  improvement ;  nor  <ran  he  make 
or  UHO  the  original  diwcovcry,  nor  pros- 
e(;ute  any  person  for  using  such  original 
discovery  without  engrafting  on  it  the 
improvement  invented  by  the  patentee. 
(hodyenr  v.  Mattkews,  1  Paine;,  302. 
— LlVIN<JSTON,  J.;  ()t.,  1814. 

5.  The  grant  can  only  be  for  the  dis- 
covery as  recited  in  the  pat(;iit  and 
specification.  If  the  patitnt  is  for  the 
whole  of  a  machine,  and  the  discovery 
was  only  of  an  improvement,  tins  patcmt 
is  void.  Evana  v.  Eaton,  I'et.  G.  C., 
342. — Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1810. 

0.  If  the  description  in  the  patent 
mixes  up  the  old  and  the  new,  and  does 
not  distinctly  ascertain  for  whi(!h  in  par- 
ticular the  patent  is  claimed,  it  is  void. 
Lowell  V.  Lewis,  1  Mas.,  187. — Stoky, 
J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

7.  K  a  patentee  include  in  his  patent 
any  thing  already  known,  the  patent 
will  bo  broader  than  the  invention,  and 
consequently  void.     Ibid.,  188. 

8.  An  invention,  to  entitle  the  inven- 
tor to  a  patent,  must  not  only  bo  useful, 
but  it  must  also  be  new.  It  is  a  good 
defence  in  an  action  for  infringement, 
that  the  thing  patented  was  not  origi- 
nally discovered  by  the  patentee.  JBed- 
fordv.  Hunt,  1  Mas.,  304. — Stout,  J.; 
Mass.,  1817. 

9.  If  the  terms  of  a  patent  are  so 
obscure  or  doubtful  that  the  court  can- 
not say  what  is  the  particular  improve- 
ment which  the  patentee  claims,  and  to 
what  it  is  Umited,  the  patent  is  void  for 
ambiguity.  Barrett  v.  Hall,  1  Mas.,  470. 
— Stoby,  J.;  Mass.,  1818. 

10.  And  if  it  covers  more  than  the 
improvement,  it  ia  void  for  the  reasoa 


'■  -u/^uf^^i 


-^ 


*■  >i*" 


wWww4v4^' 


^^i^iu^ 


'44mi. 


^.- 


ri26 


PATENT,  R. 


..rni<^ 


S/fJIl! 


CONBTRUOTIOy  OF;    WHEN  VOIP. 


that  it  is  broader  than  the  invention. 
Ibifl,  470. 

11.  The  nature  and  extent  of  tlic 
improvement  mtist  be  clearly  and  ful- 
ly stated,  or  the  patent  will  bo  void. 
Evans  v.  Eaton,  3  Wash.,  462,  455. — 
Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1818. 

12.  If  a  combin.ition  bo  not  wholly 
new,  but  up  to  a  certain  point  has  exist- 
ed before,  and  the  patentee  claims  the 
whole  as  new,  instead  of  his  own  im- 
provements only,  and  takes  out  a  patent 
for  the  whole  machine,  his  patent  is  void, 
for  it  exceeds  his  invention.  Moody  v. 
i^/aA-e,  2  M.as.,  118. — Stouy,  J.;  Mass., 
1820. 

1.3.  A  specification  which  mixes  up 
the  old  and  the  new,  but  does  not  ex- 
plain what  is  the  nature  or  limit  of  the 
improvement  which  the  party  claims, 
cannot  be  sustained.  Eoans  v.  Eaton, 
1  Wheat.,  434.— Stoby,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1822. 

14.  Where  the  specification  does  not 
describe  the  invention  so  as  to  show  in 
what  respect  the  plaintiff's  invention  or 
improvement  difters  from  what  had 
been  known  or  used  before,  the  patent 
is  void.  Langdon  v.  De  Grroot,  1  Paine, 
207. — Livingston,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1822. 

15.  If  a  patentee  include  in  his  pat- 
ent .an  original  p.atent  known  to  have 
been  previously  patented  to  another 
person,  with  his  own  improvement  for 
which  he  is  entitled  to  a  patent,  the 
patent  is  void.  Thrner  v.  Johnson,  2 
Cra.  C.  C,  ^87. — Cranch,  J.;  D.  C, 
1822. 

16.  The  specification  described  the 
invention  "  that  it  essentially  consists  in 
attaching  the  packet  to  the  steamboat 
•with  ropes,  chains,  or  spars,  so  as  to 
commtmicate  the  power  of  the  engine 
from  the  towing  vessel  to  vessels  taken 
in  tow,  and  kept  always  at  convenient 


distance;  the  manner  of  a|i).ljiii.r  (i,g 
power  varying  in  some  measure  with 
the  circumstances ;"  Jleld,  that  iho  de. 
8crli)tion  of  the  invention,  if  any  ihui,, 
was,  was  too  vague  and  uncertain ;  tlio 
patent  void.  iSuUivan  v.  JiedJieU,  i 
Paine,  450,  451. — Tuompson,  J. ;  N.  V 
1825. 

17.  If  a  patent  embraces  the  discov. 
ery  of  another  jjcrson,  besides  or  with 
the  invention  or  discovery  of  tlio  paten- 
tee, it  is  too  broad,  and  is  void,  ^^u^ 
son  V.  Bladen,  4  Wash.,  682,  583.— 
Washington,  J;  Pa.,  1820, 

18.  If  a  patent  covers  what  was  in 
use  before,  and  what  belonged  to  tho 
public,  it  is  void.  Davis  v.  Palmer,  2 
Brock.,  310. — Marshall,  Ch.  J.;  Va., 
1827. 

19.  If  a  party  suggest  an  idea  as  to 
an  invention,  which  is  indispensable  to 
its  operation,  and  which  in  reality  con- 
stitutes its  whole  value,  and  another 
adopts  such  suggestion  and  takes  out  a 
patent  therefor,  the  patent  is  void,  as 
not  being  the  Invention  of  the  paten- 
tee. Thomas  v.  Weeks,  2  Paine,  lOii.— 
Thompson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1827. 

20.  A  patent  must  not  be  broader 
than  the  invention,  or  it  will  he  void, 
not  only  for  so  much  as  had  been  known 
or  used  before  the  application,  but  also 
for  the   improvement  really  invented. 

Whitney  V.  Emtnett,  Bald.,  314.— Bald- 
WIN,  J.;  Pa.,  1831. 

21.  A  patent  can  be  declared  void  by 
a  Circuit  Court,  in  a  civil  suit,  only  for 
the  reasons  and  causes  mentioned  in  § 
6  of  the  act  of  1793.     Ibid.,  316,  317. 

22.  It  has  been  the  uniform  construc- 
tion of  the  law  in  the  Circuit  Courts, 
that  a  patent  can  be  declrred  void  for 
no  other  defect  in  the  specification  than 
fraudulent  concealment  or  addition. 
Ibid.,  321. 


■^ .  .i 


PATENT,  R. 


521 


COXHTKLCTION  OF;   WIIKM  VOID. 


23.  The  cxprcsHion  "tlie  patent  is 
yoid^'' used  by  the  courts  in  civil  actions 
(it  common  law,  18  to  bo  understood  not 
as  incaninjj  that  it  becomes  void  by  a 
iudcnicnt  in  favor  of  the  defendant,  but 
only  that  it  is  voidable  in  chancery,  and 
in  a  court  of  law,  void  as  a  legal  found- 
ation for  an  action  of  damages.     Ibid., 

318, 

'24.  If  the  specification  is  wholly  am- 
biguous and  uncertain,  so  loosely  defin- 
ed and  80  inaccurately  expressed  that 
the  court  cannot,  upon  a  fair  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words,  and  without  vague 
conjecture  of  intention,  gather  what  it 
is  the  patent  is  void  for  such  defect. 
Ames  v.  IToieard,  I  Sumn.,  485. — Sto- 
ry, J.;  Mass.,  1833. 

25.  But  if  the  court  can  clearly  see, 
by  a  reasonable  use  of  the  me.ins  of 
interpretation  of  the  language  used, 
taking  the  whole  in  connection,  what 
is  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  claim, 
then  the  plaintiff  is  entitled  to  the  ben- 
efit of  it,  however  imperfectly  and  inar- 
tificially  he  may  have  expressed  himself. 
Ibid.,  485. 

26.  If  a  patent  is  for  an  entire  ma- 
chine, but  the  patentee  is  the  inventor 
of  only  a  part  thereof,  the  patent  is 
void,  as  a  party  cannot  entitle  himself 
to  a  patent  for  more  than  his  own  in- 
vention. Cross  V.  Iluntly,  13  Wend., 
386,  387.— Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1835. 

27.  In  a  patent  for  improvement  in 
cider  mills,  the  claim  was  for  improve- 
ments in  the  box  enclosing  the  cylinder, 
and  the  teeth  or  brads  set  in  the  cylin- 
der, but  the  specification  did  not  show 
any  improvement  in  such  teeth  or  brads ; 
Held,  that  as  the  specification  was  de- 
fective in  part,  the  patent  was  void,  and 
not  onlyjwo  taiito,  but  in  toto.  Head 
V.  Stevens,  19  Wend.,  412. — Cowen,  J.; 
N.Y.,  1838. 


28.  A  patent  is  void  and  inoperative 

if  ihe  specification  claims  niore   than 

the  jtatentee  hsis  invente«l.     Stanh'ij  v. 

Whipple,  2  McLean,  30.— McLkan,.!.; 

Ohio,  iH3J). 

20.  A  claim  broader  than  tlie  actual 
invention  of  the  patentee,  is,  for  that 
very  reason,  utterly  void,  and  the  pat- 
ent is  a  nullity.  Wyeth  v.  Stone,  1 
Story,  280.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

30.  Prior  to  the  act  of  1830,  if  a  pat- 
entee claimed  more  than  he  liad  invent- 
ed, his  patent  was  void.  But  under  § 
9  of  the  act  of  1837,  the  patent  is  not 
absolutely  void  because  the  patentee 
claims  more  than  he  has  invented,  but 
is  valid  for  so  much  as  is  truly  and  bona 
fide  his  own ;  but  in  tlie  specification 
ho  must  state  in  what  his  improvement 
consists.  Peterson  v.  Wooden,  3  McLean, 
248, 240.— McLean,  J. ;  Ohio,  1843. 

31.  If  the  invention  is  not  so  describ- 
ed as  to  be  known,  in  the  language  of 
the  statute,  from  every  other  thing,  the 
patent  is  void.  Brooks  v.  Bicknell,  3  Mc- 
Lean, 442. — McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1844. 

32.  If  an  invention  patented  is  the 
same  in  pruiciple  with  one  before  in  uso, 
the  patent  is  void.     Ibid.,  451. 

33.  If  a  foreign  patentee,  or  his  as- 
signees, do  not  put  their  invention  on 
sale  within  eighteen  months  afler  the 
same  is  obtained,  as  required  by  §  15  of 
the  act  of  1830,  the  patent  will  be  void. 
Tat/iam  v.  Loring,  5  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs., 
208. — Story,  J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

34.  If  the  meaning  of  the  patent  can- 
not be  satisfactorily  ascertained  upon 
the  face  of  the  specification,  it  is  insuf 
ficient  for  uncertainty  and  ambiguity. 
Emerson  v.  Hogg,  2  Blatchf.,  0.- 
Betts,  J.;  So.  N.  Y,  1845. 

35.  When  the  specification  of  a  new 
composition  of  matter  gives  only  the 
names  of  the  substances  to  be  mixed 


••^■U. 


"        !■»» 


m 


'**',  ite';  %^\ 


^U 


;i:i 


jog 


PATENT,  R. 


CDNHTRUCriON   Of,    WIIBK    VOIU. 


'^'■ 


:l 


ti 


n 


togothor,  without  Htatlng  any  relntivc 
projiortioii,  or  wlioro  tho  proporlions 
are  Htatod  aiiiWi^iioiiMly  or  vnguuly,  tho 
patent  ih  void,  ah  it  would  not  enable 
nny  one  to  conipound  and  use  llie  in- 
vention witliout  experiment.  Wood  v. 
UnderhiU,  5  How.,  46.— Tanky,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

30.  IJut  where  tho  patentee  gives  a 
certain  proportion  as  a  general  rule, 
Avhich  on  the  faoe  of  the  specification 
seems  generally  applicable,  the  patent 
will  be  valid,  though  Home  small  differ- 
ence in  tho  proportions  may  be  occa- 
Hi'»nal'y  required,  according  to  the 
quality  of  tho  materials  made  use  of. 
Ibid.,  5. 

37.  If  a  specification  includes  as  well 
tho  original  discovery  as  the  alleged 
improvement,  and  does  not  point  out 
in  what  tho  improvement  consists,  the 
patent  is  void.  Street  v.  Silver,  Bright- 
ley,  101. — ItoGERS,  J. ;  Pa.,  1840. 

38.  If  the  specification  is  so  uncer- 
tain, as  to  whether  a  particidar  tiling  is 
claimed  as  a  part  of  a  now  combination, 
or  as  a  new  invention,  as  to  be  unintel- 
ligible, it  is  void,  but,  aemble,  it  may  bo 
surrendered  and  amended.  Ilovey  v. 
Stevens,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  302. — Wood- 
bury, J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

89.  If  a  patent  embraces  and  claims 
as  a  part  of  the  improvements  describ- 
ed in  it,  something  which  is  not  new, 
but  was  invented  by  another,  ic  is  void, 
the  claim  being  broader  than  the  inven- 
tion. Ti/ler  V.  Deval,  I  Code  Rep.,  30. 
— McCalkb,  J. ;  La.,  1848. 

40.  In  order  to  render  a  patent  valid, 
under  §  9  of  tlie  act  of  1837,  which 
contains  more  than  is  the  invention  of 
the  patentee,  it  must  appear  that  the 
part  really  invented  was  "a  material 
and  substantial  part  of  the  thing  pat- 
ented, and  was  distinguishable  from  the 


parts  claimed  without  right."  Ilotr/ikign 
V.  Oliver,  5  Denio,  320.— McKissock 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1848. 

41.  If  an  invention  is  not  desrril)0(l 
with  reasonable  certainty  and  precision 
the  patentee  can  claim  nothiiiif  miuIqt 
his  patent.   Parker  v.  Stilen,  f»  ^IcLeaii 
54. — McLkan,  J. ;  Ohio,  1840. 

42.  If  a  patentee  cliiims  any  thing  as 
a  m.iterial  part  of  his  combinatioi),  as 
new  and  original  with  him,  wliidi  is 
proved  to  have  been  discovered  prior 
to  the  emenation  of  his  patent,  it  is 
fatal  to  it.      Ibid.,  65. 

43.  Where  a  foreign  patent  has  been 
obtained  for  an  invention  previous  to 
the  issue  of  the  home  patent,  the  home 
patent  must  bo  limited  to  fourteen  years 
from  the  date  of  tho  foreign  one.  If 
tho  domestic  patent  purports  to  give  an 
exclusive  right  for  fourteen  years  from 
its  date,  it  is  void  ;  but  the  error  is  not 
fatal,  it  may  be  corrected.  ASrnith  v. 
JSly,  6  McLean,  78,  79,  80.— McLkax, 
J.  ;  Ohio,  1849. 

44.  Prior  to  the  act  of  1830,  a  patent 
was  void  if  the  claim  extended  beyond 
the  invention.  Under  §  6  of  tliat  act, 
it  was  void  if  a  substantial  part  Lad 
been  patented  or  described  in  a  printed 
publication.  §  16  saved  the  patent  from 
being  void  if  the  patentee  believed  him- 
self to  be  the  first  inventor.  §  9  of  the 
act  of  1837  enlarged  the  right  of  the 
patentee,  providing,  notwithstanding  § 
15  of  the  act  of  1830,  that  the  patent 
should  not  be  void,  where  he  had  acc  J 
in  good  faith,  if  through  mistake  or  inad- 
vertence he  had  claimed  more  than  he 
had  invented,  and  that  he  might  main- 
tain suit  on  the  part  actually  invent  h1 
by  him,  provided  he  filed  within  a  rev 
sonable  time  a  disclaimer  of  the  parts  net 
invented  by  him.     Ibid.,  84,  85. 

45.  If  a  patentee  claims  something 


*S^ 


tew- 


PATKNT,  U. 


&20 


■rv2i^ 


COHBTKUOnOX  Of,   WIIKN   VOID. 


whit'li  H  "•••^  '''**  invention,  liis  |iiitt'iit 
cliiiiiis  too  imicli,  !iii<l  its  varnlity  imiy 
1k>  iissiiiU'il  on  lliiit  j^ioninl,  i-vcii  lliou^li 
tlu-  i>ait  ilU'j^ally  duiincl  mjiy  Ik-  of 
(tlitjlit  valiu)  or  im|iort!iii('i'.  /*<ir/>-er  v. 
S,irs,  MS.— (}hikk,  J.;  Vn.,  Is50. 

4(t.  Tho  jivoitliinci;  of  pateiitH  for 
(liiiiiiinu;  too  imicii  is  of  friMjui'iit  ocoiir- 
reiirc  ainl  iioctln  no  cxplauatioiw  m  to 
the  ruiwons  of  it,  when  an  apidicant  is 
so  iuiprovidt'iit  or  unjust  to  others,  as 
to  clniiu  for  hiniself  more  tiian  he  iu- 
vtiiti'd,  and  tlie  eredit  and  prolit  of 
wliit'li  helonu;  to  others.  Smith  v.  Dmen- 
ill'/,  MS. — Woonituitv,  J.;  3Iass.,  Ih.jO. 

47.  If  the  suggest it)ns  or  eonnuunica- 
tioiis  of  aaotlier  go  to  make  up  a  com- 
iilcte  and  perfect  muehine,  eujbodying 
all  that  is  embraced  in  n  patent  8ubse- 
(jiiuntly  issued  to  tho  party  to  whom 
tho  KUggestions  were  made,  the  patent 
h  invalid,  because  tho  real  discovery 
belongs  to  another.  Pitts  v.  Hull,  2 
lihiti'iif.,  234.— Nklson,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
18j1. 

48.  If  an  inventor  xumocessarily  de- 
fers his  application  for  a  patent,  and 
allows  his  invention  to  go  into  use,  ex- 
cept for  the  purposes  of  perfecting  liis 
iuvcntion  and  testing  its  utility,  and 
hcyond  wh.it  he  has  reason  to  believe 
necessary  for  such  purposes,  his  patent 
is  void.  Winans  v.  Schenec.  <fe  IVoy 
R.  R.,  2  Blatchf,  291,  300.— Nelson, 
CoxKLiXG,  J  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

49.  If  any  thing  is  included  in  a  pat- 
ent which  is  not  new,  tho  patent  is  void. 
If  what  is  new  be  mixed  up  with  what 
is  old,  the  patent  is  no  protection  for 
either.  Holliday  v.  Itheem,  18  Penn., 
469.— Black,  Ch.  J.;  Pa.,  1852. 

50.  A  patent  is  not  void  because,  on 

its  face,  it  does  not  bear  the  same  date 

with  a  previous  foreign  patent,  obtained 

by  the  patentee  for  the  same  invention ; 
34 


the  monopoly  liowcver  is  limited  to 
fourteen  years  from  the  date  of  the  for- 
<ign  patent.  O"  Itiillyw  M<>rm,[:)  Ilow., 
112.— Tankv,  Ch.  .1.;  Sup.  Cl.,  iH-y-.]. 

51.  lie  who  tliseovors  that  a  certain 
useful  result  will  bo  produced  in  any 
art,  nL'ichine,  manufacluri!  or  composi- 
tion of  matter,  liy  the  use  of  certain 
means,  is  entitled  to  a  patent  for  sueli 
disco\i.r),  provitled  he  sotH  forth  in  his 
Hpeeilication  the  nu'.'ins  he  uses  to  pro- 
duce such  useful  result,  so  that  any  ono 
skilled  in  the  art,  Ac,  can,  by  using 
the  means  sjiecilied,  without  any  a<ltU- 
tion  or  subtraction  from  them,  ])roduce 
pre«-isely  the  result  he  deserilii-s.  If 
this  caimot  be  done,  by  the  means  ho 
describes,  the  patent  is  void.  Anur. 
Pin  Co.  v.  Ou/crille  Pin  Co.,  3  Blatchf., 
192;  .3  A.  L.  It.,  137.— I.NUEKSOLi.,  J.; 
Ct.,  1854. 

52.  If  the  invention  required  no  more 
skill  or  ingenuity  than  that  possessed 
by  an  ordinary  mechanic,  skilled  in  tho 
business,  there  is  an  .absence  of  inven- 
tive faculty,  and  tho  patent  is  invalid. 
Hhese  v.  Phelps,  1  ]McAHis.,  62.— 3Ic- 
Allisteu,  J.;  Cal.,  1855. 

53.  If,  with  tho  knowledge  had  by 
the  public,  it  required  no  uivention,  but 
simply  the  ordinary  skill  juid  ingenuity 
of  tho  mechanic,  to  produce  the  result 
ottected ;  in  other  words,  if  the  inven- 
tive faculty  was  not  put  into  action,  and 
was  not  needed  to  produce  the  alleged, 
invention,  then  tho  patent  is  void,  be- 
cause there  is  no  invention  to  be  secured 
to  the  i)atentee.  Pansom  v.  Mayor., 
tfic,  of  New  Yorh,  MS. — Halt.,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

54.  If  an  inventor,  after  his  invention 
is  perfected,  knowingly  allow  it  to  be 
used  in  public  for  more  than  two  years 
before  .application  for  letters  patent,  it 
is  conclusive  evidence  of  a  dedication  of 


tno 


rAKTICLLAH  I'ATKXTS. 


OUNHTRrOTION  (ir. 


"WW 


i4 


w^ 


^ 


'■'fc 
lift. 


'I 


piirh  invotitioii  to  tliu  puMio,  and  thu 
]iiitc>nt  irt  voiil.     //>/(/. 

OA.  Aiitl  if  nil  inventor,  iiHcr  Win  in- 
vonfion  is  piTfocti'd,  ii<'<|Mi«'sc»'  in  its  urn- 
in  piililic,  for  a  Ichm  tiiiii  than  two  years, 
without  npplyini;  lor  a  patent,  iiiul  the 
jury  are  satisfied  from  thisaequieseeiiee 
and  other  faets  in  thi>  ease,  tliat  the  in- 
ventor in  tact  ahandoned  his  invention, 
ooiieliidinj^  not  to  patent  it,  hut  to  ded- 
ieato  it  to  t)ie  piihlie,  lio  eaiinot  reeall 
Hiu'li  «ledieation,  or  defeat  Hueli  aliandoii- 
liient  hy  a  HuhKeqiient  application  for  n 
] latent,  and  any  sucli  patent  will  bo  void. 
Jf>i(l. 

ftO.  And  if  an  inventor  does  not  uho 
reasonable  dilif^eiico  to  perfect  Iiis  inven- 
tion nf\er  tlio  idea  of  it  is  conceived, 
and  in  thu  mean  time  anotlier  eoneeivus 
the  itlea  and  perfects  the  invention,  and 
jiractically  applies  it  to  use,  the  latter  is 
the  first  and  original  inventor,  and  a 
patent  granted  to  the  former  will  be 
void.     Ibid. 

57.  If  the  invention  patented  as  in  a 
joint  patent,  is  the  sole  invention  of  one 
of  the  patentees,  and  not  the  joint  in- 
vention of  both,  the  p.atent  is  void.  Ifnd. 

58.  Where  a  specification  endeavors 
to  include  an  idea,  or  a  function  of  the 
liuinnn  system,  or  a  qu;ility  of  objects 
in  n.aturc,  instead  of  a  particular  instrii- 
mentiility,  or  concrete  form  of  applying 
that  idea,  or  function,  or  qu.ality  in  use, 
such  patent  is  void  for  being  too  gen- 
eral, unless  that  defect  be  cured  by  dis- 
claimer in  the  manner  of  the  statute. 
Morton^a  AnoB8thetic  Patent,  8  Opin,, 
270. — CusiiiNO,  Atty.  Gen. ;  1850. 

59.  There  is  nothing  to  estop  the  gov- 
•emmcnt  of 'he  United  States  from  show- 
ing a  patent,  which  it  has  granted,  to 
li.ave  been  a  nullity  ab  initio,  oAving  to 
the  noiv-existence  of  the  condition  pre- 
cedent  of  novelty  of  the   invention. 


Kiiiij  v.    Unital    Stiitia,  10  Mo.  Taw 
Uep.,  m\  ;  C't.  ClainiK,  1H57. 

00.  An  inventor  Iuih  no  Ic^uj  rji^ln, 
or  immunities  under  a  patent,  uxcchi 
siK'h  as  are  conferred  by  the  sfatnlc 
With  whatever Holemnity or «»ltsfrviiii((. 
of  legal  form  it  may  have*  iHHiicd,  if 
wanting  in  any  substantial  statutory  r(>. 
<|uisite,  it  is  a  nullity.  Moffitt  v.  (Jnrr 
-Lkavht,  J.  J  Ohio,  1  BOO. 

H,    Tbanwkkr  of. 
See  Ahkkjnmknt,  IJ.,  C 


PARTICULAU  PATENTS. 

A pjilo- Paring  Mnchino 53) 

AiiKLTH  for  lioriiiR  MuskotB o,ji 

Hiiiik-Xoto  printing 631 

Unrk  Mills 532 

Hrnn  Iliistcr 532 

HriiHS  Kc'ttloM 533 

llrick  Miu'hino 533 

DurriiiK  Madiino 533 

Uiittons,  DcsiffiiH  for   534 

CarH,  Hiipportintj  Bodies  of 53.1 

Ciirs  for  Coal 535 

Carrinxos  for  Rail  ways,  4c 535 

Cars,  Kight-Wheelod 535 

Car  Wlipols 636 

Castors  for  Bedsteads 537 

Cotton  Gin,  Ribs  of. 537 

Cotton  Speeder 637 

Cultivators 539 

Dyeinir  Parti-Colored  Yarn 538 

Dyeing  and  finishing  Silk  Goods 539 

Electric  Telegraph 539 

Fire-Engincs 542 

Glass  Knobs 542 

Grain-cleaning  Machine 543 

Grinding  Tools 643 

Gun  Locks, 544 

Harvesting  Machines. 544 

Hat  Bodies,  making 54(i 

Ice,  cutting, 547 

India-rubber. .,..517 


::!^ 


Ww.' 


PARTTCITLAU  PATENTS. 


581 


AI'rI'KI'AliIKO   MACIilNK.      AUltKH  To    lUlUK   OIXH.      DANK-MOTa    I'UIMTINU. 


Irrt^iitiir  Fomm.  liirnlnff 

Uw\  l'i|«'  Mm-liiiMTjr 

I/Kimiotivon,  Vuriiiblo  Kxlinii»;  of. 

l/«imH 

MiKlii'K,  Kriclioii . 

Mill  StoiicH,  ri'^juliitiiiK,  Ac 

MduMiiiKH,  iii'>l»i"K  <»''• 

XailH.  MiiimriK'tiin'  of. 

I'lilm  U'ttf,  pri'imririK 

I'lipor.  MuniifiK'liiro  of. 

I'UiiintC  Min'liiiK'H 

I'lnlltfll!* 

I'lhldlo  llall^  rolling 

UiiiU  («T  Kikilroml  (!tirrliiKon 

ItiK'kinjf  rimirH 

Sadilli'K 

Suw-MillK,  Clrculnr 

Siiw-MillH,  r(irtiilil(>,  Circiiltir 

S'wiiij,' Miu'liiiifH 

.'i.iwiiiif  Soi'd 

Siiiim-Knj;iin'>',  Iinprovonrjnt  in.. . 

Hli'!»m  (ic'iitTiitorH 

Stovoii 

Simw-('uttor 

TiiildrH' Hhoari 

Tlireiul  packing,  &■*■' 

Viilvcs 

Water  flloHots 

Wilier  Wheels 

WhcolH,  Ifnrizontnl 

Wood-Bendiug  Muchine 


60O 
66'j 

Bn:i ; 

554  I 

Rnn 
r>.'if( 
ri.'iii 
Dr>t! 

657 
MO 

m\ 
r>(-,i 

5l!'i 
602 
602 

r>ti:i 
G(s:i 

608 
608 

r.09 

6G!) 
670 
571 
671 
671 
57.1 
57:1 
675 
675 


Api'le-Pauino  Maciiinb. 

Pratt's  Patent. 

Issued  October  4th,  1853. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "  a  now  and 
useful  improvement  in  machines  for 
paring  apples." 

Held,  that  the  improvement  patent- 
ed consisted  in  so  attacliing  the  knife- 
block  to  the  rod  which  moves  it,  as  to 
allow  it  to  rotate  round  the  rod  at  right 
angles  therewith,  and  thus  the  knife  ac- 
coramodates  itself  to  any  irregularity 
in  the  surface  of  the  vegetable  to  be 
pared.  Sargent  v.  Larned^  2  Curt., 
S49.— CuKTis,  J. ;  Mass.,  1855. 


2.  Making  tho  rod  movable  in  th'» 
HOfkct  iiiNtcad  of  tli<'  kiiill)  on  tlut  rod, 
Held  to  bti  a  miTu  cliangu  in  t'oriii 
or  nu't'lianical  Htructun>,  and  an  in* 
tViiigrnii'Ml,  as  t^  i<  knii'f-block  li.-nl  thi> 
Mime  motion  ;  in  tho  one  it  was  aroiuid 
tiio  rod,  in  tliu  other  it  waM  with  tho 
rod.     /W(/.,  .'140. 

Auouu  Foil  UOUINO  MubKlClH. 

Pkttihokk'b  Patrnt. 
hmied  Ftbruary  I2th,  181 1. 

This  patent  was  for  "a  new  and  use- 
ful improvement  in  boring  muskets,  pis- 
tols, and  ritlos,  by  an  auger  eallctl  tho 
spiral  groove  or  twiste*!  screw  aiigt-r." 
The  specification  described  the  maimer 
of  making  tho  auger,  its  form,  and  how 
used,  and  tho  o.ffidavit  stated  that  the 
patentee  "believed  himself  to  be  tho 
first  inventor  of  tho  improved  method 
of  making  augers  or  bits  for  boring 
muskets,  pistols,  and  rifle-barrels." 

Ildd,  that  the  patent  extended  only 
to  the  auger  described  in  the  specifica- 
tion, and  not  to  the  method  of  using  it. 
Pettibone  v.  Derringer^  4  Wash.,  215, 
218. — Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1818. 


Baxk-Notk  Pbintixq. 

Kneass'  Patent. 

Issued  April  2S{;i,  1815. 

The  patent  was  for  "  a  new  and  use- 
ful improvement  in  printing  on  tho  back 
or  reverse  side  of  bank-notes,  as  an  ad- 
ditional security  against  counterfeiture." 

Held,  that  the  improvement  was  for 
printing  copper-plate  on  both  sides  of 
the  note  or  bill — or  copper-plate  on  one 
side  and  letter-press  on  tho  other — or 


A^Q 


1H< 


•au-l 


1 


'«4#';.'«i 


632 


PAUTICULAIt  PATKNT8. 


BARK  mUM. 


ir 


^^... : 


'VmW 


it 


'Mh 


^^^"sL:,  -  ^^^**wC' 


il 


li 


)i>tti(i'-|)r«>HH  on  Itoth  h'nlt'H,  uinl  llitit  tlii' 
|itttriit  \vii<4  not  lor  tin  (•H't't't,  Init  for  tlio 
k'nil  of  prinlin;;  Ity  whirli  lliiit  t'trect  is 
|ii'>i<ltici'i|  ;  ami  tliitt  ill*'  piiMtinj^  on  tlir 
ha  -k  of  HiH'li  null's  with  ndtl  j>f'iti n,  was 
an  inlViiiLfi'int'iil.  Khvhhhw  Schniflkill 
Jh'nk\  \  Wash.,  12,  1 1.— -WAhiliNOTON, 
J.  ;  I 'a.,  IH'20. 


ItAltIC    ^fll.l.H. 
MONTIIUMKIIV   it    IlillltlH'   rATCNT. 

bautd  Awjiui  Vnh,  1810. 

1.  The  pati'nt  was  lor  "an  Iniprovt- 
nu'nl  in  iIh'  mill  for  lin'akin;^  ntnl  '^riml- 
inj^  liark,"  ami  tlu>  claim  was  for  com- 
l)ininj^  loi^ctlu'r  tlu*  slaliuiiary  cylimli'rH 
and  Ihu  movable  conical  rin;^s,  (ronccn- 
tricaily,  there  being  teeth  on  tho  sideH 
of  both,  ami  snstainitig  that  combina- 
tion by  tho  cross  bars,  to  which  tho 
movable  and  Hlationary  parts  are  sovor- 
allv  attached. 

Ifihf,  tli.'it  the  invention  covered  by 
the  patent  was  the  multiplication  <(f  the 
jjrindinj*  ch:imbers,  and  apparatus  or 
machinery  in  a  mill  of  a  given  .si/o,  and 
w  hich  may  still  bo  driven  l»y  the  samo 
jiower  -'s  heretofore.  Wilfnir  v.  liecch- 
cr,  'J  IJlatchf.,  lyu.— Nklson,J.  ;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

2.  And  that  there  was  evidence 
enough  of  utility,  if  the  new  machine 
would  do  double  tho  work  of  the  old 
mill  in  a  given  tune.     Ih'ul.^  137. 

3.  Thougli  the  chaim  was  fjr  the  com- 
bination of  one  or  more  movable  con- 
ical nuts  with  the  stationary  cylinders. 
Held,  also,  that  tho  description  was  suf- 
liciently  particular  to  enable  a  mechanic 
to  construct  a  mill  with  more  chambers 
than  three,  tho  number  mentioned  in  the 
specification.    Ibid.j  137,  138. 


4.  And  (hat  a  mill  with  nIx  ^'Hniliiv. 
chambers  and  twelve  grinding  oinfu,,, 
but  prodiu'cd  by  the  niidliplicalioii  .,t 
stationary  cylinders  anil  mi)\al,|,,  ,,,, 
ical  nutH,  was  un  iufriii  .;i'ment.  //„,/ 
l;!i>,  no. 

.'>.  The  particular  shape  «if  tlio  <irh\,\. 
iiig  chiiirdu'rs  ami  the  form  of  llu,  (j,,,|; 
is,  however,  no  part  of  the  palinlnl 
combination;  where,  thenlnri',  n  n,.,, 
chine  by  a  change  in  these  pointH  ^'rmnhl 
better  and  fastrr  than  the  pa.i'iitiilinii; 
yet  if  il  contained  the  ciMubitiaiiun  ,,; 
tlu^  movable  conical  nuts  with  iIm'  .-, 
tioiiary  eylinders,  J/vld,  it  was  an  n,. 
fringement.     //><V/.,  HO,  112. 


DlUN    DUHTKIt. 

Frost  k  AfovnoK's  Patekt, 

luued  Febrnnry  illh,  18(9. 
lie  issued  March  VMh,  18.50. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "an  iinpnivi. 
(uent  in  machiiu'ry  for  sepaialiiiif  tlimr 
from  bran,"  and  the  claim  was  Ux  tin; 
external  case,  with  tho  internal  station. 
ary  scourer,  and  the  revolving  oyliiiJri 
cal  scourer  and  blower,  constructi'd,  r- 
rangetl,  and  operating  in  the  luaiimr 
;md  for  tho  purpose  set  forth. 

JIdd,  thiit  the  patisntee  did  not  (liihii 
any  of  the  component  parts  as  original 
or  new,  but  that  tho  claims  wore liinitil 
t«»  certain  eond)inations  of  llio  so\i: ,! 
parts  nuiking  up  the  entire  mudiiiu'. 
Carr  v.  Rice^  4  lilulchf. — Nklson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1858. 

2.  Tho  third  cVxim  is  not  valid  on  ac- 
count of  its  uncertainty.     Ibid. 

3.  The/oMr//t  claim  is  for  a  legal  n 
suit,  and  is  not  maintainable,  tliu  plain- 
tiffs not  claiming  to  bo  the  original  in 
vcntors  of  mechanism  to  produce  such 


P/aiTlCL'LAU  TATKNTH. 


699 


lutlliplii'alliMi  i>i 
ul  niovulili'  t<>ii 
i'j[i'nu'iit.     ////./„ 

;HM'  nt*  llic  'jr\\\,\ 

iirill  ofllll'  Int'  , 

of   tlio  iinlchtnl 
tln'rclori',  a  tna 

I'Ht*  |M»illtM  trrcMllhl 

the  piivriiitiliiiii:, 
D  U(>lll))ilU\tiiill  (1 
mU    witll    lllll  »t;i 

thl^  it  wiiH  uu  ill 
10,  l\'2. 


UHTKn. 

dk's  Patknt, 

I/27//I,  iHt'J. 
i;i//t,  1855. 

fur  "  !vn  iinpniw. 

i)r  Ht'iiaraliiii,'  tl"iir 
claiin  WHS  for  lie 

llie  iiitiTiiul  stuiiiMi- 
revolving?  ojliii'lii 

[cr,  I'oiisli'ucli'il,  :i'- 

111}^  ill  llie  nirtiiiuv 

|sil  forth. 

|(!iil('«>  tliil  not  I'bim 
lit  purls  iis  origiiiiil 
L'liiiiiis  wore  liiniti'l 
lions  of  tlie  seviral 
lie  entire  m;\rlmu'. 
iktchf. — Nklson,  J.; 

L  is  not  valid  on  ac- 

Inty.     /iit^- 
Jni  is  for  a  legal  ro 
lit.iinablo,  the  i»l:iin- 
Ibo  tlie  original  in 
Im  to  produce  sucH 


MICK  MAOniMI.     MAM  KKITLM 


•VIIH1N0  MACBINa 


;t  ri'MiiHt  I'll!  only  of  u  iiuw  cuiiibiiiiilioii 


HrUK   on   Til. KM,    MA  KINO. 

WtK)l»'H  I'athst. 

Jttwii  yovftnlmr  \>th,  lH3fl, 

"Till'  |iali'nt  wuM  forii  new  iukI  iiMcfiil 
itnprnvoinoiit  in  tliu  art  of  inaniifactnr- 
ing  liiiekH  and  tilt'K  ;"  anti  I  In-  claim  was 
I'lir  u-^iiij;  li'i"  aniliracito  ro;il,  or  cDal- 
ilnst  uitli  day  for  w\\  jMirpi>si«.  'I'lic 
L'ciieral  itroportion  nuMitioncil  was  threo- 
liiiutliH  of  a  Itu-^licl  of  coul-diist  to  one 
i|i.)ii>*aiiil  liriflv ;  l»nt  it  was  slatotl  lliat 
^oiue  clay  ini;;ht  ro<|Mire  more  iliist,  and 
HdMie  lec'* — 1'»*'  <''ay  which  nujiiirpd  tin- 
m,.>t  Iturniiifr  wonld  ro((nirii  tlic  gnatosl 
liroportion  of  coal  <lust. 

////(/,  that  tiio  jK'cification  was  not 
sii  viigiif  and  nnccrtain  on  its  fnw  as  to 
ivoi.l  tlio  patent.  Wood  v.  /'nder/uU, 
3  How.,  40.-  Ta.nkv,  Vh.  J. ,  Slip.  Ct., 
IH40. 

liiiAsfl  KErnLES. 
IIatdkn's  Patent. 

Jsmd  December  lath,  1851. 

1,  The  patent  was  for  "machinery 
for  making  kettles  and  aiticles  of  a  like 
ciiaracter  from  disks  of  uietal,"  and  the 
invention  claimed  was  I'or  impi  >vements 
in  machinery  for  making  such  articles, 
l)y  stretching  a  flat  disk  of  metal  on  a 
[  roper  form  or  forms,  by  the  compres- 
,on  of  .1  proper  tool  operating  on  the 
disk  while  rotating  with  and  against 
the  form. 

Jldd,  that  the  patent  did  not  grant 
the  several  parts,  or  any  part  of  the 
machinery,  by  which  the  combination 


chiinu'd  iN  I'alh'd  iiilc  action,  and  madu 
to  pttrforni  ilN  olliee  ;  Init  the  grant  wiii 
the  applicitioii  ofa  rotary  form  or  monhl, 
<>i  torniM  and  nionlds,  incotnltination  with 
proper  toolN,  moved  or  ilir»<'lid  by  torn- 
peteiit  nieaiiN,  for  tho  pnrpoNc  of  oper* 
Hting  upon  a  blank,  ho  as  to  ntduce  it 
gradually  from  the  centre  to  the  edge, 
at  the  same  linii!  forming  it  with  straight 
sidfs  l»y  Hucce-*sive  stages,  into  u  coin- 
plel.  kettle.  Wntifhury  Jtrtmn  Co,  v. 
AT  )'.  tt  /trooA:  Jit'(t««  Co. — Nklmox, 
.1.;  \.  v.,  I   :)H. 

'2,  The  patent  described,  ut  tlie  side 
of  the  form,  u  movable  itiide-reHt,  run- 
ning piirallel  with  the  side  of  the  kittle, 
and  carrviiig  a  small  fixed  tool,  which  is 
brought  up  against  the  revolving  blank, 
to  roll  the  disk  into  the  jiroper  shap«; 
//(/(/,  that  un  invention  subsetpieiitly 
patented  to  Mary  (Gannon,  wlii'  h  dis- 
pensed with  such  movai)le  slide-re-t,  ami 
provided  ft»r  holding  the  tool  against 
the  form  by  a  workman  holding  firndy 
one  arm  ofa  lever,  was  an  infringement 
upon  thu  Haydtai  patent.     I/jid. 

Burring  Macuixum. 

Wun-i'i.K's  Pah  NT. 

Usiieil   October  28</i,   1810. 
Eftmikd   October  2Hlfi,  185-1. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "improve- 
ments in  machines  for  eloiuisiiig  wool 
from  burs,  tfee.,"  and  the  suit  was  found- 
ed upon  the  second  clause,  which  was, 
"forming  and  arranging  the  teeth  of 
cylinders  for  burring  wt>ol  in  sudi  a 
numner  that  their  outer  convex  siiles 
shall  bo  substantially  concentric  Avith 
the  axis  of  the  cylinder,  for  the  purjiose 
of  seizing  and  holding  the  fibres,  .ind 
presenting  a  surfacic  .against  which  the 
guard  can  act  in  removing  b\us,  «tc." 


ir'y^sv^i 


*•¥« 


U  ijf 


."Hi^^ 


tu 


PAUTIll  I.AU  I'ATKNTH. 


I 


*•< 


'>—• 


!!k 


^"^ 


II 


MrmMi^  ptmiauB  roa. 


OAi%  MrrrmntM  Bomn  a», 


/A  /'/,  tlt:it  tli«>  invriitioii,  HO  Cur  iin  «iifh 
cltihii  wiiM  fi)iici>rru-i|,  wai  to  ioriti  kimI 
arriiii'j(i<  tlii«  tvi'tli  witli  |HiiiitH  wliich 
\«uitl<l  Ni'iio  mill  liolil  till'  IIIm-c,  with  u 
innootli  Hiirtufu  ill  tlut  ri>iir  ot'llic  pointii, 
llriii  and  iioii-i'laMtio,  to  i«np|M)rl  or  ttoat 
till*  1)11114,  MO  tliikt  tlio  fxiiai'il  coiilil  r«'- 
iiiovo  llifiii ;  ami  Miirh  lit  ill  to  \>v  in 
mii'li  HiicroHMioii  aioiinil  (lii>«'yliii<l«>i'  that 
tlifir  poititH  nIiouIiI  1)0  proti'ftfd  l»y  tlii> 
lit>rl<«  or  NinnDtli  HiirfiK'i*  in  llii<  ifar  of 
tlio  nit'i'fdiiij^  liM'lli,  xo  as  lo  |ir(>vrnt 
liur.M  tVoiii  ht'iii;^  laki'ti  Imld  of  liy  tlio 
|>oinlH  of  tht'  lt'4'tli,  anti  alio  no  un  to 
pri'Vi'iit  !('»>  iimiiy  llWr«'N  ofilio  wool  ln<. 
injj  i*iM/.«'d.  H7»//7'/'' V.  MiililliHtif  Co., 
AIS.— SntAiiri:,  .1.;  Mas-*.,  IHdO. 

2.  Thu  I'laini  n-njanlM  tlio  smooth  Hiir- 
fucv  no  n  part  of  thu  tfotli,  or  an  cHMontial 
ini^ri'diciit  in  llic  arntn^'t-iiicnt  of  tlio 
tei'lli,  ami  of  tliu  invciitiuii.     IltiiL 

UuTTONrt,    DkhKINH    FOR. 

llOOTIl'a    I'ATKNT. 

Jisued  July  24r/<    18-17. 

Tho  patt'tit  \va«  for  "a  new  and  orna- 
ttu>ntal  lU'^ii^ii  for  ti;j;nr«'d  silk  htiltons," 
and  tlif  claim  was  for  tho  radially 
fonnccl  ornamontH  on  the  faco  of  tho 
nionld  of  tho  button,  oondjinod  with 
tho  mode  of  winding  tho  covoring  of 
the  Haino,  substantially  as  sot  forth,  ami 
tho  specification  described  tho  conlijijur- 
ation  of  tho  mould,  and  tho  winding  it 
with  various  colored  threads,  but  did 
not  describe  tho  process  of  winding. 

JfiM,  that  tho  patent  did  not  cover 
the  process,  but  was  for  tho  arrange- 
ment of  tho  different  colored  threads  in 
the  process,  so  as  to  produce  the  radi- 
ully  formed  ornaments  on  the  face  of 
the  button.  Booth  v.  Garclhj,  1  Blatchf., 
:i48,  2 49.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1847. 


Cakh,  Kirt'i'oirriir'i  nouiiw  tit, 
Imi.at'ii  Patcht. 

i:jt.i,.i,,t  S' !•!, ,1,1m I  jiw,  1S5I. 

The  pali-iit  wan  for  "a  lu-w  aii.l  ii„ 
fill  iinpi'iivoniont  in  tho  inoih>  or  iimiti. 
of  Miipporting  tho  bodioN  of  railn,,,; 
nil  and  oarria;4i's,  and  ooniici'tin^tli,!,. 
with  tho  truck,"  and  tin-  ohjoct  ofil,, 
invent  ion  of  tint  patent  wan  to  t'lirni'l, 
a  Niipport  for  the  carriage  body,  wliili 
tho  oars  wore  in  motion,  wliicli  uiinIi.i||, 
IniiL^itmlinal  and  latoral,  and  aUo  ^rJviM 
Vortical  Hiipport  ;  and  the  moans  u>i<| 
wore  two  oylimlrioal  plates,  male  atij 
fonialo,  one  above  and  within  tlu>  otlicr; 
tho  upper  oii«>  slightly  convex  on  it* 
lower  siirfaeo,  so  that  it  roHted  oiiljiih 
the  centre  of  tho  bod-pi.ilo,  which  coiiIJ 
thus  turn  and  vibrato  under  tho  ^i 
plate — oiieeonHnod  to  tho  carriage  and 
the  other  to  the  truck — ami  one  intti. 
ing  within  tho  other  a  sutlliient  (li|it|i 
to  afford  the  «Iesircd  Mipiiort,  without 
tho  aid  of  any  other  instniiiu'ntaiity, 
such  as  tho  ordinary  king-bolt. 

J/cld,  that  tho  patent  sociUH'd  llic  iiso 
and  application  of  the  two  oyrnnKi. 
plates,  male  and  foinalo,  one  within  the 
other,  and  acting  in  combination,  wlan- 
by  tho  truck  and  carriage  are  coiiiliim  1 
to  give  support  to  all  kinds  of  railioml 
carriages.  Imlay  v.  Nor.  <t'  Wor.  II. 
R.  Co.,  MS.  —  Inukuholl,  J. ;  Ct, 
1858. 

2.  Ilchl,  also,  that  the  use,  for  tlit'piir 
poso  of  connecting  tho  cars  witii  tin' 
trucks,  of  similar  male  and  female  ivliii- 
drical  plates,  though  neither  of  them 
were  convex,  and  though  used  in  com- 
bination with  the  ordinary  king-bolt, 
was  an  infringement.    Ibid. 


m 


PAUTK  ri.AU  PATKNTS. 


MiDiu  or. 


CAM,  iiOkUi  ■4ILWAYI  llitUT'WUUUU). 


iiij^i'  are  coiuliiiinl 
kiiuls  of  ruiln'iiil 
I^or.  its  Wur.  11 

JKU80LL,     J.;   Cti 

;he  usCjfortlicpm- 
tho  cars  with  the 
0  iMitl  fi'inale  I'vlii.- 
Ii  neither  of  them 
ough  used  in  com- 
M-diiiary  king-boll, 
Jbid. 


CUm  roM  (%>Ai,. 

Wmav'i  PAriirr. 

/m««<  Jun*  30M,   INC 

Thn  piitoiit  WAN  for  "  lui  iiiiiirovvituMit 
iiM'ttri*  for  tlio  traii.s|>(irliitioii  of  foul." 
Tlit<  iiivt'tilioii  ilfM4'rilit'il  ami  «'tainu>il 
W114  tho  iiiakiii);  the  hmly  of  iht*  t-ar  in 
tho  fiirtn  of  thu  friiHiimi  of  ti  «'oiit>, 
whficliy  tho  foroi'  of  tho  woij^ht  of  thu 
IdiuI  prt'SMcN  «'<|iially  in  all  ilirofiinnM, 
iiMil  iliK'H  not  tonil  to  «'han)^u  tho  form 
tlnToof,  HO  that  ovory  part  roMintH  Its 
('([iial  proportion,  l»y  which  tho  hnvor 
iinrt  iH  HO  roilnco<l  uh  to  pnMM  ilown 
within  tlio  truck,  to  h)\vor  tl.i;  »Aiiiro 
(rf  gravity  of  tho  load,  without  cliniin- 
iithiiig  the  capisity  of  tho  car. 

'J.  Ifilff,  tha;  thouj^h  tho  patentee  had 
cli'scrihcd  nu  form,  oxcopt  tho  fniNtiun 
of  a  cone,  hlH  patent  covurt'd  uIno  hucIi 
vuriiUioiiri  of  form  uh  Nulmtantiaily  em- 
bodied his  mode  of  opttration,  and  at- 
tuinotl  tho  Hamu  kind  of  result,  and  that 
thu  tiHU  of  un  octagonal,  instead  of  a 
circular  car,  was  an  infrin^(>ment. 
Winans  v.  JJenmeuU^  15  I  low.,  ;J44. — 
Ci'KTiH,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1H6J. 

Cakbiagks  von  Uailwavs. 

WiNANS'   PaTKKT. 
luued  July  30tA,  1831. 

The  patent  was  for  "  n  now  and  usc- 
.'ul  iinprovoment  of  railway  and  other 
wheeled  carriages,"  and  tho  claim  was 
for  extending  the  axles  each  way  out- 
side of  a  pair  of  wheels  far  enough  to 
form  external  gudgeons  to  receive  the 
bearing  hex  of  tho  body  load.     It  ap 


poarod,  however,  that  tho  invention  lia<l 
hoeii  Itefore  Applied  to  olhvr  {)arria)(eH, 
though  nol  to  railway  carriagoN. 

//«'/(/,  I  hat  therefore  the  patent  wa4 
voiil.  Wituina  V.  Hon.  cC  /Vo«».  A*.  Ji. 
Co.^'A  Ht«»ry,  4ia. — .Stouv,  .?. ;  Maim., 
IM4U. 

C'aUM,    KiUIIT-WIIKKI.Kl>. 

WiNAiia'  rATrxT. 
/««M«ii  fVtoW  tf(,  1834. 

1.  Tho  jtatent  wan  for  "anew  and 
useful  improvement  in  tho  construction 
of  carriages  intended  to  travel  on  rail- 
roads," an<l  tho  improvement  consisted 
m  placing  two  hearing  carriagoH,  each 
with  four  wheels,  at  or  near  eaidi  urtd 
of  the  car,  and  tho  two  whools  «)n  oithur 
sideof  these  carriages  to  he  placud  very 
near  to  each  other,  the  Hpacos  hetwoen 
their  Mangos  being  not  greater  than  in 
ncccHsary  t(t  prevent  their  contact  with 
each  other;  and  tho  claim  was  for  "tho 
tlescribotl  mamu'r  «)f  arranging  and  c(m« 
necting  the  eight  whotds,  which  consti- 
tute' tho  two  bearing  carriages,  with  a 
railroad  car,  ho  as  to  accomplish  the  end 
proposed  by  tho  means  set  forth,  or  by 
any  others  whi(di  are  analogous  and  de- 
pendent upon  tho  same  principles." 

Jfrltf,  that  the  claim  was  f()r  the  car 
itself,  constructeil  and  arrangi'il  as  do- 
scribed  in  the  patent,  complete  and  tit 
for  use,  and  not  for  tho  separate  parts 
which  enter  into  his  arrangement,  or  for 
the  particular  arrangement  or  combina- 
tion. WinanH  V.  Sehenco.  <£•  Troy  Ji.Ji. 
Co.,  2  lilatchf,  284,  20y,  294.— Nelsox, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1«51. 

2.  The  location  of  the  trucks  relative- 
ly to  each  other  under  the  body  of  tho 
car,  as  well  as  the  near  proximity  of  tho 


-I. 


"■^U 


m 


U  II 


■■'  V~ 


ftao 


PAUririLAU  TATKNTS. 


OAK  WIIKRIA 


|4^  0 


m 


*  4#. 


v.f^; 


■  7^^*».'* ' 


Is 


ft  4 


two  iivli's  ot' »';irli  Irtu-k  (d  »';i»'li  otluM*, 
tonn  :i  iiiost  fssoiitiitl  pni'l  oi*  tlu<  tir- 
raiigfiiu'iit  oi'  'lu'  paltiitiv  in  the  roii- 
htni'tioii  nf  tliK  «';ir;  (ho  Inu'k-*  to  lu> 
j>l;ni'il  as  ivmoti'lv  Iroiu  oai'h  otlu-r  as 
fan  t'oiiv»'nu'Mlly  '»»>  ilonf,  I'or  llu«  Niip- 
jioit  of  tlio  caniai'i',  aiul  llu»  spafos  l>r- 

t\V»'«M>   tlll<    tWV»    a\I»'H    to  ll«>    MO  ^loahT 

than  is  ni-ivssary  to  provt'iit  (li«>  llaii;i's 
ot' till' wheels  t'(>niiiii;  in  eonlatt  with 
•'Mill  other.  I>ul  the  iinprov  emeiil  ih)es 
not  consist  in  plaeinix  tht>  nxh-s  \A'  the 
t  wo  tnieks  at  anv  preeisi-  tlislanee  aparl , 
or  at  an_\  prei-ise  liist.uiee  fVom  each  enii 
of  the  liotly.  And  tlie  speeiliealion  is 
sntVieiiMitly  delinile  without  speeifyini; 
(lie  I'vaet  tlistanee,  in  feet  and  inehes, 
from  llie  i-.uls  tif  the  ear  lioily  at  whieh 
it  wouM  l>i>  ln'st  to  arranife  tiie  trucks, 
or  theexait  (listanei>  hi't  w  ei'n  the  axles. 
7?'/(/.,  •-'!».■),  'Jltr. 

;>.  Winan>*  patent  is  lor  tin*  manner 
(>f  ai  ran^ini;- ami  eonnectii'.ij  the  eii;hl 
wheels,  which  eonslitiile  the  two  bear- 
ing earria^es,  with  a  railroad  eaniaije, 
as  shall  ena'.iK'  a  ear  w  ith  a  '.»nij;  body 
to  pass  curves  with  greater  facility  and 
**at'ety  and  less  friction,  and  at  the  same 
time  cause  the  Itody  of  the  ear  to  pnr 
etio  a  n\ore  sniooth,  even,  direct,  and 
safe  course  over  the  eiirvaturi's  and  ir- 
regularities of  the   road.       Winmis  v. 

.Y.  r.«o/;.  A'.  li.  (\>.,  ji  iiow.,  10-'.— 

CJkikk,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  I8r)8. 

4.  Carriages  with  eight  wheels,  ar- 
rangoil  and  ei>iinected  substantially  in 
the  same  manner,  and  upini  the  same 
inochanical  princi])les,  witli  those  de- 
scribed in  Winans'  patent,  liaving  been 
kr\own  before  his  invention; 

JIdJ,  that  he  was  not  entitled  to  re- 
co>er.    Ibid.,  103. 


''^'- 


CaU   WlllCKl.ri. 

Wcii.k'h  I'atknp. 
Imttil  Aliuxh  nut,  ih:\». 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "ii  mw  ;iii,l 
useful  impro\enu-nt  in  the  mode  ol'inak. 
ing  cast-iron  wheels  to  be  used  uii  mil. 
roatis,  and  applieabl«<  lo«)tlu<r  purpiis(>M," 
and  the  «-laini  wan  for  "tho  nnunier  nt' 
constructing  railroati  car  wheels  wiili 
double  convex  plates,  «>ne  convex  cut 
ward  and  tlio  other  inward,  ami  un 
midivid«'d  hub,  the  whole  cast  in  (iiit> 
piece." 

//(/(/,  that  ihepatt'iil  was  nol  for  i he 
nn)de  or  method  of  const riicliii','  [\w 
wheel,  as  distinct  from  tin'  instriiiiuiit 
itsi'lf;  but  that  it  was  llu'  lliiiio,  ili,. 
instrument  or  whei«l  al\er  it  was  iiia,lo, 
which  they  claimed  to  have  discovcri'd. 
Mitntfw  Jiujifcr,  I  IJlalclif.,  ;»7H.— N'm,- 
.soN,  .1.;  N.  v.,  IS  is. 

•J.  //(/((',  also,  that  I lu' claim  was  not 
I'or  any  of  the  parts  of  the  wheel  taken 
separately,  but  for  the  i-ntirc  wlucl  as 
t'onstrueti'd — a  east  iron-wheel,  with 
double  plates,  a  stditl  hub,  and  a  cliillnl 
rin\,  all  cast  in  ono  piece.  I hlil.,  ;I7S, 
:t7!». 

.'1.  .//(7(/,  also,  tluvt  the  peculiar  form 
of  tlu>  double  plates  being  nearly  |i.ii:il- 
lei — one  convex  inward,  and  llio  oilier 
convex  outward— so  that  in  coiise- 
(jui'nce  of  8uch  curvature  they  would 
contract  without  danger  of  liactiiie, 
was  not  essential,  any  lurther  than  as 
respects  a  form  that  would  :illow  for 
the  contraction  of  the  plates  in  cooling, 
the  allowance  being  niaile  for  the  pur- 
pose of  procuring  a  chilled  rim.  /i/i/., 
3V9. 

4.  The  correctness  of  the  ruling  of 


\¥- 


ih;ih. 

"  II  lii'W  :iM,l 
•  inoili'  i>riil;ik- 
10  used  nil  r:iil. 
luT  plirimscs," 
llu  niiuiiH'r  ot" 
r  wlu'ols  willi 
[W  oonvfx  (Mil 
iward,  ami  im 
oU'  ^•il^^l  ill  dill' 

was  iit>l  tor  the 
mslriictiiii;  llic 
tlio  iiisli'iiiiuiii 
I  llu«  tliiiii;',  tlio 
iT  il  was  iii;i,lo, 
lavt'  discovcri'il. 
I'lif.,  :!7s.   -Nm.- 

claim  was  iml 
ic  wluH'l  tllkt'Il 
'iiliri'  wlii't'l  as 

Oll-Wlli'l'l,     wilii 

I,  ami  a  cliilli'il 
//</(/.,  MIS, 

t«  in'ciiliai'  t'ovni 
iiiijj  nearly  ii;inil- 
and  tlic  olluT 
(hat.  ill  oHiso- 
lire  llifV  wdiilil 
fi'v  (if  iVai'tmo, 
fiirtluT  than  as 
.•oulil  allow  iW 
)l:iU's  in  cooliii;:;, 
a<lo  for  till'  l"i>'- 


led  riui. 


md., 


V\\i'VWV\.\U  r.VI'KNTS. 

(  .tHI'KUM,      CUTIHIN    IIIN. 


887 


conuN  «ri;i;iii  u 


)r  the  ruling  of 


ill,'  (oiiil    ill    lliif*   '■•'i^i'   <|iit'Mtiniu'i|   in  1 
Jl.iiii/   \-    '**'<"-«'•,     MS.     Si'UAia  K,    .1.; 

CaSI'KKS    roK    r>i:i>STK,MiN. 

UlXKIl's    I'AIINI'. 


/WHIU/  JUHK  Wlh,    IHIIM. 

Tilt'  patt'iil  was  fur  "an  iin|irttv('d 
caster  l"i>r  liedsti'mls." 

//(A/,  llmt  ll>»'  iiiM'iilion  was  (lie  old 
ir/iitl   <i>i<f  pl*itli\    NO    adii|i(ed    lo  and 

jiriaiiU''"'  ^*''''  ''"'  ''"^  "'  ""'  '••■•I'*I»''kI 
liv  iiiserdiiir  il  ill  the  eeiidc,  llial  lh(< 
lull  et'  (he  pintle  may  l)e  reeeivetl  in 
till' I'oiiieal  envily  of  the  upper  nn'tnllie 
Imiriiii/,  to  Niislain  (he  weiLjh(,  wliiln 
till'  lower  mi'lallii'  liearintx  eonsdtntes  a 
l.aik  to  tlu«  lowei'  end  of  the  hold,  (o 
:.<'i'iii'i>  the  pintle  !iL;;aiiiM(  la(eral  iiiodoii. 
Hhkr  V.  .S/'(/ry,  '-•  N.  V.  I.e^f.  Oiw., 
•.':):i,    iNiiKiisoii,,  .1. ;  ('(.,  !Hi;i. 

It  dispenses  with  \\u' ittafc iiii'.l  nrrrirn 
{>{' [\\v />li(tc  cif.s'^v,  the  iron  J'l'iniif  of 
the"  Firiich  fdsfi  r,  the  c/nfi/KH  iiiitl  hUi- 
ji/(N  of  \\w  niifr  fiis/ii\  the  irom/  /'niinr 
(tiid  hniri.t  of  the  iiii'ittiil  at.sUr,  and 
ilit'.s7/((rM of  the  socket  citHtcr  ;  and  that 
the  patent,  wa.s  a  valid  patent.    Ihid. 

CoiTOx  r»iv,  Tims  OK. 

CaIIVKU'H   PATKN'r. 

hmcdJuw.  Vm,  18:i8. 
ii'mwei/ AW.  KWi,  1839. 

1.  This  patent  was  for  "a  new  and 
ibcfiil  iinprovennMit  in  the  ribs  of  the 
iottdii  ^in,"  and  the  patentee  elaimetl 
as  his  invontioii,  the  inereasiiig  tin* 
doplli  01'  space  between  the  upper  or 
outer,  and  the  lower  or  inner  surfaces 
of  the  rib,  so  that  it  should  be  efjual 


to  the  length  of  lh*<  llbre  of  (he  eolloii 
to  li«>  ginned;  and  iiIno,  as  part  of  (he 
Name  improveim-iit,  slopiiiL;;  np  (he  jnw-t 
er  or  inner  HiirCaee  of  (he  rib  no  as  to 
meet  the  upper  or  outer  Niirfaee,  leavin)^ 
no  liieak  or  Nlioulder  between  the  two 
surfaces. 

/A/r/,  That  I  lie  patent  was  for  onn  eii' 
tire  tiling,  that  is, ibran  improved  rib,  oi 
a  speeitied  improvement  upon  the  cot 
nion  rib,  and  not  for  two  distinct  ai<. 
imlependeiit  improvements  the  tliiek- 
ness  or  depdiof  (he  rib,  and  (he  sloping 
lip  of  (he  surfaces  thereof,  ('iirtur  v, 
lii'iiiiiti'ii'  Miinitf.  Cii.,  'i  Story,  'lift, 
I  111.     Sioitv,.!. ;   Mass.,  1h|;i. 

'2.  Iliiif^  also,  that  the  same  (hin^  was 
patented  in  both  the  orif^inal  and  re- 
newed pa(eii(s.      ////(/.,  |;IH,  I  i:.. 

:i.  TIk^  true  eonslriiclion  of  (his  pat- 
ent is,  that  it  elatnis  not  only  the  in- 
creasing the  depth  or  space  between  the 
upp(<r  or  outer,  and  the  lower  or  inner 
sml'ace  of  the  rib,  at  the  part  where  (lie 
coKoii  is  drawn  (hron^h  (he  ;.;ra(e;  but 
also,  tlu'  slopini.^  up  of  tlie  lower  or  in- 
ner surface  so  as  to  meet  (he  upper  or 
ou(er  surfa<ie  above  (he  saws,  h  avin/^ 
no  break  or  shoulder  between  the  two 
surfiu^es,  but  a  smoodi  and  uninterrupt- 
ed passa^(!  upward  b(!t\V(!cn  them.  (Jar- 
ver  v.  //y<As  ItJ  \'vL,  517.— Tan  icy,  (Jh. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  IHI'2. 


CorrON   Si'KKKKIl. 

Davou.'h  Patent. 

Issued  Mo.y  VJtIi,  iHl.l. 

This  invention  w.-is  for  "  improvements 
in  the  niachiiKt  known  as  tiu!  speeder, 
double  sp»!eder,  or  fly-frame,  for  n)ving 
cotton."  The  Hpiicifie.ation  described  tho 
S2)indle8  as  arranged  iu  two  rows,  and 


'■•^      ■•  W»  1 


:  -  •f:^-^-a 

«■» 

ill 

^v^il^». 

fii 

638 


PAIlTICULAll  PATENTS. 


m 


CULTIVATORS. 


UYKIKO   I'ARTl-COLOUKI)  YAltX. 


that  tho  Hyors  were  made  in  ono  contin- 
uous pit'ci',  instead  of  being  open  at 
the  bottom.  Tlic  claim  was  lor  tlie  ar- 
rangement of  the  Hpindles  and  flyers  in 
two  rows,  in  combination  with  tho  de- 
scribed arrangement  of  gearhig,  or  sub- 
stantially such  arrangement. 

Jlehl,  that  this  improvement  was  con- 
fined to  the  use  of  the  bow-flyer,  that 
is,  the  flyer  in  ono  continuous  piece. 
DavoU  V.  Urown,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  65, 
00. — WooDHUKY,  J.;  Mass.,  1846. 

Cultivators. 

Idb's  Patent. 
Issued  April  18</t,  1846. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "an  improve- 
ment in  cultivators,"  and  the  chiim  was 
for  the  arrangement  of  tho  teeth  in  two 
rows,  in  coiubination  with  a  pair  of 
wheels,  the  treads  of  which  are  in  a  line 
midway  between  the  points  of  the  two 
rows  of  teeth,  substantially  as  described. 
The  specification  described  the  teeth  as 
seven  in  number,  arranged  in  two 
straight  rows,  three  in  one  row  and  four 
in  another,  the  points  of  the  three  being 
in  front  of  the  line  of  the  wheels,  and 
the  points  of  the  four  behind  such  line, 
and  the  tread  of  the  wheels  being 
placed  midway  between  the  rows  of 
the  teeth,  to  resist  any  tendency  of  either 
row  of  teeth  to  cut  too  deep,  and  the 
tread  of  the  wheels  between  them  act- 
ing as  a  fulcrum,  so  as  to  relieve  the 
team  of  any  strain  arising  from  either  row 
of  the  teeth  running  too  low  or  too  shal- 
low, and  by  which  arrangement  also  the 
use  of  guiding  handles  or  of  four  wheels, 
could  be  dispensed  with ;  and  the  de- 
fendant's machine  used  but  two  wheels, 
and  no  guiding  handles,  and  Lad  also 


seven  teeth,  three  in  front  of  tin-  wlu'tls 
and  four  behind,  but  the  middle  tootli 
of  the  forward  three  was  moved  forwim] 
of  the  others,  and  the  two  middle  teetli 
of  tho  back  row  were  placed  behind  thu 
others,  so  that  the  two  rows  Avere  not 
straight,  and  tho  axle  of  the  whetls 
was  thrown  forward  so  that  the  tread 
of  tho  wheels  Avas  not  niidw.ay  between 
the  rows  of  the  teeth,  by  which  strain 
on  tho  team  was  further  reduced. 

Held,  that  the  defendant's  niachine 
was  an  infringement  upon  the  plaintiff's 
as  it  used  the  principle  and  substance 
of  plaintift''s  invention,  and  was  not 
even  an  improvement,  as  it  was  only 
tho  result  of  practical  ex})orience  in  the 
use  of  plaintiff^'s  machine,  and  involved 
no  invention.  Tracy  v.  Torrey,  2  iilatclif., 
277,  278.— Nelson,  J.;  N.Y.,  1851. 

2.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  the  same  patent,  referred  to  last 
above,  where  the  defendant's  niacliim! 
was  like  that  of  Torrey,  except  that  the 
middle  tooth  of  the  forward  three  was 
set  back,  so  that  two  teeth  were  foi' 
ward  of  the  Avheels,  and  five  were  back, 
Ileldy  that  defendant's  machine  was  an 
infringement.  Chamherlin  v.  Ganson, 
2  Blatchf.,  279  (note).— Nelson,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  1851. 


Dyeing  Pakti-Colored  Yarn 

Smith's  Patent. 

Issued  June  18th,  1850. 
Reissued  January  Wth,  1852. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "an  improc- 
ment  in  apparatus  for  parti-coloring 
yarn,"  and  the  claim  was  for  the  meth- 
od described  of  parti-coloring  yarns,  by 
winding  tliem  on  reels  in  frames,  so  as 
to  admit  of  immersing  such  portions  as 


^■^ 


PARTICULAR  PATDNTS. 


639 


DYEIN't;   Hll.K  UOOUS.      KLKCTUIO  TKLKURAPlt. 


are  dcwired  to  be  dyed,  and  Hhiftinj; 
the  xaine  for  dyeing  other  parts  in  like 
iiirtiiiier. 

JMd,  that  the  j)atent  was  for  the  ap- 
imratus,  and  not  for  a  process  or  meth- 
od. Smith  V.  Ifiggina,  MS. — Betts, 
J.;  N.  y.,  1»67. 

2.  The  essential,  if  not  the  only  nov- 
elty of  the  combination,  is  the  movable 
fiaiiio  and  its  appurtenances ;  and  a  ma- 
terial particularity  in  its  construction 
and  specialty  is,  that  the  yum,  to  the 
length  of  the  skein,  is  recpiired  to  bo 
■wound  or  rolled  upon  the  frame  over 
the  reels  rotating  at  its  two  ends.  The 
yarn  must  be  in  a  reeled  and  measured 
Btatc  when  placed  upon  the  frame,  and 
prepared  to  be  inmiersed  in  the  dye  to 
a  measured  distance.     Il>ul. 

3.  The  combination  claimed  consists 
of  the  construction  and  arrangement  of 
the  movable  frames,  reels,  and  yarns, 
and  their  conjoint  operation  in  dyeing, 
a)id  without  hicluding  the  measuring 
scale.    Ibid. 

4.  Tiie  thing  invented  is :  the  hori- 
zontal frame  carrying  the  reeled  yarns 
combhied  with  the  dyeing  vat  by  ma- 
chinery lapted  to  let  down  and  draw 
up  this  frame,  and  incasure  the  extent 
of  tlu'  immersion,  or  the  extent  of  the 
line  of  dyeing  upon  the  yarn.  Smith 
V.  Ely,  ns,  MS. — Nklsox,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1859. 

5.  In  0  er  words,  the  thing  discov- 
ered is  the  combination  of  the  horizon- 
tal frame,  carrying  the  reeled  yarns  with 
the  dyeing  vat  by  machinery — which 
must  always  be  kept  in  view  as  very 
important — which  lets  down  the  frame 
carrying  the  yarn,  and  draws  it  up,  and 
at  the  same  time  measures  the  line  of 
yarn  to  be  dyed.    Ibid. 

6.  It  is  not  a  patent  for  the  discovery 
of  the  idea  of  coloring  parti-colored 


yarns  by  immersion  in  the  dye,  but  for 
an  arrangement  or  combination  of  ma- 
chinery, as  a  means  to  bo  used  in  dye- 
ing parti-colored  yarns  by  immersion 
in  the  dye.     Ibid. 

Dykino  and  Finishing  Silk  Goods. 

Stkaunes  k  Barrett's  Patent. 

Issued  May  12tt,  1818. 

Tliis  patent  was  for  "a  new  and 
useful  improvement,  being  a  mode  for 
dyeing  and  finishing  all  kinds  of  silk 
woven  goods,"  and  the  specification  de- 
scribed two  machines,  one  a  reel,  on 
which  spirally  to  wind  and  secure  the 
silk,  and  put  it  into  the  dye ;  the  other 
a  frame  for  the  purpose  of  extending 
and  finishing  the  silk  after  it  is  dyed. 

Held,  that  the  patent  was  for  dyeing 
and  finishing  such  goods  by  means  of  the 
reel  and  frame  in  combination,  and  not 
for  each  of  the  machines  severally,  as 
well  as  in  combination.  Barrett  v.  Hall, 
1  Mas.,  448,  477. — Stoey,  J. ;  Mass., 
1818. 


Electbic  Telegraph. 
Bain's  Patent. 

Issued  April  11th,  1849. 

The  invention  of  Bain,  for  which  ap- 
plication for  a  patent  was  made  April 
18  th,  1848,  and  being  for  his  chemical 
telegraph,  so  called,  being  the  applica- 
tion of  chemically  prepared  paper  to 
receive  and  record  signs  by  means  of 
the  pulsations  of  an  electric  current 
transmitted  from  a  distance,  and  opera- 
ting directly  and  without  the  interven- 
tion of  any  secondary  current,  or  me- 


h 


540 


T'AUTICrr.All  PATKNTS. 


KLKOIRIO  TKI.KOKAI'H. 


?**A 


<;hani('nl  oontrivnnoo,  thronp;h  a  motal 
iimrk'mjjf  s^lylo,  in  o(»i)tuct  with  Hiich 
]»n'|):ir(>(l  |i:i|u'r,  iH  TiottlicNiunu  invention 
as  that  <>l"  Morse,  for  which  application 
for  a  ))atcnt  was  inatlo  January  '20th, 
1H4H,  and  in  wiiicii  h((  claimed  tho  use 
of  a  sin<,do  circuit  of  conductorM  for 
murkinjjj  sijxns  by  means  of  the  decoin- 
posiuLj  clVccts  of  electricity  on  prejtared 
paper,  and  l»y  means  of  tlie  machinery 
dcscriht'd  for  sudi  purpose.  Kacli  was 
entitled  to  a  patent  for  tho  particular 
condtination  he  iiad  invented.  Jiain  v. 
3f()rsi\  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) — Cuancii,  Cli. 
J.;  IXC,  1849. 

Mouse's  Patents. 

"  Maonetio."— /wf/ft/ ./■«)H>  20^;?,  1840. 

Jieissued  Janunnj   2bth,  1 81(i. 

L'eissued  Junn  V.Wi,  1848. 

'^Ijocal  ''::rc>tit."—f.ssw>/  April  lUli,  1846. 

lieinsiit'd  Jitiii:  i'.Wi,  1848. 

"CiiKMiCAr,."— /.s>v(C(i  J/(f)/  1st,  1849. 

Htiusd  fnKfrumcnt. 

Columbian  Inslrunient. 

1.  The  patent  of  Morse,  of  June  20th, 
1840,  for  improvements  in  the  electro- 
magnetic telegraph,  sliotdd  be  limited 
to  the  term  of  fourteen  years  from  the 
date  of  his  French  patent,  August  18th, 
183S,  and  not  being  so  limited,  but  i)ur- 
porting  to  give  an  exclusive  right  for 
fourteen  years  from  its  date,  is  void. 
f>)tu'th  v.  J'Jlij,  5  McLean,  Y9,  82.~Mc- 
Lkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

2.  But  such  error  is  not  fatal  to  the 
right  of  tho  patentee,  and  may  bo  cor- 
rected at  the  Patent  Office.     Ibid,  80. 

3.  The  motive  power  of  the  galvanic 
current,  however  developed  to  produce 
a  given  result,  can  be  no  more  patented 
thiin  the  motive  jjower  of  steam  to  pro- 
pel boats,  however  applied.    Ibid.,  91. 

4.  The  essence  of  IVforse's  method, 


beyond  what  before  had  exislcd,  or 
been  practised,  was  to  nuike  electro- 
mjignetism,  when  excited,  not  merely 
exhibit  sonio  evanescent  sign  at  the 
other  end,  but  a  sign  which  llu'  niii. 
cliinc!  is  made  to  trace,  and  thus  record 
them  pi'rmanently.  Smith  v.  Jhtmniitg^ 
MS. — Wooitniiuv,  J. ;  Mass.,  iH.'io. 

5.  The  chief  ])riiu;iple  or  ch.'iractor- 
istic  of  INIorse's  telegraphic^  invent  inn,  is 
that  by  its  type-rule,  or  knob-sprjiiir  .,t 
the  starting  plju-e,  it  is  able  to  iiiako 
dots  and  lines  by  breaking  the  circuit 
for  a  shorter  or  longer  time,  and  tlien 
being  felt  along  the  wires  to  the  otJur 
end,  trace  there  on  j)aper,  passing  undur 
or  over  the  needle  or  pin  at  the  end  of 
the  lever  'ike  dots  and  lines,  which  re- 
m;iin  on  -HM-manently  written,  to  ho 
afterward,  by  the  stenographic  ;il|)li;i- 
bet,  translated  into  Roman  letters  and 
words.     Ibid. 

6.  IJcforo  lus  invention,  there  wore  al- 
ready known  tho  wires  and  circ-uit,  the 
galvanic  battery,  the  use  of  posts,  and 
tho  ground  for  a  part  of  the  circuit,  tlio 
bre.'iking  of  the  circuit  by  various  de- 
vices, the  making  of  signals  and  marks, 
the  paj)er  and  clock-work,  and  the  de- 
flected noodle,  if  not  the  lever.    Ihith 

1.  The  lever  of  Morse's  instrument 
seems  to  be  but  the  old  needle,  dei)re.ss. 
ed  at  one  end  by  the  magnet,  and  of 
course  elevated  at  the  other,  and  a  pin 
or  pen  inserted  in  it  to  make  dots  or 
strokes  on  the  paper.     Ibid. 

8.  The  novelties  in  Morse's  patents 
are  1st,  local  circuits;  2d,  recording  or 
writing  at  a  distance  by  electro-magnet- 
ism, and  3d,  doing  this  by  a  regular 
stenographic  alphabet  on  rolling  paper. 
Ibid. 

9.  House's  telegraphic  machine  is 
more  complicated  than  Morse's,  moves 
much  faster,  at  tho  rate  of  GO  to  70 


tete 


PARTICULAR  PATKNTS. 


A41 


KI.KCI'KIU  TKI.KOKAI'118. 


|,r,,;,l<s  in  !i  s('(*f)nil,  Mtid  at  oticc  rcconls 
the  inliiiiiiatinii  l)y  its  own  iiiacliiiu-ry,  [ 
;ii  Uoiiiuii  letters.     It  gives  "letters  to 
yprlilniiiix,'    ;i«  well  HH  "  light iiiii};  to  let- 

tiTs."     Il>!<(- 

10.  It  mukt'S  no  triicing  lit  either  end 
of  llie  circuit,  Imt  acts  at  I»oth  emls  hy 
iiiciiiis  of  signals,  and  (races  notliing. 
Morse's  is  a  tracing  or  writing  telegra|ih, 
House's  a  signal  and  printing  telegraph. 

Ibid. 

11.  IIoiiHO  uses  no  local  circuits, 
makes  no  tracing,  hut  records  hy  print- 
ing and  hy  niejuis  of  two  additional 
powers  in  axial  magnetism  and  air,  and 
uses  no  stenograjdiic  alphabet.     Ihhi. 

12.  The  use  of  electro-magnet  ism 
geiierallv  for  i'onnnuni<'ating  inf elligence 
at  a  ilistan(!e  and  there  re(;ording  it,  is 
not  new  to  either  Morse  or  House. 
Ihid. 

1.3.  l»y  the  assertion  and  cl.aiin  fotnid 
in  Morse's  patent  of  lHt8,  of  "  the  cs- 
scwc  of  his  invention  being  the  tise  of 
tlic  motive  power  of  the  electric  or  gal- 
vanic current,  however  developed.,  I'or 
marking  and  printing  intelligible  char- 
acters at  any  distance,"  lie  must  be  con- 
sidered as  claiming  it  in  the  form  of  his 
api)lication — according  to  his  machinery 
— ratiicr  than  as  intending  to  cover  the 
application  itself  of  electro-magnetism 
to  telegraphic  purposes,  in  every  possi- 
ble form.  Otherwise,  his  renewed  pat- 
ent of  1848,  must  be  regarded  as  void, 
for  claiming  too  much,  and  for  wishing 
to  protect  a  mere  principle  or  effect, 
"  however  developed,"  and  without  ref- 
erence to  any  method,  described  by  him, 
and  to  cover  a  principle,  also  before 
known.    Ihid. 

14.  The  original  patent  of  Morse — 
commonly  known  as  his  Magnetic  pat- 
ent, of  June  20th,  1840;  and  its  re- 
issue of  January  25th,  1840,   and  its 


second  reissue  of  June  l.'Jth,  IHIH,  in 
all  their  «-haiiges,  contain  no  tlagrant 
diversity  of  claim.  They  all  cl:iini  tlie 
sam(!  thing  essentially;  and  in  them  all, 
he  claims,  and  n-iu'ws  his  claim  of  prop- 
erty in  (he  same  invt'ntit»n — he  declares 
the  existence  of  a  new  art,  and  asserts 
his  right  in  it  as  its  inventor  and  owimr ; 
and  his  title  was  vested  as  i)!itenle('  of 
the  art.  Fir.uch  v.  Jtogers,  MS. — Kanio, 
J.;   I'a.,  1851. 

15.  Morse's  Local  Circuit  patent, 
granted  A|»ril  1  Ith,  l8-!0,  and  reissued 
J  mil!  liitli,  JHts,  are  also  both  for  the 
same  invention.     Ibid. 

10.  The  Hulycot  or  leading  ])rincipl(! 
of  his  Chemical  patent  of  May  1st,  1840, 
is  also  clearly  within  his  original  pati'iit, 
.and  was  approjiriated  and  Hecure<l  by 
the  magnetic  patent  of  IK40.     Uiid. 

17.  J/(>?"se  was  the  first  and  original 
inventor  of  tlu!  electro-magnetic  tele- 
gra]»li.  (y  Jtidly  v.  Mor-te,  15  How., 
100,  125.— Tank v,Ch.  J.;  Guikk,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

18.  There  is  nothing  in  the  reissued 
p.atents  of  1840  and  1848  that  ni.-iy 
not  be  regarded  as  a  more  careful 
description  than  the  patent  of  1840. 
Ibid.,  112. 

19.  His  p.atcnj;  is  not  void,  because  it 
does  n(jt  on  its  face  bear  the  same  date 
with  his  French  ])atent,  previously  ob- 
tained for  the  same  invention,  but  its 
monopoly  is  limited  to  the  term  of  four- 
teen years  from  the  date  of  the  foreign 
patent.     Ibid.,  112. 

20.  Morse's  eighth  claim  in  his  re- 
issued patent  of  1848,  which  is  as  fol- 
lows :  "I  do  not  propose  to  limit  myself 
to  the  specific  machinery  or  parts  of 
machinery  in  the  foregoing  specifica- 
tions and  claims  ;  the  essence  of  my  in- 
vention being  the  use  of  the  motive 
power  of  the  electric  or  galvanic  cur- 


"HJ 


i. 


k 


"Vofg 


'WWwfiM/Ww|' 


*^'''i^: 

::^|!i: 

■•'yi^,' 

'  ■                ■  K.M 

■■-^  Wirtj.,; 

■'  ,-'  'wf  i»i>f. 

"■■  \i. . 

-■■                    -^       •. 

-'  -^Vl:!- 

.  -^'Uag|ife.i 

■  ■  -v  ly 

^''«^|l 

^'»  s;i,. 


i    J 


«4d 


rATlTlCrLAIl  TATKNTS. 


riliK-KNCilNIOil. 


OLAW  KINMft 


^*<y 


<'k  >»>»  ■  I 


a 


rent,  whirh  I  call  t'loctn)-inn<;netlsiii 
liowt'Vcr  <U'VL'Io|K'(l  for  inarkin<{  or  |»nnt- 
iiif;  ii)U'lligil>Io  chanicterH,  MigiiH,  t>r  l(it- 
tiTN,  'it  niiy  (liHtaii(H>s,  Ix'iiifj;  n  now  ii|> 
plication  of'tliat  power  of  which  I  claitu 
t(»  l>t'  the  fiTHt  iiivi'iitor  or  dist'overor," 
is  illegal  nn«l  voi*l,  aH  elaitniiig  the  ex- 
cluifioe  right  to  the  use  or  effetit  of  Hiich 
l»owor  for  such  jmrpoHe,  without  respect 
to  the  procesH  or  machinery  by  which 
accomplished — but  he  is  entitled  to  a 
patent  only  for  the  particular  mi^thod 
or  process  discovered  by  liini.  Ibul.^ 
112,  120. 

21.  Tlio  delay  of  Morse  to  enter  a 
disclaimer  for  such  claim,  it  having  re- 
ceived the  sanction  of  the  head  of  the 
Patent  Office,  and  been  siistainetl  by  a 
Circuit  Court,  until  such  claiin  was 
passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court, 
was  not  unreasonable,  and  the  omission 
does  not  render  liis  patent  void.  Ibid., 
122. 

22.  Morse's  patent  of  1840,  reissued 
in  1848,  for  the  local  circuits,  is  for  an 
invention  not  embraced  in  his  former 
patents,  and  was  properly  issued.  Ibid., 
123. 

23.  The  Columbian  telegraph,  so-call- 
ed, uses  substantially  the  same  means 
embraced  in  Morse's  patent,  and  is  an 
infringement  upon  it.     Ibid.,  123,  124. 

24.  As  to  the  construction  of  agree- 
ments respecting  the  electric  telegraph, 
see  Agbkemknts,  B.,  17, 18,  19,  20,  35, 
■iR,  49,  50. 


Fibe-Enginks. 

Ransoh  k  Wenuan's  Patrnt. 

Issued  February  13th,  1841. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "an  improve- 
ment in  fire-engines,"  and  described  as 


cotuiccting  the  receivitig  tubes  or  piuiiiis 
of  the  engine,  liy  means  »>f  hose,  (o  liv. 
tlranls,  in  which  the  water  was  iiikIct 
pressure,  and  claimed  "the  empluyiii,.|,t 
of  a  coluiim  of  falling  water,  or  tliv 
Itiiilciicy  of  the  hydrostatic  prcssurt 
upon  water  at  rest,  to  act  in  tin-  wmk 
ing  of  lire-engines,  by  combining  u  hoso 
or  tube,  con<lucting  said  water  into  tl^ 
receiving  lube  of  an  engiiut  or  |iiitn|) 
operated  by  manual  or  mechanicjii  pow- 
er." 

//(/(/,  that  the  invention  paleiitcd  was 
"tli('  combination  of  the  pumps  or  ri- 
ceiving  tubes  of  the  fire-engiiit!  with  a 
(•oiniecting-j)ipe  or  hose,  forming  a  con- 
nection between  such  engine  and  a  jiv- 
drant  or  water  pipe  from  whicli  water 
is  forced  by  the  hydrostatic  prcs<uio 
existing  in  the  liydrant  int</  the  jnuiiiis 
of  the  engine,  and  applied  so  as  to  com- 
bine the  poAver  of  this  hydraulic  pres- 
sure with  the  power  applied  to  the 
brakes  of  the  engine,"  substantially  as 
set  forth.  Hansom  v.  Mayor,  <£v.,  of 
Xeio  York,  MS.— IIai.l,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

2.  Held,  also,  that  the  patent  was  not 
for  a  principle,  and  did  not  grant  to  the 
patentee  the  exclusive  privilege  of  using 
such  hydrostatic  pressure  in  all  forms 
and  modes  in  Avhich  it  could  be  applied 
to  the  production  of  the  purposes  of  the 
character  intended  by  him,  but  that  tho 
patent  was  only  for  the  means  and  de- 
vices by  which  the  patentee  proposed 
to  make  such  pressure  available  for  tho 
purpose  indicated  in  the  specification. 
Ibid. 

Glass  Kkobs. 

Whitney  &.  Robinson's  Patent. 

Issued  August  22d,  1826. 

The  patent  was  for  "  a  new  and  useful 


M. 


iilifs  or  puiiiiiH 
i)f  howi',  to  liy- 
tur  was  niidct 
u'  tMHl»lnyim'iit 
wiitiT,   or  till) 
Hlatio  iiri'Hsiirt 
•t  in  tim  work 
inltiniii^  a  hosu 
wiiti'i'  iiitu  tlio 
jjriiui   or  i)mn|) 
lechiuiit  ill  pow- 

r»ni)!itcMiti(l  was 
c  pumps  or  II" 
t>-t'ii{j;iiu!  with  a 
,  formini;  a  imhi- 
iif^ino  ami  a  liy- 
)m  wliicli  waliT 
ostsitu'  itri'ssure 
,  into  \\w  \ni\\\\)% 
ed  HO  as  lo  colli- 
,  hydraulic  pros- 
applied   to  the 
substantially  as 
layor,  <£'".,  of 
L,  J.;    N.  Y., 

e  patent  was  not 
not  grant  to  the 
)rivilege  of  using 
lire  in  all  forms 
could  bo  applied 
e  purposes  of  the 
hiui,  but  that  the 
e  means  and  do- 
tentec  proposed 
available  for  the 
.ho  specification. 


OBS.       « 
on's  Patent. 


2d,  1826. 


laQOW 


and  useful 


rAUTUlI..\U  TATKNTS. 


543 


OnAIN-OLKAKINQ    MACMINKH. 


UIIIKMNO  TOdlX 


iiiii»rov(inent  in  tlio  inodt*  of  nini*ufac- 
turinj;  >;Ii»ss  knobs,"  by  inachinery,  at 
(,ii(>  operation,  in  nuch  a  manner  as, 
^vilhoiit  any  blowin;,',  to  produce'  n  Hn- 
i*thcd  knob,  with  a  hojo  perforated 
tliroiittli  '♦»  ""'l  •*  "f""!^  or  enlargement. 
/fid,  that  the  description  in  (he  spee- 
itication  was  Hufli(;ient  in  law,  an<l  that 
tlic  patent  was  not  broader  than  the  in- 
vention. Wliitnry  v.  A'mmrtt,  Bald., 
;t04,  315.— 1Ja.m»win,  .1. ;  Pa.,  IHIJl. 


GRAIN-ri,KANIN<»   !\Ia('1IINES. 

Pitts'   Patknt. 
Tuned  December  20th,  1837. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  '  a  now  and 
useful  iniprovenuMit  in  the  machine  for 
threshing  and  ele.ining  grain."  The 
claim  was  for  "  the  construction  and  use 
nf  an  endless  apron,  divided  into  troughs 
or  cells,  in  a  nuieiiine  for  cleaning  griun, 
operating  sul)stanti;dly  as  described." 

Ifdd,  that  the  patent  was  not  for  tiic 
fiiiUess  apron  of  trouglis  or  cells,  but 
of  an  endless  apron  of  trouglis  or  cells 
combined  with  a  particular  threshing 
machine  described,  and  that  if  the  com- 
hiiiation  was  new,  it  was  p.atentable,  al- 
though a  part  might  liavo  been  applied 
to  similar  ptirposcs  in  other  machines. 
Pitts  \.  Whitman,  2  Story,  018,619. 
— Stouy,  J. ;  Me.,  184.3. 

2.  And  though  the  p.itentee  describ- 
ed his  invention  as  "  a  new  and  useful 
improvement,"  and  it  in  fact  consisted 
of  a  combination  of  several  improve- 
ments, Held,  that  the  patent  was  good 
not  only  for  the  whole  combination,  but 
also  for  each  distinct  improvement,  so 
for  as  it  Avas  his  invention.  Ibid.,  620, 
621. 

3.  The  four  claims  in  this  patent  each 


coiiHist  of  eond)inations  of  inechani«!al 
powers,  which  proiliice  a  given  result. 
PittM  V.  \\'inij)/r,{\  McLean,  fiOI. — Mu- 
Lk.vn,  J.;  111.,   1855. 


Sawdkiw'  Patbmt. 

ff^wd  June  \<Mh,   1819. 
lieistued  April  1U(A,  ltj55. 

1 .  This  patent  was  for  an  "  improvement 
in  winnowing  machines,"  and  the  claim 
was,  the  tnmk  gradually  enlarged  from 
below  upward,  and  c(»nununieating  with 
the  atmospheric  current  through  the 
gniin-screen,  in  condiination  with  the 
hopper,  and  the  fan  placed  at  the  end 
of  an  opposite  vertical  trunk,  to  sepa- 
rate the  ehafl'aiwl  other  impurities  from 
the  grain,  in  the  manner  substantiidly 
iis  described. 

Jliid,  that  the  claim  iji  the  original 
patent  is  a  correct  description  of  the 
whole  invention.  Sanders  v.  Logan,  .3 
Wall.,  Jr.— Gill  Kit,  J.;  I'a.,  1801. 

2.  The  third  claim  of  the  reissued  pat- 
ent is  too  broad.  The  use  of  a  vertical 
blast-spout,  so  arranged  tliat  grain  is 
cleaned  from  impurities  within  said 
spout,  was  not  now.    Ibid. 


Grinding  Tools. 

Hovet's  Patent. 
Issued  September  I'Sd,  1845. 

This  patent  was  for  "  a  new  and  use- 
ful improvement  in  the  machinery  for 
grinding  tools."  JIdd,  that  the  tincer- 
tainty  and  obscurity  in  the  specification 
of  this  patent  as  to  Avhat  the  patentee 
claims  as  his  invention,  or  what  is  in 
fact  the  novelty  of  it,  is  so  great  as  to 
render  the  patent  invalid.     Hovcy  v. 


'<4it 


■*.»' 


Ml' 


'-u» 


^»a    '! 


ait^ 


544 


PAUTICULAU  TAIKNTS. 


OUK  LOOU. 


UABVKHTIKO  MAl'IIUtn, 


■*%,.„;#;5j 


,4("*. 


|i*i»' 


pfe^ 


Si.,     '^ 


*«S=5^SS 


:-ti. 


Utenmify  3  Wood.  A  Miii.,  10,  30,  31.— 

WOODULKV,  J.;   3Ill.SH.,  1B40. 


Gun  Locks. 

Allkn'8  Patent. 

hautd  Novevihtr  Wth,  1837. 
Jieiiftutd  Auyuat  3(i,  1844. 

Tho  piiU'iit  was  for  "an  iiiijirovctiiciit 
in  tlic  iiicllind  (if  conHtnuilingtiri'-aniis." 

J/i/t/,  iliat  till!  ii'issiiL'il  pjiU'Ht  of  Aii- 
<.;nsf  ;kl,  lull,  is  for  the  Maine  iuvi'ntioii 
as  lliat  lU-Hcriltc'd  in  tho  patent  of  No- 
vember lull,  1837.  Allen  v.  Sj>ni(/ii(; 
1  Ulatchf,  507.— Nklhon,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1850. 


IIauvksting  Maciunks. 

McCouMicK'fl  Patents. 

IssHcd  June  2lsl,  1834. 

Isnued  January  'AXst,   1815. 

Inautd  October  iWd,  1847. 

Ikissued  May  2Wi,  1853. 

1.  The  chiini  of  McConnick,  in  his  pat- 
ent of  October  23t1,  1847,  for  improve- 
ment in  reaping  machines,  was  as  fol- 
lows :  "  The  arrangement  of  the  seat  of 
the  raker  over  tho  end  of  the  finger 
pieces,  and  just  back  of  tlie  driving 
wheel  as  described,  in  combination  with 
and  placed  at  the  end  of  the  reel,  where- 
by the  raker  can  sit  with  his  back  tow- 
ard the  team,  and  thus  have  free  access 
to  tho  cut  grain  laid  on  the  platform  and 
back  of  the  reel,  and  rake  it  from  thence 
on  to  tho  ground  by  a  natural  sweep  of 
his  body,  and  lay  it  in  a  range  at  right 
angles  with  his  swarth  as  described, 
thereby  avoiding  uncvenness  and  scat- 
tering in  the  discharge  of  the  wheat,  as 


well  an  accomplishing  tliu  tiamo  with  ^ 
groat  saving  of  labor." 

//t'A/,  that  it  was  tho  Heat  as  thus  do. 
Hcril)ed,  by  whic-li  (he  raker  may  ^<it  or 
stand  on  tlie  franu',  and  rake  the  wheat 
from  tho  platform  with  conveniincc 
that  was  cl.-iime*!.  McCormi-lc  v.  Sni. 
motir,  2  HIatchf.,  'J4H,  251.— Nelson,  j,; 
N.  Y.,  June,  iH.'il. 

2.  llul  the  d.'iim  is  not  for  tho  ko.-iIm 
<f  seat,  or  for  its  particular  mode  arnl 
form  of  construction,  but  for  tlie  ar- 
r.'Uigement  and  conildn.'itioii  dcsirjlKii 
by  which  the  beiiolit  of  a  seat  or  |iii«i. 
tion  for  tho  raker  is  obtaiiieil,  ]»y  wlijdi 
the  raker  is  placed  where  ho  is  placid, 
standing  or  sitting,  and  do  his  work. 
//>/(/.,  'jr.O,  '2.'3. 

3.  The  improvement  w.-is  not  Hiiii]ily 
putting  a  seat  or.  he  niaehino  for  tlio 
raker,  but  was  the  arrangement  ami 
eoiiibination  of  the  parts  of  the  iiiacliiiic 
so  that  the  paleiitei;  was  enabled  to  oli- 
tain  room  on  the  machine  for  the  raktr, 
and  that  he  might  have  the  free  usu  of 
his  body  and  limbs  in  r.-iking  dft'  the 
grain,  avoiding  the  labor  and  liiti^ruu 
and  inconvenience  of  walking.  The 
seat  or  position  of  tho  raker  on  the  ma- 
chine Avas  the  object  had  in  view,  aiii] 
was  the  result  of  his  new  arraiigeiiKiit 
and  combination  of  tho  dillereiit  i»aits 
of  the  machine.  McCormick  v.  Soj- 
moitr,  MS. — Nklsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  Oct,, 
1851. 

4.  Tho  second  claim  in  McCoiniick's 
patent,  which  is  as  follows:  "I  chiim 
the  reversed  angle  of  tho  teeth  of  the 
blade,  in  manner  described,"  is  not  sim- 
ply for  tho  reversed  angles  of  the  sickle 
teeth  of  the  blade,  but  for  reversing  tlie 
angles  of  the  teeth  in  the  manner  pre- 
viously described  in  his  patent — it  is  a 
claim  for  the  angles  formed  by  the  pe- 
culiar shape  of  the  fingers,  in  counec- 


rAirnciLAU  tatknts. 


ft4S 


i  8amo  witli  a 

fill  as  thus  (If. 
mf  may  nit  or 
rake  t\n\  wheat 
I  coiivcMitiicc, 
'urinific  v.  Snj. 

L. — NKI.hON,J.; 

t  for  the  Hent  (m 
iihir  iikhU'  iiii'l 
Iml  tor  till!  ar. 
itioii  deHcrihci], 
'  a  Heat  or  imim. 
aiiicil,  liy  which 
Tc  he  is  jilaciii, 
J  do  his  work. 

was  not  !<lni|ily 
luachiiu'  lor  llif 
rraiigcrneiit  atnl 
R  of  tlie  inai'hiiu', 
i(i  eiiabk'tl  to  oV 
iue  for  the  rakir, 
e  the  free  usv  of 
rakiiin  oft'  tlio 
,l)or  anil  falif^iio 
walking.     Tlio 
raker  on  the  ma- 
lad  in  view,  aii4 
ew  arran<^eiiiL'iit 

0  ditferent  parts 
Gormick  v.  »**t^- 

;  N.  Y.,  Oct,, 

in  MeCornilck's 
Lllows :  "  I  olaim 

1  the  teeth  of  the 
Ibed,"  is  not  fim- 
Igles  of  tlic  sii'klo 
Ifor  reversing  the 

the  mawier  pre- 
fs  patent— It  lii 
jrnied  by  the  pe- 
hio-ers,  in  counec- 


IIAKVKtlTINO    MACIIINKM. 


lion  with  the  cuttwr,  having  the  anjjh's 
(if  tlie  ftetii  reversed.  MrCorinirh'  V. 
.svymoi/r,  :i  IJlatehf.,  '.".':t.— Nki.hon,  J. 
\.  v.,  1  ^•>^-     I  KevefHi'd,  jHiHt  1  I .  I 

6.  Mi'Corniiok's  p.itent  of  Jiin(«  2 1st, 
18.34,  havinj?  expired,  whatever  of  lii- 
vfiitioii  is  eoiitaineil  in  it  behmixs  to  the 
iiiihlie,  anil  mny  'h'  used  by  any  one. 
}l'Ci)nnii'k  V.  Miiiiii!/,  0  Mi-Iieiui,  5  j:», 
M4.— M.Lkax,  J.;  III.,  18.W. 

0.  Ill  McCorniiek's  juitent  of  lRt7, 
reissued  in  1H.5;J,  he  elaiined  "the  com- 
liiiialion  of  the  bow  L  mid  dividiiif?  iron 
M,  fi»r  seimratiiif;  the  wheat  to  bo  cut 
from  that  to  be  left  standing."  Thiselaini 
liiiiii,'  lor  a  eonibination,  the  use  of  a 
wooden  divider,  us  used  and  patented 
liv  Manny,  is  no  infringement.  //»/</., 
517,  .VtO. 

7.  The  reel  jiart  of  Me('orniick,  plac- 
id l)eliind  the  sickles,  and  leaning  for- 
ward, so  as  to  bring  tho  part  of  it  sup- 
porting the  reel  perpen<licul:ir,  also  ox- 
tuiidiiig  forward,  so  as  to  :idmit  of  be- 
ing l)race<l  directly  to  the  tongue,  in 
eoml/mation  with  wliich  it  was  claimed, 
is  not  infringed  by  tho  reel  part  of 
Manny,  which  connects  with  the  hind- 
most post  of  the  machine,  and  is  sus- 
tained hy  braces.     Ifnd.,  5.50. 

8.  The  improvement  of  IMcCormiek, 
as  to  the  scat,  consists  in  the  peculiar  or- 
1,'anization  of  advancing  the  reel  in  front 
of  the  cutters,  and  shortening  it  and  ]»ut- 
tingthe  driving  wheel  back  and  the  gear- 
ing forward,  so  as  to  balance  the  machine 
with  tho  weight  of  the  raker  on  tlie  ex- 
tended finger  piece.  It  is  adapted  to  no 
other  part  of  the  machine,  and  his  im- 
inoveinoiit  is  limited  to  hi.s  siiecification. 
/iiW.,  552. 

9.  McCormick's  invention  was  not  the 
seat  for  the  raker,  but  the  change  of  the 
machinery  to  make  a  place  for  it.  If  a 
raker  can  be  seated  on  a  different  part 

36 


of  tlie  mncliine,  and  where  ho  can  rako 
without  bal.-uieiiig  the  machine,  and 
without  iiiti-rruptioii  frdin  the  reel,  or 
on  any  part  of  the  ma<*liine  which  docs 
not  re(piire  Hulistantially  the  samo  in- 
vention and  improvemeiil  as  Mi'Cor* 
;nick's,  it  is  no  iiitVingement  <if  his  right. 

10.  The  patent  of  John  II.  Manny  of 
March  (Uh,  Ih.")"),  does  not  infiinge  upon 
.McCormick's  jtateiit  of  is  IT,  reissued, 
l.s.5;l.     I/ntf.,  arnu 

11.  McCormick's  patent  of  isl,'., 
among  its  claims  had  the  following:  "  2. 
I  claim  the  rev(!rsed  angle  of  the  teeth 
of  the  blade,  in  manner  described.  D. 
I  claim  the  arrangement  .ind  cctnstruc- 
ti<m  of  the  lingers  or  toeth  for  support- 
ing the  grain,  so  as  to  form  the  angiila' 
spaces  in  frf)nt  of  the  blade,  as  and  for 
the  purpose  descriljed."  Jf<l<f,  that  the 
two  were  not  to  be  construed  together, 
as  a  claim  for  the  reversed  angle  of  the 
teeth  of  the  blade,  in  combination  with 
the  peculiar  form  of  the  lingers;  l)iit 
that  each  claim  was  to  be  construed  and 
considered  separately.  Sei/wour  v.  Mc- 
Corniick,  10  How.,  90,  100. — Xki.sov, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

12.  And  that  the  former,  the  second, 
not  being  new,  costs  coultl  not  be  rc- 
coveretl  in  an  .action  for  infringement, 
without  a  disclaimer  being  made  of  such 
claim.     Ifni/.,  100. 

13.  IMcCormiek  was  not  tho  original 
inventor  of  tho  contrivance  called  tho 
divider,  for  separating  the  grain  in  ad- 
vance of  the  cutting  apparatus.  Jl/b- 
CorniH'k  V.  Takvtt,  20  How.,  400.— 
GuiEK,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 

14.  His  fourth  claim  in  his  patent  of 
1845,  for  "the  combination  of  the  bow 
L  and  dividing  iron  M,  for  sep.ar.ating 
the  wheat  in  the  way  described  "  is  the 
proper  subject  of  a  patent,  but  is  not 


B4« 


rAinicn.Aii  patkn'ih 

HAT   Uii|i|»'.a 


^<tw< 


M'k 


InfHnjfwl  hy  «»nc  who  tmiHi  only  .i  |>:irt 
ol'llio  coiiiliiiiiilioii ;  iiori'tiii  it  tliiill«'ii^«t 
other  iiii|ii°oNt'inriilH  >>ii  ||||>  h.xum'  iiia- 
cliiiit',  (lilVi'i'riit  ill  Itiriu  <>r  roinliiiiiiiinii, 
(\H  iiiriiiim'iiit'liN,  iMruiiM*'  (lu'v  |)crriirtn 
tlic  Hiiiiif  riiiii*ti<iiM,  liy-  o:illiii<;  ihttii 
n|uivult'iilH.  It  Im  u  rliumfni'  Ihu  coiii- 
liiiiiilioii  ot' tilt'  Im>\v  will)  II  tliviiliii;^  iron 
<ir:i('t'it.rm  tuiiii,  ami  lor  iiotliiii^  nunc 
J/n'<(.,  liM». 

lA.  Tilt' (Iivi<l»'r  <h'mMilt('il  in  Miinny'n 
(mtiMit  tif  IHi7,  Im  not  lui  intVini^cincnt 
t>n  tlu>  inviniioii  nf  McCorniick.  /  fn'if , 
•loo,  tn;.     I  Dam  101.,  . I.  ;  tlissniiin^;. | 

1(5.  Tin'   innnntT  t>t'   Mnp|»or(inL;    the 
reel,  nM  uhimI  in  Manny'H  n)Mfliint>,  ih  not 
tilt'  wnnt'  (IS  tilt'   invention   of  McCnr 
mick,  :niil  it  li;nl  lu'i'ii  in  nut'  lit'ltut'  Mc- 
C'orniifk's  patent.      /f>n/.,  '      ,»()«. 

17.  Ah  to  (lit-  rakt'i-'M  h.  ,.i,  MfCor- 
inick's  claim  was  for  the  <'oniliiMatii>ii  of 
tilt'  nt'l  with  a  Heat,  arran^nl  and  lo.-at- 
t'd  accordinj^  to  liis  dfseriplion.  Man- 
ny's arranyenu'iit  is  Hnlislantially  tlitler- 
i>nt,  Itotli  in  torni  iind  ftmiliiiiiition,  nnti 
is  no  inlVinjri'int'nt  upon  MfC'orniit'k's 
])att'nt.       //>i(f..  tOS. 

ITt'HBEY'R  PaTKNT. 

Issued  Ainjuft  tlh,  1847 
hMsaucii  Aj'r,'!  Ut/i,  Isr.T,  in  three. 

The  patent  was  for  certain  "new  and 
useful  iniprovenu'Uts  in  reapini:;  ma- 
chines," ami  I  lie  claim  was  fur  the  com- 
hliiation  of  vihratin;^  scalloped  entter, 
the  iiideiilations  of  wliost;  cdjjo  at-t  as 
a  series  of  movhtg  shear  Matles,  with 
plotted  ijjnard  finsxers,  the  sides  of  which 
act  as  a  correspontlint;  series  of  Jixcd 
shear  Mados;  the  parts  of  huoIi  fini^ers 
forming  the  slot  being  conneetoil  at  the 
front  ends  only,  leaving  the  rear  of  the 
slot  opcu  and  free  for  the  escape  of  ma- 


terial   that    would    otliorwiHo   vUtff  ||,„ 
cutler. 

/filif,  lluil  IiIn  invention  wan  not  i<iiii. 
fined  to  a  i^iiard  finger  with  a  km.,  .•„,,, 
at  the  t'ifi,  Itnt  included  >  guard  tiiipr 
with  a  ^'>>^  open  helow  flic  ciiltcr,  m,  | 
that  it  wu-  iw>t  rt>(|iiir«<il  that  theNr:i||„|, 
slKudil  he  of  liny  particular  il<  pih,  ,„ 
that  the  iin^lc  they  nine  hImhiIiI  |„ 
;,'rea(eror  Ic^-^,  <>r  that  the  r utter  (.limiM 
lie  nickh'-ed  ;  '  I ;  any  coinliinalldu  ,,(' 
the  open  sluitcd  finger  with  xiliratiin^ 
Nc.illoped  cnller-t  is  enil>raecd  in  |||,. 
patent.  //iiitHfi/  V.  J/.'(  'in'iiiifk\  MS.— 
Mt  liicAN,  .1. ;  Ohio,  Ih.mi. 


Hat  n«)i)nw, 

WlCMJt'  r.\TBNT. 

h»Hnl  April  2r,tl,,  |H|(J. 

Ii'i'i-ivieit  SrpUmbrr  ;i(«A,  ISfirt. 

Utiitaued  O'tohfr  lih,  \HM). 

1.  In  an  aetion  for  an  infrini,'tiiU'nt 
upon  Well's  patent  for  making  Imt  ImmI- 
icH,  the  del.  iidants  in  their  niacliino 
di\i<U'd  the  tiinii>l  or  chainiiin'  into 
whieh  the  fibres  of  the  fur  were  liirowii, 
and  tist'd  .1  perfor.aled  eon(>  of  wire 
gauze,  ttf  larger  opening  than  Wells 
and  put  u  liner  one  tif  grass  cloth  kvci 
it,  and  used  a  iiicfallie  picker  instead d 
the  hair  brush  to  throw  the  fibres (iftlii' 
fur  into  the  ehanibt  i ,  and  also,  instead 
of  immersing  the  b.'it  formed  on  tlic 
cone,  into  warm  water,  to  lianli  nit, so 
that  it  eouhl  bo  removeil,  disclmrjji'il 
jet.s  of  steam  upon  the  bat  diiriiig  the 
process  of  ftirmation. 

Jlildy  on  ail  application  for  an  iii- 
junction,  that  tln^  machine  of  tli.  de- 
fendants, and  their  jiroce.ss  of  making 
the  hat  body,  was  substantially  like  thai 
of  the  complainants,   the   as.signees  ot 


•wiHo   clou  tilt' 

111    U  !IM  not  »'(1M- 
iVilll  II  Kit  a  .  |l)'n 

.^  mmnl  fiiiiriT 

llm  i'IiIUt,  iu.>I 

tli;U  t)ii>Hritl|ii|i 

itMilur  ill  pill,  III 

ftnlio   kIiimiIiI  III 

ho  fllttlT  dlliMlM 

oomlfiiiiillim  lit' 
r  willi  viltiiirni},' 
iiiluiici'il  ill  till" 
(/./rmi.it,  MS.- 
-.0. 


)llCl4. 

1KST, 

\th,  \MC,. 
r  ;iiW/i,  IH.'itl. 

7i/i,  iHriO. 

:iii   iiilViii;:rliUMit 

ni.ikiiiL;  liiit  ImmI- 
II  tlii-ir  iii;irliiiK' 
>r    fhuinlii'i"  iiilit 

fur  wore  llii'invii, 

'I  I    rniic    of  win' 

|nii\,L;  tlwiii  Wi'Hn 

r  irraHH  cloth  over 

jiirktT  iii'-1i':i(l(if 
the  til  Ill's  I  if  till' 

[iiiil  :iNo,  iiisti'ail 
i'ormcil  oil  tilt' 
|r,  to  liiinli'U  it,  m 
lovi'il,  fliscliarjri'il 
|ie  but  iliirint,'  the 

ation  for  an  iii- 
ichiiii'  •>f  till  tit- 
Irocess  of  making 
stanlinlly  like  tli.il 
I  tho  assignees  ol 


pAinurrAU  tatknts. 

toiiOtrriMU.   iKiiu  utuuKit 


Nt 


WrIN,  i»'"l  •'"'•^  ''''7  •■'''■•'  •''••'>l«'<'  •'• 

lUI    illjlllM'li'"'-       ''^-    ./../»/«     V.      /Vf«/M«, 

;^|j4_\kimi»n,  .1.;   N.  Y.,   l^.'iH. 

>i.  Till'  itiiliii'f  of  tluM  invciitiiiii  iHllu< 
foriii:>li<»>  <*'  ''''^  linilioH  liy  llirowini; 
tlu'  li'iriH  of  W'  I  or  fur,  in  |»i<»|mt  pr.. 
iiorli'iM-*,  on  .1  |Hrtor:il<i(|  conr,  ixluiiixl 
,.,!  In  It  lHi>  <»'  otlur  conlrivHiK'i-,  to 
liiilil  tilt'  lilT''^  <»ii  the  ci'iic  l»y  (III'  iMir- 
riiilt  of  iiir  niHliiiif^  llironj^li  |lit>  |icrfo 
nilnl  (Mints  mill  l<>  liunli'ii  Niittliiinlt) 
the  Imt  t»f  wnni  or  fiir.  IVt-viniis  to 
ili,>  .lisiim-ry  luul  invention  of  WrIN, 
11(1  ili'vift'S  will'  known  to  iirroni|ili 'li 
•iiiili  «l»'>»irt'il  oliji'i't  in  ii  h.-itisluciory 
H!i\,  Uurr  V.  Cinr/wrthu'iiilc,  i  lMnti'lif. 
—  JMiKimoi.i.,  .1. ;  <'t,,  IHfiH. 

:i.  Till'  ili'vi(*(<s  or  t'NHcnti.'i!  nn<iinN 
loi'il,  ail'  II  I'm*  talilo,  ii|ion  uhit-li  tlic 
fur  ii  ili>li  iliiHi'il,  a  suitaMi'  fri'iliii)^  ap- 
|iiiratiiH  t'l  Inin^  llu'  Inr  to  tlio  laWlo 
iiiiil  |tii'srnl  it  to  rotary  Im-iihIu's,  or 
otliiT  Kiiitaltlt'  lit'vii'o  for  tli^intc^nitinji 
;iiiil  lasiin;^  tlu'  fur  int<>  ii  rnrrcnt  of 
air  iiiiliH'i'il  l>y  the  hruNlifs  or  otlici- 
wisi',  II  trunk  or  oilier  tieviee  between 
tho  linislics  and  <M)ne  exIeiHlini^  Hoinc 
ilistaiice  from  tlio  bnisheH  ami  in  t!ie 
(liivitii)ii  of  a  perforatcil  exiiaiisteil  ro- 
tary (lino  to  (iontrol  aiul  j^ivo  ilirection 
to  tho  (MnTonl  of  air,  and  n  hood,  or 
some  aniiloujojis  device,  to  fnrtlior  mod- 
ify thoi'uricnt  of  air  for  tlii!  proper  dis- 
liilmtion   of   tho   fur    upon    the   cone. 

4.  Iicriio  tho  discovery  of  Wells,  no 
mai'liiiic  was  known  or  nsed  that  did,  by 
any  iiuaiiM,  (Hrvct  a  s'leet  of  fur  on  a 
si'clion  of  a  perlbrato'i  exhausted  rotary 
COUP,  or  other  form,  so  »h  to  make  a  bat 
of  fur  on  the  cono  or  other  form,  of  tho 
k'sired  shape  and  thickness,  ii'  >roperly 
re!,'ii!at id  quantities,  at  thr  w  '  of  iIk; 
operatur.  liy  tho  machines  before  known 
uo  sheet  of  fur  was  dirccteil  by  t  ic  or- 


(;ar«iy;ali  >n  of  the  nmchiiui  on  to  the  ppr* 
lormlcd  eone,  Imt  the  I'nr  wmh  (b>|><(«ilcd 
on  the  exiiailtleil  cone  by  tlie  p<.,«iM'  of 
>j{ra>ily,  or  the  |<ower  of  the  exhaii'»t, 
or  Imth,  :i'i(|  Ui.t  by  the  power  of  llm 
machine,  Jlrirli  ig  how  and  in  what 
miinnei  llir  fur  hIiouIiI  be  distrihu'i'd  on 
the  I  one.      //(<■»/. 

5.  ThiH  modi*  (by  dlrectbi^  the  fur) 
of  fiuiniii;;  tho  batH  di'«tin^niHhe>l  the 
Wells'  inarirnie^  from  all  ofh<rs  kimwii 
(U  used  befoio  IiIm  disi^ovciy.      I  hi, I. 

lcit,m!iTiva. 

WVKTUH    I'A    KNT, 
Uatieil  Slmh  IH//I,  IH29. 

The  patent  wrtH  for  "ii  now  and  iiho- 
fiil  iiiipMvement  in  the  manner  of  ciit- 
fiiiLT  i'l'.  toLxether  with  the  inacliim-ry 
and  apparatus  therefor,"  and  it  was 
claini'd  us  jiow,  to  cut  ico  of  a  uniform 
>i/.e,  I  V  means  of  an  apparatus  worked 
by  atiN  power  other  than  I'liiiian.  Tlie 
invention  if  the  art  de  cribed,  as  well 
as  \\\v  particular  mctliod  of  the  applii  • 
tioii  of  the  principle,  were  both  claimed. 

//(/(/,  that  so  far  as  the  patenleo 
claimed  the  art  of  cuttiii.t^  ice  by  means 
of  any  power  othor  than  human,  it  was 
a  cl.'iim  for  an  art  or  principle  in  the  ah< 
struct,  and  void;  but  so  far  as  it  elriini- 
ed  lh(!  machines  described,  it  miiilit  l»o 
f^ood,  if  a  disclairuer  was  properly  en- 
tered under  ^J5  7  and  9  of  tho  a(!t  of 
ls;i7.  U><A  V.  Stone,  274,  'iSf),  L'87, 
20t. — Srouv,  J. ;  Mass.,  IHIO. 

ivdia-uuubeu. 
Cuaffek'b  Patbvt. 

Issued  August  iXst,  184C. 

'Hie  patent  was  for  " anew  improve- 


.>wA.(>i 


Jar  ^.„ 


•4t 


iVMmci'l.AK  rATKNTS. 


nmU' 


i^. 


k 


Ww^g 


liji 


«ftii 


ItuMit  ill  tlio  rt|i|)lit'iitioii  of  rrtoittrlioilo 

to   clotllK.    ill'." 

//i/(/,  tlitii  lltf  |>ali>nt(<ov('r«*<l  iMitli  liif 
pnuvNM  (|i>M<>rib«><l  in  the  i»|K>('itii'iilli>ii, 
.iikI  the  tiitu'liiiicry  ilfNt'i-ilioil  hn  thitl  (o 
lie  iikimI  ill  (MiTvini^  oil  till'  |>ro('<"<>«. 
Jhn/  \,f  iiiun  /mliiiriiliir  f'».,  ;i  Itliitt'lif, 
400.— Hall,  J.;  N.  V.,  l^*ao. 


OdODYKAIi'N   PATRNTn. 

ftnWlK.I)  Cooits  PvTKM',  i-i-wil  Miinh  0,   1814. 

Bon    Itl'llllKIl    I'ATHNT,  iiKH"!  Jiint  16,   IHi. 

JitinMH'il  Ihnmltrr  'iU,  IttlO. 

1.  Oooilycar'n  invtMilion  rorcoiiiliiiiiii^ 
with  riilfiidar  rdiliT^,  tin  rliiHlic  I'lnlli-ss 
nproti,  tor  inaniiracliniii;;  «-oiTii;;atcti,  nr 
Hliii-rcil,  iiiilia  riililu'C  j^ooiis,  iIim-h  not 
consist  citlur  in  tlic  \vlio|t>  niaciiiiik*,  or 
ill  any  iiaiticnlar  part  ol'  it,  Itiit  foii*i>tM 
in  n  ni'w  coinbination  of  known  nii'- 
cliaiiii'al  priiu'ipli'rt  or  powiTs  to  pro- 
tliicc  a  new  ami  useful  ctVoct.  Wiirnt't' 
V.  (loixfi/r'tr,  M.S. — Cha.ncii,  Cli.  J.;  1). 

C,  1H»(J. 

'-*.  The  Niirn'iKliT  of  (loodycar's  orij;- 
inal  palt'iil  for  vnlt-anizi'd  nililMT,  of 
tliiiio  l.'tili,  IHII,  and  thi!  roissiu'd  pat- 
t'lit,  Doccmlu'r  i,'")tli,  IH-H),  was  lff,'al, 
and  tlic  ri'iHHiiod  piitont  is  not  void  upon 
itsfaoi'.  JJat/v.  (hHnlycar^'SX'A. — Giiiicu, 
J.;  X.  .T.,  1M50. 

:i.  Cliatios  (Joodyoar  niiiHt  bo  consid- 
crcil  as  tlio  first  and  original  invontor 
of  till'  process  of  vulcanizing  india-riil)- 
bor.     I  hi  I. 

4.  His  rcissuod  patent  of  Docomber 
25th,  1840,  is  not  void  becanac  of  the 
publication  of  the  invention,  in  his  orig- 
inal and  defective  patent,  in  the  interval 
between  tlie  original  and  reissued  pat- 
ent, on  the  ground  that  such  publica- 
tion amounts  to  an  abandonment  or  ded- 
ication to  the  public.     Ibid. 


A.  <luody*-nr*«  Invention  did  iioi  c,,,! 
*\*i  nieri'ly  in  the  iitc  of  milplint',  „,. 
lead,  or  Itoth,  or  the  applicatioiiuf  ||,.,.it 
toridtbt«r  in  coniieelion  w  iih  hoili,  riil,,,^ 
or  in'itherof  ihein;  all  thete  iliin/,  |,.„| 
Ihm'II  ilone  before,  The  e«»*eiili:i|  .m,) 
di- liiietite  peeiilliirity  of  hix  diM<'i.\ri'v 
is  that  by  lining  a  certain  degree  nf 
heat  ill  the  trealineiit  of  riibbi>r,  in  con. 
neclion  with  tlio<*e  uiaterialM,  it  ran  lit> 
made  to  aHNtiiiie  rew  and  valuable  >|ii,i|. 
iticN,  distinguishing  it  from  any  otlur 
Hiilmtaiico  heretofore  known.     ihl,l. 

0.  My  tin*  agreeineiitM  of  Oetnlicr 
21itli,  IHKI,  NovemlMT  5tli,  IHJH,  uihI 
Di'ceiiilier  Mil,  JHlil,  iiiiikiiijr  nne  mviit. 
ineiit,  made  by  and  between  |[.  ||.  |),a 
and  Charles  <ioodyear,  and  the  aciN  uii. 
der  them,  and  in  perferling  the  miimc, 
Day  is  estopped  tlureal'ter  from  i|rii\. 
iiig  the  validity  of  tio«»dyi'ar's  p.iieiit!*, 
Ihhl. 

7.  (btodyear's  invontjon  of  vulcani- 
zing rubber,  is  a  dist-overy  of  a  new 
compound,  substance,  or  maiiiifactini', 
and  both  the  process  and  coinpusiiinn 
of  matter  are  new,  and  both  are  prolcd- 
ed  or  included  in  the  patent.  (Imil 
yi'iir  V.  iftc  liiiilnHidx,  -j  Wail.,  Jr., 
MOl.— (tUIKU,  J. ;  N.  J.,  iH.'i.l. 

H.  IM  claim  is  for  the  vulcaiiiziii<,'of 
rubber  and  sulphur  by  arfiliciiil  lnnt, 
however  produced;  the  iiictliod  ofcom. 
inunicaling  hetit  is  not  the  thing  piitciit- 
ed  ;  therefore,  the  use  of  steam  iiistciiil 
of  heated  air,  is  an  infringeincnt  iijinn 
his  invention.     IhiJ,^  .'UJ2. 

0.  His  i)alciit  is  for  a  new  jirodiict  ;h 
well  as  a  new  process,  ami  being  both 
for  the  process  and  i\w  product,  the  ibe 
and  sale  of  the  composition,  unless  when 
purchased  from  persons  licensed  hyliim 
to  use  the  proet\s,s  and  vend  the  product, 
is  an  infringement  of  his  franchise,  and 
may  be  prohibited  by  him.     Ib'ul^ 3CJ. 


"5!"'!*»i 


rAUTurr.AU  patknts. 


A4» 


vnu- 


t  lUil  liiit  vnw 
>r  milpliiir,  or 
iciitionxt'lii'.'U 
(li  liotli,  i'Itl\i'r 

r<tNi>titi:il  aiwl 
lili«  ill>«r<ivt>ry 

Mill  il<'jir»'f  111' 

nil»l>or,  ill  «'<)ii. 

rliiU,  it  cull  111! 

I  vitliiiiMi'  •|u:il. 

nun  liny  <iilirr 

i\MI.  /'"*'/. 
t<4  nf  Oi'liiliiT 
nth,  lH4«f,  mill 
kiii^i  Olio  ii'rri't'. 
v,Mii  U.  II.Di} 
mill  till'  act^t  nil- 
•liiiji  till*  wuiu', 
Wi'V  iVoiii  iliiiv 
ilyi'iir'n  jiiitoiitx. 

:ion  of  viilrani- 
Dvory  •>•*  !i  tii'w 
(ir  iimiiutafliiri', 

Mill    «'Olll|MisilinM 

mill  !iro  |inili'it- 
jcitnit.      (ri<i 
;,y,   '2  Wall.,  .Ir., 
,,  1H5:J. 

he  viilcani/iii;?of 
y  artilicial  lii'Ut, 
'  iiiftliod  (if  com- 
jtlic'thiiim'ntoiit- 
lot'  stfuni  iiistc:iil 
ilViiigoineut  uin'ii 

I  lU'W  i>r<><liu't  as 
iiiid  boiii!,'  l»'tli 
jn-odiift,  the  IM 
ion,  unliiss  when 
livH-nsetl  hyliini 
end  tho  product, 
is  fr!im'l>i^*o,  aii'l 
lim.     Ibiily  303. 


10.  Uiwdi-r  ihi'  fti^n-fMii'iit  i»f  Sopli'm. 
ber  Mil,  l^AO,  iiiudi*  lH'iw«'i-ti  C'lmrttT, 
tfit'  iiitli'iini't',  ariil  Willitiiii  .liid'«oti,  um 
lrii«ti't',  that  III*'  latltT  Hlioiild  Imlil  tin- 
paltiit,  rviiiil  hwWi  till)  foiitnd  tlhToot'lor 
the  lifUi'lrit  «)f  (iotxlymr  iiml  lliomi  hold- 
iiii;  riKlit"*  niidiT  him,  th<<  iiiiiri'  owmr- 
ithi|i  dl'  *ilii*  patfiit,  li'^al  and  i'(|nitiiMf, 
hiiHi'd  lo  .liidHon.  //iii'tn/iiirH  v.  />''y, 
li>  Hw«».,  '2120.— Nki.kon,  J.;  Sup.  Cl., 
l^i^W.    Tli«'  H«iin' ili'cision  inadf  in  Pui/ 

N.  Cni'on  /.  a.  r.>., 'JO  How.,  '.m?.— 

Xwhos,  .1.;  Sup.  Ct,,  lMft7. 

11.  Th»' uun't'iiU'Mt  ol'OotohiT  UlHh, 
l^li!,  liiu  two  Hiippli'incnt.al  ai^rt't'int'iilM 
(if  N'omiiiIht  •'•th,  Is  It),  and  thf  tuitht'f 
(Mi(>  III'  DiTi'inln'r  .'ilh,  In  id,  inadi'  l»«'- 
tui'cii(i*i<>dy«^'ar  and  Day,  and  by  whii-h 
(toudyrar  Hold  and  asHi^ii«>d  to  Day  tlif 
III!!,  aliHoliit*',  and  fxcluxivts  I'lKhl,  li- 
(Tiisc,  and  pi'iviU-^c  to  inaki*,  uni>,  and 
Mild  i*/tiirii/  (»>'  lutrriiijutiil  i/oix/n,  and 
toihoivrtaiii  inachiiu'ry  aiitl  coinpoundM 
ill  coiiiH'ction  tlit'n'willi,  j;raiit«'d  to  Day 
iitily  the  ri^dil  to  make  and  vend  such 
•liiiivd  or  roiTiig.'iti'd  jjjoods  as  art'  di'- 
Mribcil  in,  iiiul  wurc  patented  t«)(»ootl- 
yi'iir,  hy  what  is  called  the  shirred  j^oods 
|i:it«'iit,  issued  March  !Mli,  lHn,:iiiddid 
not  router  upon  Diiy  .any  ri;;ht  to  use 
(loodyear's  preparations,  and  iinprove- 
nu'iits  iti  iiidia-nibbor,  or  to  uhu  viilean- 
i/.('(l  rubber  in  the  inanufacture  of  any 
oliistic  articles,  or  elastic  j^oods,  ov  elas- 
tic cloths,  except  the  n/iiri'(d  or  corru- 
ijitted  goods  inado  according  to  such 
initcul  of  March  0th,  1844.  J)a>/  v.  Ca- 
rey, MS. — iNUKitsoi,!.,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1859. 

12.  The  meaning  of  tlic  words  "shir- 
rod  or  corrugated  goods,"  us  understood 
:iml  used  by  the  parties  to  hucIi  <b'eds, 
was  tlic  clastic  rubber  goods  manufac- 
tnit'd  according  to  the  patent  of  March 
nth,  1844,  and  DO  other  kuid  of  eluijtic 


({ihhIm  ham  luviuit  by  tho  UHU  of  theto 
lerins.     /A/r/. 

l:i.  The  oppoNiti*  of  the  al>ov<<  view, 
ho\te\er,  taken  in  Maryland,  by  (iii.kn, 
J.;  who  held  that  hytliu  rontraei  of  Oc< 
lober,  -JtMh,  |N4(t,  tin*  term  Mhifml  or 
''<>rr»/,'/<i/i«/f/0()«/.t,niran»ull  kindsofthir* 
red  tu'corriigateil  goods,  wild  her  ccineut* 
ed,  woven,  or  sewed,  and  is  iioi  limiletl 
to  the  gtiods  made  under  the  patent  of 
.^(arch  t)tli,  iNti;  and  that  if  such  con- 
tract did  not  coiifir  upon  I  )ay  xiKdi  right, 
the  iigreeineiit  of  .May  -Jlih,  iH.'iH,  niadu 
bet  weeii  Ooudycar  and  Huiil  J>.iy,  eoii< 
veyed  such  iiitcreHt  t«»  him.  Ihnj  v. 
Stdlmnii,  MS.— (iiiKs,  .1.;   Md.,  |H.-,0. 

I  !.  The  H.anie  view  taken  in  Ifiiy  v. 
Shilimnt^  was  also  taken  in  Jhiy  v. 
/ji/i)HH,  MS.— M»  C-'.vi.icii,  J.;  La.,  I  mho, 

MkTKU'h  CSkKAHR   PATRiCT. 
Juueii  Dtcember  'iOth,   1803. 

1.  The  p:ilciil  was  for  an  "  improvo- 
nictit  in  the  nianufactnre  of  canntchoiic 
and  other  vnlcani/able  gums,"  and  tho 
cl.iiin  was  for  the  producing  of  smooth 
;iiid  glossy  surfaces  upon  the  hard  com- 
pounds of  caoutchouc  and  other  vulc;in- 
i/able  gums,  by  mejiiis  of  the  use  of  oil, 
or  other  e<piivalent  substance,  applied 
to  the  siirt'ace  of  the  prepared  gum,  and 
between  the  gum  and  tho  plates  of 
metal,  or  the  moulds. 

//(/(/,  that  the  patent  gninted  tho  ox- 
clusivo  use  of  oil,  or  other  equivalent 
substances,  applied  to  the  surface  of  tho 
preparcil  gum,  and  between  the  gum 
.•iiid  jilates  of  metal,  or  tin-foil,  jilaced 
on  each  Kido  of  it,  or  the  moulds,  sub- 
stantially as  described  ir.  the  patent. 
Pojypinheusen  v.  N".  Y.  Gutta-Percha 
Comb  Co.,  4  lilatchf. — Inoeksoll,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1858. 


'■**'■  Wi^ 


-A 


m» 


**\^i 


k; 


't^^-.. 

^t: 

;H.fU.' 

»- 

.w«4* 

V    f*"*^'-.,,'- 

C50 


PAUTICULAU  I'ATKNTS. 


IBKKUUI.AS  rUHUS,    TrUNINO. 


Jlcld  also,  on  ii  motion  for  an  injinic-   tlio  proi'csis  of  lu'iitinjjf  and  lianU'iiiiK 


tiun,  in  n'sju'ct  to  an  ulleguil  intVingi' 
URMit  of  this  i'.nuu  patent,  that  the  use 
of  tiir|K'ntiiU'  with  iiulia  riil)lu'r  dissolv- 
ed ill  it,  was  an  eiiuivalout  of  oil,  ;ui«l 
its  use  an  iufiingenient.  Pi>j>j>ciihei<ai'n 
V.  I'allci.',  MS.— Snu'MAN,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1802. 


Meyku'8  Tis-Foir.  Patent. 

Issued  April  m,  1854. 
Reissued  August  IGth,  1»59. 

I.  This  pateulwas  for  an  "  iniprove- 
iiu'iit  in  treating  caoutchouc  and  oilier 
vulcani/ablc  gunjs,"  and  the  invention 
consisted  in  covering  \hv  surface  of  the 
hard  compound  of  caoutchouc  during 
the  process  of  vulcanization  with  tin- 
foil or  other  equivalent  substance,  to 
preserve  the  form  previously  given  by 
embossing  or  moulding, 

Jlt'ld,  the  patent  did  not  graiit  the 
exclusive  right  to  vulcanize  the  hard 
compound,  m  contact  Avith  moLallic 
Burfaces,  or  vulcanize  such  com|)ound 
when  a  series  of  sheets  are  piled  upon 
one  another  with  interposed  sheets  of 
flexible  material,  when  the  pile  is  con- 
lined  between  iron  plates;  or  generally 
to  give  form  or  shape  to  such  compound 
by  pressure ;  or  to  preserve,  during  the 
progress  of  vulcanization,  the  form  pre- 
viously imparted  by  pressure  to  the  hard 
compound.  Po})penhcuse>i  v.  N.  Y.  G. 
P.  Cumb  Co.,  4  Blatchf. — Inokksoll,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1858. 

2.  But  this  patent  granted  the  ex- 
clusive right  to  the  use  and  application 
of  tin-foil,  or  its  equivalents,  to  the  hard 
compound  of  india-rubber  and  gutta- 
percha, during  the  process  of  vulcani- 
zation, to  preserve  and  retain,  during 


the  forujs  and  sh:ipcs  given  to  liu  i,i;i- 
terial,  before  the  heating  process  com- 
luenccs,  without  any  other  pres.suro  or 
moulds,     I/iiif. 

<\.  And  though  tin-foil  or  any  othor 
flexible  or  pliable  metal  may  have  be- 
fore been  used  in  some  way,  in  coiaiw. 
tion  with  such  gums,  if  they  wore  not 
substantially  performing  the  saiiu  urtice 
in  substantially  tlic  same  w:iy,  tlu'V 
would  not  make  this  patent  Inoporativi", 
or  tleprlve  the  inventor  of  tlu'  riifjit 
granted  by  it.     If>liL 

4,  On  a  motion  for  an  attacliiiiciit  tor 
violating  an  injunction  restraiiiiiiir  the 
use  of  the  invention  described  in  tlii^ 
patent,  J/cl<f,  that  sheets  of  brass  aii.l 
tin,  like  rooting  tin,  were  not  the  iMjniv 
alent  of  tin-foil.  Poppcnhcuscn  v.  X.  Y. 
G.  P.  Cumb  Co.,  MS. — Ingkksoi.i,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

5.  fjut  the  reissued  -^at'-nt  onil)r;ioi's 
the  use  and  ai)i)lication  of  all  iiutal 
plates  that  arc  sufficiently  flexible  to  W 
used  substantially  in  the  niaimer  do- 
scribed  in  the  patent,  and  with  siilistan- 
tially  the  same  results  that  tin-fuil  coiiM 
be  used.  Poj>pe>iheHsen  v,  Falke,  MS. 
-  SiiiPMAX,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1802. 

Irregular  Forms,  turning. 

BiiANOiiAUD's  Patent, 

Issw.d  Septemher  Gth,  1819. 
Issufd  January  'lOtit,  1820. 

1,  The  patent  was  for  a  "  machine  for 
turning  and  cutiing  irregular  forms," 
and  the  patentee  in  his  specificaliou  de- 
clared that, "  as  to  the  mechanical  powers 
by  which  the  moTements  are  obtained, 
he  claims  none  of  them  as  his  iiivciitiini. 
These   movements  may  be  eftecteJ  by 


3,  TUKNING. 


PARTICULAR  PATENTS. 


551 


IKKKdL'LAH  roRMS,   TUUMNU. 


•ipiilic.ition  of  viirious  powers  iiiditror- 
ciitlv.  Nt'itliiT  does  lie  claim  as  his  in- 
vontioii  the  cutter  wheel  or  cutters,  or 
Iriftion  wheel  as  such,  nor  the  use  of  a 
iiioiii'l  to  guide  the  cutting  instrument, 
iiii  his  invention.  But  he  chiims  as  liis 
iiivoniioii,  the  method  or  mode  ot'oper- 
atiiin  in  tlio  abstract,  exphiined  in  the 
socond  ariicle,  whereliy  the  infinite  va- 
liotv  of  forms  described  in  general 
tiriiis,  may  be  turned  or  wrought."  L; 
the  second  article  was  described  not  a 
mere  function,  b\it  a  machine  of  a  par- 
tii'iilar  structure,  whose  modes  {A'  oper- 
ation are  pointed  out,  to  accomplish  a 
i)artieular  purpose,  I'unction,  or  end. 

J/ch/,  that  his  invention  was  tor  a 
]iiirtieiil;ir  machine,  constituted  in  the 
wav  |)iiinto<l  out,  for  tlie  accomplish- 
moiit  of  a  particular  end  or  object,  and 
tiiat  the  patent  was  for  a  machine,  and 
not  for  a  principle  or  function  detached 
from  machinery.  Jildnchdnlw  Spragm^ 
'i  Sunm.,  ");]«,  .540 ;  2  Story,  100,  170.— 
Stoky,  J.;  Ma.5s.,  1839. 

2.  It 's  immaterial  whether  the  lateral 
motion  was  produced,  as  in  IJlanchard's 
machine,  by  a  screw,  or  whether  by 
a  wheel  or  axle.  Bianchi(r(Vs  Gun- 
Stoek  Turning  Fae.  v.  Warner,  1 
Blatchf,  278.— Nklsox,  J. ;  Ct.,  1846. 

3.  It  is  also  immaterial  whether  the 
cutter  and  friction  wheels  have  the  lat- 
eral motion,  or  the  pattern  and  rough 
material,  as  the  relative  effect  of  the 
parts  acting  on  each  other  is  the  same. 
Ibid.,  278. 

4.  The  particular  manner  or  process 
"or  throwing  the  machine  out  of  gear, 
ilso  formed  no  part  of  the  invention. 
Ibid.,  278. 

5.  The  objection  that  the  specification 
claims  that  any  article  can  be  turned 
from  a  model,  by  the  machine,  whether 
larger  or  smaller,  preserving  the  same 


projmrtions,  is  not  tenable,  though  the 
ca[>acity  of  the  machine  may  be  limited. 
Ibiil,  279. 

0.  Though  it  was  claimed  that  tho 
machine  would  turn  any  irregular  sur- 
face, but  could  not  in  fact  turn  a  sipiaro 
shoulder.  Held,  the  defect  was  too  re- 
mote and  extreme  «o  atlect  tho  validity 
of  the  patent.      Fhhl.,  280. 

7.  The  i)rinciple  or  inventive  element 
to  be  found  in  Blanchard's  machine,  is 
the  cutting  or  turning  of  any  given  ar- 
ticle of  an  irregular  tbrm  longitudinally 
and  transversely,  by  one  joint  opera- 
tion, by  the  combination  of  four  instru- 
ments, the  model,  tho  rough  material, 
the  tracer  or  friction  wheel,  and  tho 
rotary  cutter.  Jil<rni'/i(ir(l  v.  /itw.s',  2 
IJlatchf,  413.— NKf.so.\,  J.  ;  Ct.,  1852. 

8.  It  end)races  in  its  scope  and  oper- 
ati(m  the  cutting  of  .almost  every  spe- 
cies of  irregular  form,  embracing  any 
given  extent  of  irregularity  of  form,  by 
means  of  the  a;  •  'ic.i^ion  of  the  combi- 
nation or  principle  which  he  has  discov- 
ered.    Il>i(f.,  415. 

9.  A  iH'rson  who  uses  I'lanchard's  ma- 
chine, though  only  for  the  performance 
of  one  of  its  functions,  as  turning  wag- 
on spokes,  is  guilty  of  an  infringement, 
I7)id.,  41G. 


Renewed  Patent,  under  Act  of  June  20th,  1834. 

The  act  w.as  "  an  act  to  rencAV  the 
patent  of  Thomas  Bhmchard,"  but  the 
references  in  this  act  to  tho  patent  of 
Blanchard  intended  to  be  extended,  did 
not  agree  with  any  of  liis  previously 
existing  patents. 

Jleld,  that  the  variances  wcrr  rucU 
that  the  court  could  not  correct  them, 
or  give  validity  to  the  patent  issued  un- 
der such  act.     Blanchard  v.  Sprague, 


^'■^•'"Wri.. 


'■-J-n     r-         M        J 


' '  h ,  , ,  J. .     i 


■w 


M 


'-'Hil  , 


552 


r.vKi'u  ri.AU  ivsrKNrs. 


I.KAt>    nrK    M  U'lllJOKH. 


^^.^s 


'"^^ 


IS; 


■^^wr"! 


^    2k 


•%k. 


Wi 


*. 

,  ^ 

w. 


*^  ■ 


.M    Siiiuu..    Jtl*,  'JSA,  '280, — Sioin.  .>.; 
Muss.,  is:»8. 

1.  Tho  titio  ol'this  mt  wm-^  ms  (',>llo\v«  : 
";in  ;\it  t<>  :\n\<M\.l  and  o;»i'r\    iii(<>  ('iVoit 
tlu'  iiUoMliou  t>r  an  ac(   ititillcil   an   a»'( 
to  n'".o\v  tilt'  pad'iit  of  Thomas  ISlaiii-li 
anl.  ap|>ro\«'il  .Iinio  .WK  ls;M." 

//i/</.  that  it  was  not  ui\('<'iisiiintional, 
l>ut  I'ouhl  Uc  sMs|aiii«>'l  upon  onlin n) 
priut'iplos  ol"  fonstcniiion.  />/.(«. ■/'^ff^/ 
V.  iSpfiUfur, '2  Story,  1 71.  Srouv,  .1.; 
Mass.,  is;n>. 

L\  JJ  I  oj'  thoa.'t  ol'  l.'^MO  intcn.lv'.l  o- 
jrno  to  assiiiiu't's  (it' the  ohl  patcnl  an 
otpially  »'\(lusiv»'  piiviloixo  \\\  th«"  o\ 
ttMi.iotl  icini.  AV.»/*«'A'f»v/'.v  (iiin  Sfiu'ft- 
Titriihxj  t-h'^totyw  \\\iniii\  I  Khitoul". 
'27.5. Nit.sON.  .1.;  l'(..  ISUi. 

;?.  Thoaol  ot' is:)i>,  (AiiMiilinu  r>i,in('h- 
anl's  palrnt,  iliil  not  ('\t"tvl  'in  nn<ri> 
K'jr;>l  ri:;hl  nndor  l!n'  patoiit.  hnl  tho 
o\i'hisi\  (' 1  i^ht  to  ih(>  invfi :'  .>n.an<l  tin' 
spoi'itii'alion  '.\  as  n  I'cn'O"!  to  only  to 
identity  iho  invention.      //*/</.,  JVi*. 


I-K.VU   Vwv.    M,\(!UNKS. 

Tatham's  Patknt. 
Imttsi  a-toh'r  H'^,  1S|(. 

1.  Thi' paliMit  was  lor  an  "  iniprovo- 
moiit  in  tho  niaohinory  i'<r  niaUini;  pipi's 
or  tubi's  ot"  li'a<l.  tin.  and  othiM"  niolallio 
snbstanoos,"  .anil  the  claims  woro  1st, 
"tho  \on<x  I'oro  or  core  holder,  fornu'd 
and  lu'ld  !>tatit>nary  with  rol.ation  to  tlio 
dios,  as  dosoribod."  and  Jd,  "thi'oou- 
strUi'tinLj  tho  piston  !>,  hollow,  in  tht' 
uiannor  dosoriboil,  anil  tho  oondnnalion 
o{'  tlio  sanu>  with  tlu'  lonir  oorc  or  coro 
bolder,  upon  which  tho  |>iston  islides," 


'V\w  Sfi'othi  I'laini  was  tli,<  cuo  m  ,\^^ 
piito. 

/f,l,f,  that  the  patent.  wi«s  for  an  im 
pnn»Mnenl  on  the  llnrr  niaehine,  ,iiui 
that  the  in\p>o\enient  of  th(>  patintiH> 
enal'le.l  Imn  to  nse  ii  lonij  eoie  or  ('urc- 
holder,  eMendin!'.  lliron^h  the  iMin.nii.i 
hold  stationary  uitl\  iclalion  (,i  (|„, 
du's  li>  tivini;  it  l\ind\  a(  the  erossli,-;!,] 
ol'  I  he  lianie,  an«i  by  means  ,i|'  ihc  ||,.| 
Knv  piston  slidinit  upon  the  eore  linliji.]', 
the  delei't   in  the  Ibni'  niaehine  ol'  ilu' 

I  inisleadiness   ot'  the   eore   was  mil  ii,| 
ol",  as  was  also   the  deU'et    in  ilio  lian. 

iHon    niaeliine.   of    an    iinperleel    union 

Hr  \he   nu'lal,  beeunse  oi'  the    u  ,■  nf  ,1 
biitlive  i\ear  the  bottom  ol'  tin'  e\lii\,||.| 

I  holding  a  short  eoie  this  bridjie  hciii.' 
dispensed  with  in  ihe 'Talh.ain  niacliinr, 
T,i//hi»i  \.  /.,  A'.M/,  •.'  HIalehr,.  I;.',  11 
N  i-tsoN,  .1.  ;  N.  v..  lM;eJ. 
■J.  'I'he  invention  does  nol,  ho\V('\,i, 
consist  in  (he  »'ombii\,ation  ol"  ilu'  Iml 
low  nun  anil  tin-  eore  or  core  Imlili"' 
alone  c\liniiers  slidinij  upon  rod.,  Imy. 
im.!;  pre\io\isly  t'viwted  in  nn'cliaiiii'nl 
eonstrnclions  and  in  practical  nsc  Init 
in  ad.aptinij-  or  .'ipplyinK  this  |uciili,ir 
cond)inalion  to  prodneinjj  a  nscfiil  ;iii,l 
practical  rc^^nll  the  niakini;  lead  |ii|ii' 
by  i-uossure.     Jl>i<f.,  \W,  liU. 


Hanson's  1'atkm'.    -'rAiiiAM.   Asshinkk. 

/xvi(,',/  M,inh  ."Mil,  IS  11. 

Aut,;l,it<.l  .IK;,  .si  '.WkI,  IS:i7. 

AVl.v.v»ri/  M^inli  \\(!i,  IS  11;. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "  iinpnno- 
nients  in  m.aehinery  lor  m.alvinLi:  pipes  or 
tidtes  of  lead,  etc./'  and  the  claim  \v;is 
the  combination  of  the  core  ami  hriilgo 
or  jxnidc  piece,  the  ch.'unber  and  ilio, 
when  used  t(»  form  pi|le^l  ofniolal  iiiuior 
lic'ut   and  j)ressuro  in  tho  inainKr  sol 


%.w 


ift". 


i>  vwv  \\\  (lis 


luvM,    AfWUlNKK. 


I  I'or  "  iiiipnni'- 
jmnkiniriiil't'sor 
ll  ili.>  claiin  \vn!< 

linilx'r    aiul  <lio, 
of  iiio(!iliin«k'r 
\\w  iiiiiuiH'r  sol 


r.\Kricn,\K  ivvtknts. 


I  muMinn  I  •!.  r\n  why  itr 


8S8 


t'.iiil).  •'<■  Miil>'«tniiti.»lly  \\u>  muuc ;  /AA/, 
lliiil  tli*>  iii><'iil<>'i> 'l><l  <)<'(  t'<iti»iM|  in  Uu> 
ii,>M'llv  <>r  tin'  ni:n'lm»»'r\  t>m|>I(<y«Ml, 
lull  ill  I'liiojinij  II  iiowly  (liHcovoroil 
niin>'i|'l<'  iii'o  |>rm'tioal  nporiiltiMi,  liy 
whii'lt  .1  ti**)'!!)!  iirt it'll'  tiT  tniinnr:ii'liin< 
is  iiri><lti«"«''l.    •'»"''    VMoiujIit   pipt'  iiitti|«', 

;\H  (listillJfMi^'lH'il      I'lulll     «';1m(      pipiv        /.. 

A'ciy  V.  Tiitloun^  MS.     Nklnon,  ,1.;  N. 

J.  Tlu'  iiMMHUi'il  piilfiil  III'  I  Mill,  is  lur 
tlii<  Miiino  ii)v«<iitioii  iiH  tlio  tiri|<iiiiil  ptit- 

I'lil.     //""'^ 

•^  poiisiiMiintluM-uscdlnivo,  ovonuloil, 
,111(1  lu>l(l,  tliiil  llicfluim  Wiis  r.if  ||ii<  I'liiii 
Miiiilioii  <<r  iii:i('liiiii<i  V  tliroii!',!)  w  liicli 
till' ii('v\  propi'ily  i>r  li'Mil  Im  tli'\ t'Idpcil, 
;is  11  |i:irl  <*l  iIk'  pi'<*<M>!4M  in  (lie  Nlru*<tiii<> 
,<{' li'iiil  p>p*'<  ''t'l'l  l''!il  I'*''  <'liiii)i  I'tiiilil 
iiol  bo  siiHtiiiiicil  willimil  ('Ml:ililis|iiii|r 
the  iinvolly  ol' llio  (•oniliiiiiiliun.  Ac  liotj 
V.   T,ii/i,in>,    II    How.,  I, v.     IMi'l.MAN, 

.1,;  Slip.  ("I.,   I.''..'.'. 

I.  Tlic  tpK'^li'iii,  wlu'llnr  |Im<  iii<\\  ly 
ilcvt'liipt'il  piiipi'ily  nricMil  tli.'il  wliili" 
iiiiilcr  In-ill  .'tiiil  prcMMUio  in  ii  clusc  xcs 
M'l,  il  would,  allcr  u  Ncpnnilioii  i>r  iiw 
|i;uis,  niiiiilo  pciloi'lly  hm  iiHnI  in  llio 
Inriii.'ilioii  of  pipi'M,  nii^'lil'  Imvr  lit'cn 
p;il<<iili'il,  if  flirnncil  KM  tli'vclopcil,  witli- 
mil  llu>  iiufiilioii  of  iiKicliinn'} ,  wiiH 
iml  ill  llu>  f.'isr.      / />iii.,  !  VV. 

fi,  TliiH  piiltMil  fiirlliiT  «>\:iniini<il,  aiKJ 
i'VjiI;iiiii>il,  iiiiij  HiiMltiincil.  Ac  A'.iy  y. 
T.il'.,im,  'J'.:  How.,  ill.  McI.ioN,  .1.; 
Sii]..  Ci.,  IHftU. 

(Ioknkm.'h  Patknt. 

InsHfd  Amjiisl  'Jl.sV,  l.sn. 

Tilt' patciil  w.'iH  for  jin  "  inipi'ovciMoiil, 
ill  Ii'iid  pipo  niacliini'ry,"  and  lln^  ina- 
I'iiiiic  wiis  :ilso  iin  improviiMKMil,  n|»<'n 
llio  IJuiT  lUiiciiino. 


/AA/,  till"  inMiition  ronHiMit  in  liming 
llii>  Molid  rum  of  linn,  and  phriiift  llii« 
dit<  in  tlit<  fiii'o  of  il,  al  tlio  M.'inio  limn 
oloHinji  llic  lioliom  of  IIiiii'm  ry  lindi'l', 
and  lixin;;'  llir  corr  Hi  inly  at  tlii<  Itolloiii, 
\\  line  Mnn't  die  wm  plat  rd  'I'lif  I'oro 
oNli'iiil'i  llironjili  till'  t'yliinlt'i  ami  ililn 
till'  dii>  llniM  Itvi'd  III  till'  fai'i'  of  llio 
ram.  In  llio  opt  ration  of  ilii'  mat'liino 
till'  t'oic  p,i  ctiw  tliroiif>|)  tln<  llio  and 
into  till'  hollow  ram  noaily  llio  li'ii;',lli 
i)f  il,  till'  pipo  papiNln|>  tliiiiii^li  llio  Hamn 
api'ilnrt'  al»o\i>.  /',i(fi,iiii  v.  /<  A'o»/, 
•J  IHal.'lif,,  IMI,  iHr..  Ni'i-ioN,  .1.  ;  N. 
v..  Ih;vj. 


l.tU'OMOIIVI'M,    \' AIM  Mil  H:     l'!\ll\|i|i|     oil'. 


Winanh'  I'viwNr. 


Iitiliil  Xiifi'inliri   will,   IMIO 
/•.'i7.'»r/,',/  S'orrmhn    'MMh,  lUftl. 


I.  'rill'  pali'iil  wan  foi'  "  lin  Impfovn- 
nii'iit  in  rt'^nlaliii).r  lli<<  wiiMto  Mltain  of 
lot  oniolivo  cii^iiicM,"  mid  llio  i  laim  wiim 
lor  iiii'irasinfJ!;  or  diminiHliin;(  llio  fono 
with  wliii'li  till'  wiiMlo  Mti'iim  I'lili'i'K  Ijin 
t'liiiiiiii'y  at  llio  ploa^tnri'  of  llio  i>mi;im<i'r, 
l»y  •'iilarp.iiii;  m"  contraoliii!!;  tlio  oiiliroa 
of  llio  I'si'iipo  pipi'H,  and  llii'irliy  in- 
I'lra'^iii!',  or  diminiMliinjr  |||i<  draiijrlil  of 
till'  I'liimiioy. 

Ill  Illy  that,  lilt'  idi  1  roiii'oivod  ity  llio 
patoiil.on  ami  roiliifrd  to  prai'tii'iil  iimo, 
is  llio  ro^iilution  of  llio  cxhaiiNl,  Hlcitin, 
liii'iii'd  into  iho  Hiiioko  chinmry  to  iii- 
t'ro.'iHo  tlio  draiij^lil,  of  I  ho  liro,  .accord iiijjj 
ft)  the  nt'coHHtlii's  of  I  ho  opor:ilioii  <d' 
tho  loconiolivo  iiicri'aMin}r  Iho  c.iirrnni 
of  llio  Hloiiin  .and  lliorcliy  lin-  diiin).;lit., 
w  lion  il.  Ih  noci'ss.'iry  to  /.^I'liiialo  Htoaiii 
rapidly,  mid  a/^aiii  diiniiiiHliin^'  il,  \vlioii 
MO  ;^roal,  a  ipiuiitily  in  not,  iiocortHary  t<» 
il<*,(',i)iiip!iHh    tho    carrying  of    Un;  load. 


»iU 


J  «-«■   If, 

""  *-i««4iii' 


^ 


<*'  I 


iti'ti. 


" m 


"'  Hiair  ii^'  ,)| 


**•' 


41 


.■■WW 


v%i»1ni 


Wi 


««f  i  ^saB^liMi^j 


4 

if 


,  '^i^  ■      t 


Hi 


584 


I'AUTlCULAIt  I'ATENTS. 


i.oojm. 


HATCH  KH. 


Whiaiui   V.  Diiiijorth^  MS. — Nklbon, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  Iboo. 

2.  Ami  it  maki'H  no  <lill»'rt'iu'"  what 
niiiy  l»e  flu'  Idcalioii  of  tli«'  niiU'liiiiciy 
for  rci^ulaliiiii,  wIu'IIkt  at  iho  bottom 
or  iiii<l\V!iy  in  the  smoko-stack,  or  in  the 
chimney  ;  thu  idea,  o])eratioii,  or  ellec^t 
lu'liij^  tlic  same  and  the  «liircrence  only 
in  degree.     Ibid. 


Looiis. 

Stonk's  Patent. 

Issued  April  :imh,  \^'i9. 

1.  The  i)atent  was  lor".-!  new  and 
useCul  iniprovoment  in  looms,"  and  the 
s[»eiili(ation  deelared  the  iiM|)rt)veiiient 
as  »'onsistin<jf  in  the  connnunieation  of 
motion  from  the  reed  to  the  yarn-beam, 
and  in  the  comieetion  of  the  one  witli 
the  other,  wliieh  is  produciod  and  de- 
seribeil  as  Ibllows :  the  claim  was  "  the 
connection  of  the  reed  with  the  yarn- 
buani,  and  the  commnnieation  of  the 
motion  from  the  one  to  the  other,  which 
nunj  he  done  as  specified." 

JIdil,  that  the  patentee's  hivcntion 
was  limited  to  the  specitic  machinery 
and  mode  of  communication  of  the  mo- 
tion from  the  reed  to  the  yarn-beam,  set 
fortli  and  specifically  described.  IHone 
V.  Spraffue,  1  Story,  2fO,  272.— Svokt, 
J. ;  R.  I.,  1840. 

2.  If  the  patent  included  all  other 
modes  of  comm;!!iivuti'"<  (jf  nuHion  from 
the  reed  to  the  yarn-beam,  and  for  the 
connection  of  the  one  to  the  other  gen- 
erally, it  would  be  void,  as  being  an  at- 
tempt to  maintain  a  patent  for  au  ab- 
btract  principle,  or  for  all  possible  and 
probable  modes  whatsoever  of  uoh 
connnunieation,  though  invented  by 
others,  and  substantially  ditieriug  from 


the   mode  described    by  the   pntentei. 
I/uU.,  272. 


Matoiiks,  Fkiotion. 

PniLUPB'  Patent. 

I»sued  October  24th,  183C. 
Extended  September  lU/j,  1850. 

1.  The  ])atent  was  for  "a  new  and  use 
ful  imjirovcnu'nt  in  the  mainillictua' 
of  friction  matches  for  the  inHtantain'ous 
jtroduction  of  light,"  .-md  the  specid,;,. 
tion  set  forth  the  nuiking  of  friciion 
matches  by  the  use  of  phospjidiib 
chalk,  and  ghie,  without  chlorate  of  im- 
ash  and  sidphuret  of  antiinonv,  ;iii,l 
stated  that  the  proportion  of  the  jn.^riY. 
dicnts  could  be  varied,  and  that  ;,f|iiiis 
could  be  used  in  place  of  glue,  and  oth- 
er absorbent  earths  or  materials  instcid 
of  the  carbonate  of  lime.  The  clniin 
was  for  the  use  of  a  paste  or  c(iiii])(w. 
tion,  consisting  of  jdiosphorus,  an  cnrtliv 
material,  and  a  glutinous  suhstaiico, 
without  clilorate  of  potasli,  or  sulplmivi 
of  antimony.  JJeld,  that  the  patent  was 
not  void,  from  vagueness,  generality,  or 
uncertainty,  liyan  v.  Gooi/whi,  'i 
Sumn.,  517,  522. — Srouv,  J.;  Mussi,, 
1839. 

2.  The  invention  claimed  by  the  pat- 
entee, consists  in  rejecting  the  two  t'lo- 
mcnts,  chlorate  of  potash  and  sulpli'-'-et 
of  antimony,  and  substituting  iu  tlitir 
place,  chalk  or  some  earthy  nialtiT, 
Byam  v.  Farr,  1  Curt.,  202. — Cliiii:", 
J.;  Mass.,  1852. 

3.  Held  also,  th.at  tb.e  other  claim, 
which  consisted  iu  sawing  the  niatclas 
in  sheets,  ,i .  x  .  ie  "« iheni  unit  oil  al 
one  e'li,*,  iiud  \5rapp'-i;.<  ♦hem  iu  strips 
of  paper,  m.i;;'.  be  cojivtr-j;./*  to  embrace 
I'l.'y  the  enti'.'*  csrid.  ooai]-i'te  niodcde- 


rAIlTICTLAK  I'ATKNTS. 


566 


asto  or  coiniiosi- 
)ini»,  Jill  eartliy 
)\is  siil)s(;iii((', 
ill,  or  siilpliuivi 
thc'i)!iti'iit  was 
sH,  sxc'iionilitv.or 
Gooi/win,  '•) 
yuv,  J. ;   Mass,, 

mod  by  tlic  pal- 
ing the  two  de- 
■sli  uml  siilitli'-n't 
litutiiig  iu  tlitir 
earthy  nialtur. 
.,  202.— Clktis, 


MILLHTONKH,   HKUl'I.ATINO.      UUULUINdH,   UAKIMI.      NAIUi,    UAKlNd. 


porihol,  ami  that  llio  iiso  ot'u  part  of  it, 
ng  Hawing  tlio  iiiatt'lit's  as  dosi-rilM'tl,  Imt 
uitlioiit  wrapping  tlicin  in  paper,  \mis 
,10  iiiliingi'iiii-'nt.      Ifti<l.,  '205. 

;t.  Tlu'  invention  is  not  a  conipoiinil 
of  new  ingredients,  before  unnse(l  in 
iiiakiii"  inali'lies,  Imt  simply  and  only 
;i  iK'V  eonibination  of  old  materials  be- 
fore ill  »^^  *'"'  ^''"*'  purpose.  Itifum  v. 
EihUj,  2  lllatehf.,  S'jy.— ruKNTiss,  J. ; 
Yl.,  ISM. 


Mn.t,sTONKS,  nKiU'i.ATixa,  Ac. 

SMiTn's  Patent. 

Issued  September  'I'olh,  IHal. 

1.  The  i>afent  was  for  a  "new,  iiii- 
pnived  iiKjde  of  grinding,  holding,  ami 
accomiiiodating  millstones."      The  part 
claimed  fts  new,  was  "eonm-eting  the 
kid^re-treiJ  with  the  top  of  the  frame, 
or  its  substitute,  in  tln^  manner  deserib- 
ed,  aiul  the  mode  or  manner  of  elevat- 
iii<;  or  depressing  the  running  Htone  by 
the   application    of   the   screw   to  tlie 
Iridge-tree  in   the    manner   described, 
or  any  other  producing  the  effect."  The 
improveinent  of  the  defendant   consist- 
ed in  the   manner    in    which  he  con- 
stnuted  the  part    called  the  pressure 
rod,  which  is   intended  to  elevate  the 
bridge-tree,  and  eonseciuently  the  run- 
ning stone,  and  to  regulate  the  action 
of  the  mill  in  that  particular  jtart. 

Held,  that  the  principle  of  elevating 
^  and  lowering  the  upjter  stone,  or  run- 
ner, was  that  which  was  new,  and 
which  gave  value  to  the  machine,  and 
that  defeiulant's  macliine,  though  dif- 
ferent in  form,  Avas  the  same  in  prin- 
ciple as  to  elevating  and  lowering  the 
stoue,  and  therefore  au  iufringemont. 


SmUh  V.  I'furce,  2  McLean,  170.— Mc- 
Lkan,  J.;    Ohio,  1H40. 

Mori-nmns,  making. 

SKUUKI,I,'S    I'ATKNT. 

ImnudMay  JCW,  1846. 

Iiii.s.iwil  January  Ith,  1H51. 

Ucissufd  Jaw  21.VI,  1853. 

1.  The  patent  was  f<>r"aniiiiproveincnt 
in  imudiinery  for  making  mouldings," and 
the  »)bject  of  the  invention  was  to  make 
mouldings  on  an  angular  piece  of  wood, 
elVeeling  a  great  saving  of  material. 

//«'/(/,  that  what  was  granted,  among 
oiisers,  is  tlu*  coniliination  of  the  ring 
(»r  ring.',  with  a  cutti-r  or  cutters,  for 
operating  on  an  angular  strip  for  mak- 
ing inoiddings,  whether  such  angular 
stri|>  be  a  hevel  or  an  ((///////(</•  strip, 
w  hether  the  cuiter  or  cutters  be  station- 
ary or  rotary,  or  both,  and  whether  the 
cutter  or  cutters  operate  upoii  the  face 
or  tl'c  edge  of  the  strip,  or  on  both  the 
face  ami  edge,  substantially  as  described. 
Serrdl  v.  Collins,  ^IS. — Inckk.sou^  J.; 
N.  v.,  1857. 

2.  This  patent  is  not  for  yielding  and 
fixed  pressure,  and  feed  ndlers  in  com- 
bination with  rotary  and  fixed  cutters; 
but  it  is  for  the  combination  described 
for  operating  fm  an  angular  strip  for 
making  mouldings.     Ibid. 

Nails,  ]V[anijfactciie  of. 

rKRKIKS'  PATE.VT. 

Ismed  February  Ulh,  1100. 

1.  The  patent  was  for  "an  improve- 
ment in  machinery  for  making  nails," 
and  the  machine  consisted  of  an  upright 
I  and  permuneut  jaw  and  a  movable  one, 
united  by  a  pivot  at  the  top ;  iu  each 


r^vUi/Wl^^M 


(      / 


'IV 


V''  .•»»»•  \,., 


**4i#^i 


'iL  -w'  i,ji  ^^ 


-"^  is!"' 


I' 

It 


,  ft.   . 
v.   ■ 

lift 


,A         I 


k 


l^it 


^4, 


ri'kv 


080 


PAUTIl  riw\U  TATKNTS. 


l<At.U-MC.\r,  PttRIMRIK').     I'AITK,         MUrACTVM  Of, 


jinv  a  ciilltM'  was  tivi<)l  to  nip  tlii>  Icir  of 
iron  to  (li«>  Ki/.t>  ot' till' iiiiil,  mill  :i;rri|tin<; 
(lie  l<i  Imlil  il  iiiilil  tin-  lirail  is  niailc  liy 
u  lu'ailinL^  ilic,  I  lit'  |io\\i>i-  unihI  Ih'Iii^  a 
lovt-r  of  llio  liist  onlrr. 

//>/(/,  lli:tt  lli<>  palciit  w.'iN  no(  lor  tlii' 
iiiacliiiic  ilscir,  wliicli  is  «'()iii|n»si'(j  of 
|iai-ls  \\lii«'li  liax'  liMi;^  licrtiiiit'  |iiililic 
|iri)|i«<i'l  V,  l>iit,  for  an  ini|>riiv('ni«'iil  in  the 
art  of  niakiti;;  nails  li)-  inoaiiH  of  a  nia- 
I'liino  wliicli  fills  aiitl  lii'aiis  tlu-  nails  al 
oiii'  o|)»'ralion.  Il  is  iiol  llu>  jj^ranl  of 
an  altslracl  piiiuMpK',  nor  of  (Ih-  dillrr 
I'lit  ]iarts  of  any  niacliint>,  lnit  of  an  iiii- 
]irovi>nu>nl  appliod  to  a  |)articular  iiso, 
I'rti'clcd  l»y  a  «'onil»ination  of  various 
nu'ilianiial  (lowi-rs  to  proihi'-o  a  lu-w 
rosiilt.  (iiuti/  V. ./(.  >"tf,  Ti't.  l'.  C,  lOo. 
— W.\«iii.\oroN,  .1.;    Pa..  1817. 

•J.  Ami  that  a  niai-liiiic  liav'nij  two 
Jaws  pivoted  Iti-low,  and  worki'd  hy  a 
friilioii  rolK'r  :ind  a  Irvir  of  tlic  srfond 
ordtT,  tlH>difr»'i'oiu'«'s  aslo  such  roller  and 
lovor  ln'in<jf  tlii»  ni'Ofssary  consiupu'iu-os 
of  tin-  iiiaoliiiu'  Ix'iiitx  invented,  was  an 
infriiiirenient  on  il.     J/n'</.,  ;»!»!),  Idl. 

1'ai.m-i.kak,  rKi':rAuiNU. 

Smith's  r.\TKXT. 

Issued  March  \»Ut,  1841. 

Tbo  patent  wnn  for  a  "now  aiul  use- 
ful inipr«)vemeiit  in  the  applieation  of  a 
material  called  jialni-leat",  or  hriih  i^rass, 
to  tln'  stiitliiiLj  of  hedx,  mattresses,  so- 
fas, cushions,  and  ;ill  other  uses  tor  which 
hair,  feathers,  moss,  or  other  sotl  and 
elastic  siibsfanees  are  used."  The  spoe- 
itii'ation  deserihed  preparini;  palm  leaf 
by  a  certain  process  and  machinery  for 
stutVmp  beds,  mattresses,  tte.,  Imt  the 
same  process  and  machinery  li.id  been 
used  in  preparing  hair  for  similar  pur- 
poses. 


//litfy  thai  the  patent  was  imt  loriuiv 
new    process,  hut  merely  applyin;,'  ai, 
old  process  to  a  new  material,  and  wan 
not    \alid.      //inrr   \.    .if>fn>tt,   l'  S|.ir\ 
UU,  ID'J,  104.— Hiouv,  J.;  IMI.'. 

Papkk,  MANitKAjrrmtK  or. 

Kniuiit'h  I'atknt. 

I.viutJ  Sfjitfiiilier  2ttth,  18.19. 

The  patent  was  for  an  "  improveimni 
in  machinery  for  m.nkiii^  p.aprr,"  an! 
till'  object  of  this  machine  was  tin-  inin. 
plction  of  the  process  of  iiiainiliuliin. 
by  ilyeinj;,  eoiisolidatiiij^,  anil_//,/M/,//„/. 
It  tlid  this  by  iiiipluyiMj;  a  Mciies  of 
he.'iteil  metallic  cylinders,  of  wliicli  tlii' 
heat  is  susceptible  of  •jradiiatiuii,  aiiil 
which  w«'re  so  arraiit;ed  as  thai  Himw 
of  tliem  shall  be  pr«>Nsed  upon  Ity  iho 
others,  with  regulated  degrees  of  pri*. 
suri'.  Tin-  n;iked  moist  paper  i<.  mailu 
to  pass  alternately  aiound  and  htiutiii 
these  cylinib'i'.s,  anil  is  thus  prii;i,'ri>M\c'. 
ly  dried  ;ind  consoliilaled  by  tin-  lual 
and  pre-siirc  which  itd«'rives  fnnntlirm 
through  the  successive  stages  of  tlie 
process. 

7/rA/,  th:it  the  principle  of  the  cem. 
billed  machine  is  the  repeated  action  nt' 
heat  and  pressure  applied  allirii:iti'ly 
and  diri'ctly  upon  the  material,  in  do- 
gn'cs  adapted  to  its  progressive  clianii.'- 
ter.  The  inuuber  of  the  cylinders,  tlicir 
exact  rel.'itive  position,  their  precise  di- 
mensions, :uid  the  fact  that  soino  <f 
tlu'iii  may  be  ma«U'  to  revolve  without 
actual  contact,  and  the  arrangement  tor 
gra«luating  the  heat  and  pressure  arc 
not  essential.  Knujht  v.  (ioiut,  Mir. 
Pat.  Off.,  131.— Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  l-ir,. 


■n^,. 


T 


irruKic  ()|.'. 


rAin'irfTT,AR  tatknts. 


1'I.ANINri  MAOIIINM. 


Amkh'  I'aiknt. 

I'll,.  |..iltn»  wiiM  for  u  "lU'W  iiml  iisc- 
,-,|i„i|,io\fiiu'iit  in  iiiarliiiicry  lor  iiiiik- 
•  „  |,;,iM'r."  'I'lit'  smiiiii.'iry  wns  hh  fol- 
U\^:  "I  •!"  not  rliiiiii  (liM  rdliii;,',  v;ils, 
roll.rs,  i.rt'SMfH,  wirc-rlolli,  or  nui/  nij>- 
,ii'iilt  I'Mi'l^  <•'"  •'"'  abovi'-tlcHcrilit'tl  iiia- 
,|i„„.ry  or  !i|.|Kiniliis,  iix  my  iinniliuii. 
\Vli;it  I  ••l;ii"i  i'^t  •'"'  ••oiisliiictinii  athl 
„„.  of  till'  |H'<'iili:ir  kiinl  of  ryliinlrr  .|t- 
Miilinl,  ami  tliM  Hfvcral  parts  tlnTcnr 
i„  roiiil'iiiii'i""  tor  (111-  |.ur|M»Hfs  HfoiT- 

Jl.til,  lllllt    ll"'  |»;i<'''lt  WtlH  lint    fur  tin- 

(.vlimltr  aiitl  tint  several  parts  tlii-rrof, 
liiii  il^  coiislriictioii  and  use,  in  ronilii- 
iiatioa  willi  lli»'  otiu  r  parts  n\'  llii-  nia- 
(hini'ry,  lor  tin-  purpose  ol"  niakini,'  pa- 
mr.  AiiiiK  V,  //iiininf,  I  Siinm.,  Ib:i, 
487.— Stoky,  J. ;  MuHs.,  Ih:i;(. 

rf,ANIN(J   MacIIINKH. 
Wimidwoutu'h  I'atbnt. 

rsr    I  [hrniiher  'fllh,    1H2H. 

KjUwt^i  NoV'iiil'rr  Uith,    IHI'i. 

/frivfHoi  Julu  Hlh,    I  HI  6. 

Disclaimer  on  to  thf.  npfilii'itlinu  n/  llir  rirciilnr  saw, 

JilalJ'iini.iiy  2'1,  lHi:i. 

1,  Tlif  patent,  was  for  a  ''newaii'l  iise- 
fiil  improveineiit  in  tlie  nietlio<l  of  plan- 
in)(,t(»ni^'iiin;^,j4roovin;^,  an<l  cnttinif  into 
moiildiriLts,  or  either,  plank,  lioanis,  or 
uiiyiither  material,  ami  for  re;lueiti^  the 
Miinc  to  an  oqiial  \vi<ltli  mkI  tliiikness; 
ami  also  for  tacinLj  ami  dressinj^  hriek, 
;mil  cuttinj;  niunhlings,  or  IJieinj^  metal- 
lic, mineral,  or  oilier  sniistanees ;"  anil 
the  claim  was  for  the  improvement  and 
application  of  rutting  or  planing  wheels 
to  planing  hoards,  &v. ;  also  liis  im- 
proved method  of  cutters  for  grooving, 


fongntng,  and  cutting  nionhllnt^'s,  or 
faeing  lirirk,  tie.  ;  ul^nt  the  appliration 
of  the  circular  naw  in  the  manner  do* 
Hcriheij. 

'J.  ///A/,  that  theexletiNinn  to  the  ad- 
miiMMlralor  of  the  patentee  was  legally 
granlid.  Ih'nohit  v.  lilrkmll,  W  Mc- 
Lean, '-'.".I*,  'IM).  Mrl.KAN,  J.;  (Miio, 
\x\'.\.  [This  view  sustained  in  \'iin 
ll,>i>k  V.  Si„<t,l,,;  MS.,  N.  v.,  |H|;i; 
/lriiii/,n  V.  /li''/,nifly  !l  Melican,  UtO, 
|HM;  Wuh/iIhii'ii  v.  fJiuflil,  :\  Story, 
l:i;t,  iHll;  \y,„,t/irni-fh  v.  \\'it.ii>n,  I 
(low.,  VKl,  I  Ml,-..  I 

II.  The  specilieations  of  this  patent 
d^'-^erihe  the  machitu*  so  as  to  enalile  a 
skilful  nn'ciianir  to  cnnstrnct  it.  li  con 
tains  nothing  w  hicli  an  intclligenl  mind, 
though  hut  lillle  ver>ed  in  mechanics, 
may  uol  fully  comprclnrid.  The  facts 
that  the  moving  power  is  deHcrilied  in 
some  of  its  parts  in  the  alternative,  and 
that  the  material,  wlu'lher  wood  nr  iron, 
of  roii-lruclinii  is  not  slated,  are  not 
material.      //*/f/.,  2tlO,  '2i\\. 

•1.  The  Kpecifications  show  with  nji- 
soiial)le  certainty  the  comhination  of 
which  the  inviritioii  consi^ts.  /{ri»>kt» 
v.  Iti<l,i,ill,:\  McLean,  446. — M' Lka.n, 
.L;  Ohio,  iHtt. 

">.  The  invention  of  Wo<>dwf>rth  con- 
si«ts  in  the  combinatiuii  of  certain 
known  mechani<-al  structures,  hy  which 
hoards  are  planed,  tongaed,  .and  groov- 
ed in  the  samti  operation,     fhhi.,  \'>'.\. 

0.  The  use  of  "pressure  rollers"  in- 
stead of  a  carriage  to  nmv(!  the  plank 
to  the  cutters,  and  the  placing  the  plane 
irons  on  a  wheel  or  arms  o*'a  shart,  and 
inclined  ho  tliat  the  cutting  edg(!S  gen- 
cratjt  a  c«»ne,  insteatl  of  having  the  cut- 
ters on  a  cylinder,  do  not  change  the 
principle  of  the  machine.  Ibid.,  455. 
7.  The  patent  is  for  a  mode  of  accom 
plishing   a  particular   end   by  certain 


•^>-C 


mM'. 


-c^ili 


^^^->> 


«"'  *i» 


'"''^^' 

^;^;»,. 


*»..'  a    i 


mi!»» 


I 


*■* 


c : 


^ , , 

•'^^M''  U;  f 

H— ■* 

)  -..I- 


Ht 


I'AUTK'ITT.AU  TATKNTS. 


PLAMIIIO  MAOIIINMk 


mpjiiiM ;  for  mm  !i<i>?n'j»iit»»  «>r  Ifnprovnl 
in!i«'liiiu>.  W'linfi/mrn  v.  (iniiltf,  :t  .S(n- 
ry,  110,  151,  KiH. — SrouY,  .1.;  AIiimk., 
IH 1 1. 

H.  Tin*  rt'tu'wcil  IctlcrM  piitciif  irniiil- 
I'll  to  Williaiii  W.  WiiiMlwortli,  :nliiiiiiiH 
tialtir,  on  tlu'  hiIi  ol"  July,  I h i:»,  mt'  i;<mk| 
nnd  viiliil  ill  law,  aii<l  nvv  not.  vnitl  Tor 
uiwcitaiiity,  niiiM^^iiily,  nr  iiiulti|ilirily 
fif  flaiiii,  i>r  any  oilier  i'liiisc.  WHmo/i 
V.  JiitMMiini,  i  llow.,  OhH. — Nklson,  .1.; 
Sup.  ('!.,  IH15. 

0.  William  Wooil worth  Im  to  lit*  cop- 
hi(1«>r«<(l  (lie  orit;iiial  and  tir^tt  iiivnitor 
of  the  |ilaiiiiiL;  inacliiiic,  |iatciit«'il  (uliiin 
J)i'cciiiiK'r  'JTtli,  IH'JN.  Wiuuhnort/i  v. 
Wih»>i,  ••  IIow.,  71rt. — NiXHov,  J. ; 
Slip.  Cf.,  lH4r). 

10.  Woodworlli'n  Npocifli'alions  can 
only  Ik>  Niistain(>d  tor  a  ooiiiliiiialioii  of 
known  ini'rliauical  poworw,  :iiid  not  for 
nn  improved  marhiiic.  lirook-itx.  /lii'l- 
tieU,  4  Mi'IiOan,  73,  74. — McI.kan,  J.; 
Ohio,  h^jT). 

11.  Tlu'  AmfreirA  machine,  no  cdlh.'d, 
Mhitli  used  ;i  planinir  cylinder,  but  iio 
tomjniiif;  or  grooviii;;  wheels,  and  iisod 
n  carriage  instead  of  frictidii  rollers  to 
move  the  planks  forward,  sueh  carriage 
Iteintf  moved  l»y  nn  endless  ehaiii,  and 
the  planks  heiiiix  kept  down  on  the  ear- 
riaire  hy  springs  adjusted  on  frame-work 
near  the  planiiiL;  cyliiuh'r,  was  held,  on 
a  motion  for  an  iiijimotion,  to  he  an  in- 
fringement on  Wood  worth's  patent. 
(iiiiaon  V.  Ihtts,  1  Ulatehf,  164.— Nel- 
Bov,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

12.  Tho  substitution  in  a  plaining 
nuichine  of  two  sinooth  plates  of  iron, 
oper.'ited  by  a  screw  and  a  spring,  to 
press  down  the  board  upon  the  moving 
])I:itfbrm,  in  the  place  of  the  pressure 
rollers  used  by  Woodworth,  is  not  a  sub- 
stantial departure  from  Woodworth's 
contrivance.       Gibson    v.    Jftiris,    1 


IMatchf.,  no,  171.— XKt,N<»!f,.I.;  >r_y 
|s»(i.  ■' 

i:i.  Tlio  e«uu>or  disk  Hliaped  wlncl,,!" 
tlio  MacfJregor  machine  \h  an  enuiva. 
lent  for  the  planing  cylinder  um.I  \,y 
Woddworlh.  tSlniif  V.  /'fi/hi/itni,^  \ 
WcnI.  I,aw  .four.,  00.— Ka.ni,  .1.;  p., 
|H4(», 

I  I.  Tho  Murd'nt/or  machiru',  wlii,.), 
has,  ill  plac(*  of  the  cylinder  cairviii' 
the  knives,  an  ol»lu>«e  «»r  llatten.,|  ,",,||,. 
(U'conically  shaped  wheel,  the  kirh(wl„|. 
iiig  in  a  plane  inclined  to  the  mxIm  or 
shall  of  the  wheel,  the  change  in  iiriion 
of  the  knives  «'nnsisting  sini[plv  in  ||,|, 
knives  p!i>sing  over  iiiort!  of  the  mii|';,(,! 
to  be  plaiu'd,  :md  cutting  a  part  of  tho 
tlistance  erosHwlse  of  tho  board,  in  an 

infringement  of  file  W Iwortli  pulcni. 

I'li/i  Hook  V.  I'oiiiUtiiti,  I  I  Mat  (III'.,  l!)i. 
— Ilirns,  J. ;  N.  v.,  1H40. 

1.').  'V\w  lih'kiull  m:ichin(>,  wliicli  lia.l 
a  jdaniiig  wheel  similar  to  that  ot"  the 
M:ic(Jrcgor  machine,  in  he  |u)iiit>  in 
which  the  latter  is  claimed  to  he  ilitKr- 
ent  from  the  Wood  worth  machiiii',  was 
also  held  to  be  an  infringement  of  Wond- 
worth's   patent.     IhiiL,  192, 

10.  f/f^y',-*  machine,  which  iiicoiistnic 
tion  was  like  tho  ]Ma<'CJregor  iiiMcliiiic, 
wa.s  also  held  \i>  be  an  infringement  nf 
Woodworth's  p.ateiit,  on  a  luotinn  t'luau 
injunction,  by  K  ani:,  ,/.  ,  J*a.,  ll>l,l.,  102, 

17.  The  case  of  Wi/sn/i  v.  liiimnH, 
4  How.,  044,  was  founded  on  (lie  aiiiciid- 
ed  specification  of  184.5  of  Woouwerlh^ 
pati'iit,  an<l  it  was  held  by  tho  Sii|>niiH' 
Court  that  the  patents  of  IKL'Saiiil  1845 
were  both  for  the  same  invention, 
Ifnd.,  104,  195.— Nki.son,  J. 

18.  The  Supreme  Court,  ill  Wilsouy. 
liossc'iit,  4  ITow.,  040,  1845,  proceidod 
on  the  ground  th.-it  tlie  reissued  ]iatiiit 
of  Woodworth,  upon  the  surrcndtT  af- 
ter the  second  extension,  that  bv  act  of 


(««%iUS|ji|  ^ 


rAUTIClILAU  PATKNIU 


ftS» 


I'l.ANINO   MAnillNRH. 


MOW,  J.;  NY., 

n)i;i|m'<I  wImtIiiI' 
10  iH    till  i'i|uiv;i 

'jlilnltT   U«r.|     liy 

V,     /'h/hipl,,!!,   t 
-Ka.m;,  J.;  I 'a,, 

r  iniicliinc,  wliidi 
•yliinltT  ranviii" 

II'    llilllfllt'il   niiii' 

I'ul,  the  kniMwlii. 
il   to  tlio  nxiN  iir 

clllillj^i'  ill  llrliuii 
ii;^  hiiiijily  ill  the 
or»!  of  llu'  (<illi;i('i' 

iiij^  a  pari  of  ihi; 

lli(>  Itniird,  is  ail 

(Midwortli  |i!il('iil. 

»/(,  I  i;i;il(lif.,  11)1. 

midline,  which  liiiil 

l:ir  to  that  of  tlic 

ill    lie    )ioiiil>  ill 

iiiii'd  to  hv  ditfir- 

>rlli  macliiiu',  wm 

IJ^CIIU  III  tifWciiul. 

A,  in-j. 

wliifh  iiu'oiistnic- 
('•ro^or  iiiMchinc, 
I  iiifrinircMiH'iit  (if 
in  a  nil  •!  inn  I'oriiii 
.,J'a., //././.,  ini 
i/son  V.  Jtosmiu^ 
\\vd  oil  (lie  aincml- 
')  of  Wooiiwdrlli'i 
I  l»y  Iho  Sii|ir('ino 
of  l8L'8aii(l  lf^45 

same    iiivoiition. 
SON,  J. 

inrt,  in  Wilson\. 

,  1845,  procCfiUHl 

|ie  reissuoil  pate'iil 

the  suitcikUt  at- 

n,  that  by  act  of 


(i,„ufp.ss  wiiH  viiliil.  H^iiinlwitrth  V. 
i:i,Mi'(hy  :<  Wo.hI.  it  Mill.,  127.  - 
\V Ill  KV,  .1. ;  MiiHH.,  |MJ7. 

111.  'I'hi'  |>laiiin^  iiiachino  pali'tiloil  lo 
Hiipwii,  of  Vfriiniiit,  ill  Nuvi'IiiImt,  IhJ.i, 
\\w<  hcM»  ill  >t  >*iiit'  )>r(iiiKht  ii^aiiiNt  tho 
iiiiit'iifri'  ill  V%'riiioiit,  to  lu«  Niilmtiiiilially 
liki'  Wool  I  wort  h'n,  mnl  its  iimo  rcHlrniii- 
,.il  |)v  iiijiiiii'lii'ii.  Wiiuihnnrth  v.  A'o- 
,/,(vi,  1  Wooil.  tt  Mill.,  1  t'J.— Wooniiif- 
uv,.l.;  MasH.,  1HI7. 

'jo.  Till'  formor  (h'ciMlonH  ns  to  the 
Wiii>il«'ii"th  |i:it»'iit,  ill  i'fS|K'c|  to  thi' 
iiiivi'lty  •>!'  Iho  iiivi'iitioii,  ami  whi'lhor 
Will  II I  worth  wu«  tliu  Hi'Ht  ami  ori;,'iiial 
iiivt'iitor;  anil  an  to  tlicHiirn'inli'r  of  tlir 
iiatiiit  anil  its  rcisMio  of  the  H||i  .Inly, 
isl,'),  witli  an  aiiii'iiiU'il  siinification  ; 
and  a.i  to  tho  iiloiility  of  tlio  iiivoiition 
covcreil  by  th«  ori^in.al  ami  roisMiioil 
|i.it('iits  ii|>|>rov<'il  ami  icafllrmcil.  (llli- 
ii,i,  V.  fi'ij/oni,  I  niati-lif.,  .'iilO.— Ni:i.- 
s.)\,  J.  ;     N.  Y.,  1  H.-id. 

'Jl.  Rotary  ^uidos,  ho  airaiii^i'd  ami 
ailjiisicil  lis  to  pt'oss,  Ity  incaiiK  of  wciylils 
ii^iiiiist  llu'  imIj^cm  of  tin  iMi.iril  whilo  it 
is  uiulcrfjoinij  tlu>  oiicratioii  of  (he  plMtii' 
or  cutter,  and  such  ^^uidcs  lifiiijif  placi'd 
iiiilii|U(>ly,Honiowliat  to  tlio  iiiolioii  of 
the  hiiiu'd,  so  that  their  position  pio- 
iliiccs,  as  tlioy  revolve  ajfaiiist  the  (hI^os, 
a  constant  tendency  to  keep  the  board 
to  its  bod  (us  patented  in  1H49  to  Levy, 
a^sii;np(^  of  Knowlc.-*),  are  but  an  <(/u(l- 
o(/oii»  (h'vice  for  the  pressure  rollers  of 
Wodtl worth's  patent,  wliicli  jiet  upon 
the  fjico  of  the  board,  lioth  are  used 
for  the  same  purpose,  and  lead  to  the 
same  result,  thou<'li  arranifcd  and  ad- 
jilted  by  a  somewhat  different  niechan- 
iciil  contrivance — the  only  ditrcrence  be- 
in;,'  til  3  application  of  tim  pressure  to  a 
ditfereut  part  of  thi!  board.     Gibson  v. 

VimDrcssar,  1  Blatclif.,   534,   535. — 
Nklson,  J,;  N.  y.,  1850. 


2'i,  Thti  UNO  of  n  revolviii({  ciittor- 
wheel — as  ulso  [iiitetited  to  haid  l.ivy— 
liaviiiK  oIlsetH  or  bevels  near  its  outer 
periphiry,  to  allow  a  bo;iid  tbirkir  than 
the  liiii>«lii-d  work  is  inlemlcd  to  lie  to 
enter  between  the  ed(<e  of  the  wheel 
ami  the  face  of  Ibr  bench,  is  only  a  eoN 
or.'ililr  iiiiitalioii  of  the  rotary  i-uttei'H 
of  WiMid worth.      Ifiiil.,  f>;i.''i,  ri.uj. 

V!3.  Woodworlirs  pjiteiil  is  mil  for  an 
oi'piiii/.i'd  iiiachiiie,  contaiiiin;.;  parts  per- 
foriiiiii^  certain  fiiiictiiniM,  and  pnidiiciii^ 
certain  ri'siilts,  irrespective  of  the  p;ir- 
ticiilar  instriiiiii  iitalities  so  operalirii;, 
but  it  is  clearly  for  a  coiiiliinatiiui  only. 

//A)r>/j?  V.  /<'ii</iY,  MS. — Si'ltAlil  K,  J.; 
.Mass.,  IH.M. 

'J  I.  Woodwortirs  niaihine  is  an  iin- 
proveinent  on  \]h>  Hill  inachinc,  and  tint 
only  idiantje  made  by  Woodworth  con- 
sists  in  placing;  the  rotalin;^  cylinder, 
which,  in  Hill's  ni.'ichine,  w.is  in  a  lixed 
pimitiitii  below  the  bed,  in  a  fiM'd  posi- 
tion above  the  bed.  This  arran^yenient 
f^ave  to  the  pressure  roller,  in  ;idilition 
to  its  function  of  kccpini^  the  Imard 
ilouii  upon  the  bed,  tlir  liiiii'tinn,  per- 
fo'-nied  by  the  bed  in  Hill's  riiachine,  of 
keepini»  the  liuard  from  beiiij^  drawn 
into  the  axi.s  of  the  cutter.  The  efFect 
of  such  arrantfeinent  is  to  plane  the 
board  on  the  upper  instead  of  the  un- 
der side,  and  the  result  is,  that  the  board 
coim.'s  out  of  an  uniform  thickness, 
which  was  not  .accomplished  by  Hill. 
Ibid. 

25.  In  the  Norcross  m.ichine,  the  ar- 
nangement  of  the  pressure  roller,  bed- 
pii'ce,  and  cutter,  is  the  same  iis  Hill's  ; 
his  improvement  consists  in  making  the 
cultini;  c vlinder  move  vert icallv,  and  con- 
iiccting  it  with  hi.s  rest  orjiressure  roller, 
so  tliat  the  distance  between  them  is  al- 
wjiy.s  the  same,  and  tlu;  board  thereby 
reduced  to  a  uniform  thickness.   Jbid. 


^'k>i 


•Ai*       <t 


--mf^i 


i 


,iH'^-i_. 


'^f%5./' 


ywj 


rAKTK  rLAIl  TATKNTS. 


rtAXINO  MAOBinR.     PLOmillM. 


m 


v;-!' 


.^-^■u*. 


20.  Tlio  Hill  ncoliliiti  <l!tl  lint.  rediK'** 
tho  lioitnl  to  a  iinit'oriii  thicktii'Nii, 
AVondwoilli  iifl;iiiic'»l  Niirli  a  itniiIi,  l»y 
liin  im|)ri»VfiiM'ut.  NorcroHH  acconi- 
jditlu'd  t\n'  name  ))Ui'|ioMf,  but,  l»y  a  »lif- 
toi'i'iit  airiitigoiiii'iit  than  that  invuiitcil 
by  Wduihvoi'th.      /A<V/. 

'-'7.  NunTONM'  inachint!  \h  not  an  in- 
iViri^XcnuMit  of  Wood  worth's  |>atunt. 
Jt>i>/. 

'JH.  The  i»la)iinj;f  inaclntiof  <>f  A«1iton 
it  Wiiislo'.v,  and  of  Ashton  tfe  IlctTN, 
ari>i"<Ki'iii  Lilly  the  wjinn-as  NNndduortirs 
— MU<1  the  toiigiiiiif^  and  j^roovinj;  n|>|>:i- 
ratits  ut*  thoHo  niHchhu'M,  and  of  tho 
8intwdi'U  ni.ichini',  arc  tli«'  siuno  um  tlmMi' 
Usutl  liy  Wotidwortli.  >^l(itit  v.  J'ltttu/t, 
24  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  3d  fScr.,  20,  27.— 
Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  ]r')'2. 

2!>.  The  iiivi'iition  rrlicd  on  in  W(»od- 
wortii's  p.'itt'Mt,  is  a  new  cuniliinalioii  of 
three  cli'ini'iils  to  produce  tin'  result  of 
]»Ianin<^  a  jilank  agulnHt  its  motion 
tln'oui^h  tho  niachinu;  the  claim  of  mo- 
nopoly is  tim  iii|»loynu'iit  of  rot.ary 
|)l;uu's  in  coml)iiiati<jn  with  the  face  of 
a  bench  and  pressure  rollorM,  to  prevent 
the  board  from  being  drawn  up  l»y  the 
planes  when  cutting  upward,  (»r  from 
the  reduced  or  planed  to  the  uiiplaned 
surface.  Jirooks  v.  Junh-c,  15  lIo»v., 
217.^Catuon,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

30.  Norcross'  planing  maf^hiiic,  pat- 
ented February  I'Jlli,  184'),  for  at»  im- 
j)rovemcnt  on  the  Ilill  luaclilne,  cannot 
be  considered  an  infringement  on  Wood- 
worth's  m.'ichine,  but  is  an  in(b'pendent 
invention.  //><V/., 222.  INbLiCAN,  Wayne, 
and  Nki.hov,  ,J.T.,  dissenting. 

31.  The  machine  patented  July  10th, 
1839,  to  J.ames  II.  Hutchinson,  is  an  in- 
fiingoment  npon  Woodworth's  patent. 
I/hiiii(jMon  V.  Woo'hcorth,  15  How., 
r..5.';.— Daniel,  J.;  t^up.  Ct.,  1853. 


iPfcOlraiis. 

Otkhtr  Ut,  18'jft. 

TIdx  pfttont  wn«  fof  certani  "  intproyr.. 
i/ients    in    the   construction   of  iiuiul.!- 
boanlM  of  ploughs."     TJk!  sperilicniuii 
set  forth,  that  instead  of  working  tlic 
nnndding    part   or   fac<'  of  the  nuiii|.|. 
board    to  siraiglit    lines,  the    iMiiiiiiv, 
ment  was  t(»  work  it  to  eircular  or  s|,||,, 
rio  lines,  and  that  tho  circle  or  segnKni 
extending  from  the  points  of  thi^  A\m> 
and    iMclining  to   th(>    back  p:u't  (if  tin' 
mould-lioard,  should  have  ultmit  ihrc,, 
times  tho   rnditis  of  certaiti   descrilinj 
smaller  segments,  and  tluii  procccijnl; 
"This  being  thus  worked  off  uiiifdriiilv 
forms  a  scetion  <tf  a  loxodroinic  or  siij. 
ral  curve,  and  when  applied  to  ])r.'i('tin> 
is  found  to  fit  or  ctnbraeo  every  part  of 
the  furrow  slice  far  more  than  any  otlup 
shaped  plough." 

y/f/(/,  that  tho  jatent  imist  ho    mi. 
strued,  \\.>\  as  extending  to  every  nioiiM. 
board  worked  by  circular  or  sjilicrir 
lines,  however   those   lines   may  cnts"! 
each  oilier,  and  whatever  may  lie  tliiir 
iolative  j>roportionH,   and    whoso  liiir 
forms  n  section  of  a  loxodroniic  or  sjii- 
ral  curve,  but  as  :ipj>lying  only  to  nidiilil- 
boards,  conforming  to  the  i);n'ticiiI;u'(K'. 
scription  contained  in  the  spccitiraiion, 
and  of  the   precise    and   dclinite  slinpi' 
prescribed,  and  worked  out  by  segiiuiits 
of  circles  of  the  exact  form  and  judpiir. 
tions  mentioned  ;  and  that  in  const niin;' 
the  sjiecification,  the  word  ahont  m\< 
be  disregarded,  and  tho  patent  \k  re- 
stricted to  tho  mould-board  as  desLiib- 
ed,  independent  of  that  Avord.    Dum 
V.  J'altmr,  2    Brock.,    305-308.— 3lAr.- 
SUALL,  Ch.  J. ;  Va.,  1827. 


.-  ■-i 


•-wi 


;. 

IHT. 

i(,  182  A. 

Ttalii  "  liuprov- 
ftioti  of  intitiM- 
riio  m>(M'itic!itiuii 
of  work'mi;  iK.' 
'c<  of  till'  iikm,!!. 

I'M,    \]W     illlp|ii\, 

» cin-uliir  (ir  s|ili(. 
•Ircli!  or  s('i;iin'iii 
lints  of  tfit'  An\T\> 
liiick  part  of  i||,. 
mvo  afxnit  ihrci' 
lertiiin   (U-Hcvilwil 

1  thru  |il'()C('cilril; 
kcil  otV  miit'nrinly, 
oxcMlniinic  or  h\i\- 
IHilii'd  to  pr.ictico 
I'aci'  livt'ry  part  nf 
rt'  thmi  any  otlur 

■lit   muHt  1k'  roil. 
1^  to  every  luoiilil. 
fcular   or  spliciic 
linen   may  cnix 
'vcr  may  lie  tlnir 
iiiiil    whoso  ihcc 
hxotlroiiiic  or  siii- 
111^  only  to  nioiilil- 
tilt' particular  (If- 
tlio  spiH'itii'atioii, 
il    (li'llnito  sliapt' 
out  liy  si'giiirilt< 
form  ami  \<y«\»>r- 
liat  in  const  ruin;,' 
ord  about  must 
lli(>  patent  1)L'  re- 
l)oar(l  as  (li'scrib- 
lit  word.    D'tm 
305-308.— Maf.- 


PAimCULAll  rATK^VT^. 


ftAllJt   rOR  R.    R.   OaMIAOM. 


raotJTT  k  Mkar'b  rATwrr. 

Jatimi  .1/(1  r  A  Uh,  INSO, 

1,  Ti»u  patent,  was*  for  "a  new  imd 
u*(<fiii  jinproveim-iit  in  llu*  conMlnx'tion 
of  ill''  pl<»iiu'li,"  tuul  tlie  rlalm  wiiM  forn 
i-oiiil/matioii  of  tlirci'  tliirif^s:  Ixf  Tlio 
iMt'lli>ii>''  tlie  standard,  and  land-^idc, 
Mt  Its  to  form  an  anifo  uiij^If  with  tho 
pliiiic  cf  f ho  Hhurc  ;  2il.  Th«' plai-inyf  tlic 
bciiin  on  A  linu  parallel  to  the  itind-Nidf 
aitliiii  tlie  liody  iif  the  ploii^di,  ;tnd  ItH 
,1  III II'  nearly  in  the  perpendicular  of 
till'  (x'litre  of  rt'MiHtani'u ;  and  !ld.  The 
fiirininjx  Iho  top  of  tlio  i»tai)(lnril  for 
lirncc  iiiid  draii'iht. 

ll,ltf,  that  the  patent  was  for  a  com 
liiiwtii>n,  and  a  eoinhination  only.  Tin' 
ii*(f  of  one  or  more  of  the  parts  less 
iliiin  tlic  whole,  is  no  infriiii^emeiit. 
Pi'iiiiiii  .  Draper,  1  Story,  ,")7l. — Ijyrv- 
KV,J.;  Mass.,   IH41. 

2.  The  extension  of  the  standard,  and 
the  j()},'t,'ing  it  into  the  beaiii,  are  daim- 
(•4  as  iiiaterial  pans  of  the  jdaintifV's 
imiirovoment ;  in  forming  the  top  of 
tlie  standard  for  braee  aiul  draught. 
I'riMtj  V.  Jitif/*fkn,  10  I'et,,  ;340. — 
Tani;v,  Ch.  J.;  Snp.  Ct.,  1842. 


I'uDDT.E  Ralls,  uollino. 

Bubden's  Patent. 
Issiitd  DeeemhifT  10th,  IfilO. 

1.  Tlio  patent  was  for  "a  machine 
iisiil  ill  the  mamifactnrc  of  iron,  com- 
monly called  a  s(pieez(>r,  and  used  for 
coavertin!.'  puddler's  h.'ills  into  blooms, 
in  rolling  mills,  and  rolled  the  bii'ls  be- 
tween reciprocating  plates  or  tables,  or 

bctweou  a  revolving  cylinder  and  a  sta- 
30 


tlonary  Rcvfrnontal  troti{]^h,  mUH  BtAtion- 

ary  llmr.res." 

J/'lif.  that  the  patent  was  forn  new 
prtH'eNH,  nioii(>,  or  method,  of  eonvertiii^j; 
puddler*H  bulls  into  blooms,  by  eohtii  u- 
<  us  pri>M!<iiri'  and  rotation  b«-tween  con- 
vcr^in^f  siirt  ices.  Jiiiri/an  v.  Coniimj, 
MS.— NKLMosf,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IhSo.  [Ooi». 
(r «,  poi^t  '2.] 

-'.  Till  litters  patent  are  not  for  \\ 
III  v  ppdeess,  moth',  or  method  of  eon. 
vertinj^|»iiddl'  r's  balls  into  bloJiiiiH,  but 
for  the  maehiiu)  described  by  him.  Tho 
patent  does  not  sceui  the  exclusive 
ri;,'ht  to  r'-iistnict,  .ii., ,  and  \eii,|,  any 
maihine  ad.-ipted  h>  Accomplish  tho  ob- 
ji'ots  of  hid  invention,  by  the  process, 
nl<^d<',  or  metho<l  deserf,bed,     (^ornorf/ 

,  V.  Ftitnf.  )i,  ir,  How.,  207,  ilTO.— tJuiKi:, 

[j. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  IbM. 


l{Ali„S   KOIC    K.ULUOAl)    CAKKIAtitiS. 

Stimpbox's  I'atent. 
fmted  Angutt  i2d,  1H31. 

The  pjiteiit  was  for  "  a  new  :ind  useful 
improvement  in  the  mode  of  forniiii!^ 
and  using  cast  or  wrought  iron  jilates 
or  rails  for  railro.ad  carriage  wheels  to 
run  ttpon,  mori!  especially  for  those  to 
be  used  oil  the  streets  of  cities,  on 
wh.'irves  and  elsewhere,"  and  tho  cl.aini 
was  for  tho  employment  of  plates  or 
rails  having  narrow  grooves  on  each  side 
of  the  track  for  the  flanges  of  the  car- 
wheels  to  run  in,  so  as  to  be  adapted  to 
the  unobstructed  passing  over  them  of 
the  various  kinds  of  common  carriages. 

J/ild,  the  i''  'iiibiiiation  claiii  cd  by  the 
patentee  as  his  improvement,  consists 
of  tho  use  of  grooves  on  both  sides  of 
a  railway  tr.ack,  in  Avliich  grooves  only 
the  flanges  of  car-wheels  are  to  ruti,  and 


'■■"V^^   '*'*>lio 


■Ni 


f^' 


Hf ' 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


III 


1.0    ^i^KS 


I.I 


125 


u,  |j£ 


^...  1^ 


u 

u 


1*0 


i 


2.0 


V 


^ 


/^ 


c* 


^% 


^  J>  > 


>^ 


^><^ 

'> 


Sciences 
Corporation 


23  WEST  M«IN  STR£ET 

WEBSTER,  N.Y.  M580 

(716)  872-4503 


,\ 


V 


^ 


■m 


mv 


m 


t* 
■^ 


'^.<^ 


.^'' 


1 39  Mi 


502 


PAUriCULAR  PATENTS. 


'|*^<te?1 


■*S'^^' 


^ww^ 


UOCKIN'O  CIIAIUS.      SADHLCH.      saw   MIM.H,   ClUCULAR. 


which  are  to  bo  too  narrow  to  ailiMit  tlie 
wheels  of  (•■irriaf^cs  liaviiiic  the  most 
slender  rims  or  ielloes;  and  the  whole 
of  this  combination  or  mechanism,  is  to 
be  depressed  to  u  jilane  exactly  corres- 
pondincf  with  that  of  the  street  in  which 
it  maybe  introduced.  Stimpsony.lialt. 
lb  Sus.  It.  It.  Co.,  10  Ilow.,  344.— 
Waynk,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

Rocking  Chairs. 

Bean's  Patfnt. 
Issued  March  30th,  1840, 

The  patent  was  for  "  a  new  and  useful 
improvement  in  the  rocking  chair,"  and 
the  specification  set  forth  that  the  prin- 
cipal features  of  the  invention  consisted 
in  making  the  stool  and  seat  of  the 
chair  in  two  parts,  and  causing  the  seat 
to  rock  on  the  top  of  the  stool,  thus  do- 
ing away  with  long  rockers,  and  render- 
ing the  back  of  the  chair  susceptible  of 
being  fixed  in  a  reclining  position  at  any 
desired  angle ;  but  it  was  shown  that 
the  same  apparatus  had  been  before  ai> 
plied,  if  not  to  chairs,  at  least  in  other  ma- 
chines, to  purposes  of  a  similar  nature. 

Held,  that  the  invention,  at  most,  was 
an  old  invention,  apparatus  or  machinery 
api)lied  to  a  new  purpose,  and  that  the 
patent  was  invalid.  Hean  v.  Smalhoood, 
2  Story,  411.— Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1843. 


Saddles. 

Dixon's  Pate.^t. 

Issued  July  lUth,  1849. 

Tlie  patent  was  for  "  an  improvement 
in  manufacturing  men  and  women's  sad- 
dles without  saddletrees,"  but  the  pat- 


entee did  not  distinguish  what  wai< 
new  from  whsit  was  old  and  Ik  toie  jn 
use,  nor  jtoint  out  in  what  piu'tidilais  liis 
improvement  consisted;  J/dd,  that  ilm 
patent  was  therefore  void.  iJixon  v. 
Moj/er,  4  Wash.,  09, 73.— WAsiiixoTo.v, 
.1.;  Pa.,  1821. 


Saw-]\[ills,  CincuLvn. 

NoRCBOSs'  Patent. 
Issued  January  I5th,  1800. 

The  patent  was  for  an  "  iiMprovoincnt 
in  circular  saw-mills."  The  invention 
was  for  suspending  the  saw,  so  it  could 
have  lateral  vibration,  Mhicli  was  ac- 
complished by  supportirg  the  boxes  in 
which  the  journals  of  the  arbor  run, 
ui)on  standards,  to  which  the  boxes 
were  jointed,  and  being  themselves 
jointed  to  their  foundation,  so  that  tlie 
arbor  was  kept  horizont.il,  while  it  was 
allowed  sufficient  later.al  play,  and  when 
thrown  out  of  line  it  would  recover  it- 
self by  the  action  of  the  driving  belt, 
which  waa  effected  by  passing  the  Itelt 
up  over  a  drivhig  pulley  above,  thus 
holdir.g  the  frame  up  to  the  proper 
point,  so  that  the  saw  was  actually  sus- 
pended by  the  belt,  while  it  was  kept 
steady  and  made  to  move  properly  by 
the  frame  below. 

Held  by  the  covrt,  that  the  patent 
was  not  for  the  two  improvements— 1st, 
permitting  the  lateral  motion  of  the  saw 
mandril  or  arbor,  by  the  device  of  the 
rocker  boxes,  and  swing  frame ;  .and  2(1, 
restoring  the  saw  to  line  by  the  elastic- 
ity of  the  belt  acting  as  a  reacting 
agent — separately,  but  for  the  combi- 
nation of  the  two,  and  that  the  use  ot 
a  metallic  spring  instead  of  the  swing 


ish   what    was 

;ui<l  Itt't'inx'  ill 

I):irti(iilai'sliis 

JItU,  that  llic 

/k1.     JJtjcon  V. 

-WASllIXdTO.N, 


tCULAR. 

rENT. 

th,  1850. 

J  "  i'nprovc'iiicnt 
The  invention 
saw,  so  it  could 
whicli  was  ac- 
irg  the  boxes  in 
f  the  arbor  run, 
'hich  the  boxes 
jitig    theinsehes 
ition,  so  tliat  tlie 
ital,  while  it  was 
il  ph>y,  anil  when 
ould  recover  it- 
:he  driving  belt, 
passing  the  belt 
ley  above,  thus 
to  tl'.c  proper 
was  actually  sus- 
hile  it  was  kept 
love  properly  by 

that  the  patent 
provemcnts— 1st, 
notion  of  the  saw 
the  device  of  the 
i<T  frame ;  and  2cl, 
ine  by  the  elastic- 
g  as  1  reacting 
t  for  the  corabi- 
d  that  the  use  ot 
ead  of  the  swing 


r A 1 ITIC  C  L AR  PATENTS. 


C03 


BAW    MILLS,    I'OUTAUl.K. 


SBWlXa    UACHINKS. 


frame,  to  dctlert  tlic  saw  into  line,  was 
not  an  iiifriiigeiiuMit.  X(v;  v.  Jil'Oiily, 
MS.— LKAVirr,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 


SaW-MU-LS,   PoilTAllLE,   ClBCULAH. 

Page's  Patent. 

hawdJulij  \C>th,  1841. 
Extended  July  nth,  1865. 

1.  The  invention  was  for  an  "improve- 
ment in  portable,  cireiilar  saw-mills," 
combining  free  end  play  of  the  saw 
niandril  with  guide  rollers  at  the  pe- 
riphery- 

Jleld,  that  the  pf.tont  was  for  the  com- 
bination of  end  play  of  the  saw  shaft 
with  guide  rollers  at  the  periphery,  and 
covered  the  use  of  guide  pins  instead 
of  rollers,  if  they  were  used  for  the 
same  purpose.  And  that  it  did  not 
evade  the  patent  to  employ  a  collar  or 
shoulder  on  the  shaft,  if  there  was  still 
sufficient  free  end  play  or  lateral  action 
of  the  saw  arbor  to  accomplish  the  saw- 
ing successfully.  Puffe  v.  Georgia, 
MS.— Hall,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

2.  The  patent  is  for  a  manner  of  affix- 
ing and  guiding  a  circular  saw  by  al- 
lowing end  play  to  its  shaft,  in  combi- 
nation with  the  means  of  guiding  it  by 
friction  rollers  near  its  periphery,  so  as 
to  leave  its  centre  entirely  unchecked 
laterally;  Held,  that  the  improvement 
comprehended  by  the  patent  was  the 
freedom  of  revolution  of  the  saw,  at 
its  centre,  entirely  unchecked  laterally, 
used  in  combination  with  the  friction 
rollers,  embracing  the  periphery  of  the 
saw.  Page  v.  Ferry,  MS. — Wilkixs, 
J.;  Mich.,  1857. 

3.  Or,  the  patent  of  the  plaintiff  cov- 
ers merely  a  combination  of  the  use  of 
rollers,  or  their  equivalents,  with  a  saw 


that  has  no  chock  to  its  lateral  motion, 
at  tlie  centre,  bu!  lias  free  end  play,  so 
;is  not  ill  any  case  to  have  an  end  bear- 
ing against  a  shoiiluer  in  its  ordinary 
revolutions.     Ibid. 

4.  Tlu!  claim  is  for  the  precise  org.ui- 
ix-ation  described,  the  manner  of  at'ix- 
iiig  and  guiding  the  circular  wiw  by 
allowii'.g  end  play  to  the  shaft,  in  com- 
bination with  the  means  of  guiding  it 
by  friction  rollers,  embr.acing  it  m-ar  to 
it.s  periphery,  so  as  to  leave  its  centre 
entirely  unchecked  laterally.  P/ii/Hjts 
V.  Page,  24  IIow.,  167. — Nklsox,J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  IHOO. 

5.  It  having  been  shown  that  mills 
of  like  construction  had  been  used  for 
sawing  shingles ;  Held,  that  the  patent 
could  not  be  sustained,  because  of  its 
application  to  the  sawing  of  ordinary 
logs  in  a  saw-mill.     Ibid.,  100,  107. 


Sewing  Machinb;. 

Howe's  Patent. 

Issued  September  10</i,  1840. 
Extended  September  IGth,  18G0. 

1.  The  original  patent  embraced  five 
claims.  The  first  claim  of  this  patent 
was  for  "  the  forming  of  the  seam  by 
carrying  a  thread  through  the  cloth  by 
means  of  a  curved  needle  on  the  end  of 
a  vibrating  arm,  and  the  passing  of  .a 
shuttle  furnished  with  a  bobbin,  in  tlio 
manner  set  fortli,  between  the  needle 
and  its  thread,  under  a  combination  and 
arrangement  of  parts  substantially  tho 
same  with  th.at  described." 

Held  by  the  court,  that  the  real  claim 
is  f'  r  the  means  by  which  the  result,  the 
forming  of  a  seam,  is  reached,  namely, 
by  carrying  a  thread  through  tlie  cloth, 
by  means  of  the  needle  at  the  end  of 


WC' 


ii...  I, 


Sri 


■vtij^i 


"^imA 


iM' 


'<*w: 


^«^^W'  ^y' 


ll# 


PAUTICITLAR  PATENTS. 


HKWINO   MACHINEa 


•»*-ir 


Ii»v, 


r^^: 

-^<!: 


^wu 


a  viltnitini;  arm,  ami  then  carryiiij^  tlio 

fllllltit!    Witll     its     l»()I)l>ill     l)('l'.Vfl'll     tin' 

iKH'dlu  ami  its  tiircatl,  uikUt  a  coiiilti- 
iiatioM  ami  arraiij;cun'nt  of  parts  Hub- 
stantially  as  (Icscriltrd.  Ifoiet'.  v.  Mor- 
ton, l;}  Mo.  Law  Uop.— Si'KAc.iK,  J.; 
3IaMs.,  IHdO. 

2.  Tho  claim  may  l»o  considerod  as 
for  flio  jjiMicral  combination  and  ar- 
raiiLrt'nu'nt  of  tlu'  ])arts  described  in  the 
spccifici'tion,  cmbracinijf  tlic  mcclianism 
for  forminj^  the  stitcli;  the  nu'cbanism 
consist  in<jj  of  two  stationary  boldinij  sur- 
faces, for  lioldinjj;  the  material  to  bo 
sewed ;  and  a  mechanism  for  feeding 
the  doth — which  consists  of  a  ))ieco  of 
metal  with  points  projectinir,  which  fake 
hold  of  tho  cloth  and  then  by  mechan- 
ism carries  the  cloth  with  it  between 
tho  two  stationary  sm-tiuvn,  and  which 
surfaces  aid  in  keopinjif  Jic  cloth  in 
place  while  it  is  fed.     Ibid. 

;i.  These  holdint?  surfaces  also  aid  in 
niakiiiuf  the  stitch.,  by  successively  re- 
sist inij  the  thrust  and  retraction  of  the 
needle,  and  keeping  the  cloth  in  posi- 
tion, and  exactly  in  tho  line  where  it 
should  be,  so  that  the  stitch  is  sure  to 
be  made  in  the  proper  place.     Ibid. 

4.  Tho  cyo-pointed  ntedlc  was  not 
Ilowo'a  invention,  having  been  de- 
scribed before  his  invention.     Ibid. 

5.  Fisher  &  Gibbon's  machine,  pat- 
ented in  England  in  December,  1844 — 
the  specification  of  which  was  enrolled 
in  June,  1845 — contained  a  mechanism 
by  which  one  thread  was  carried  by  a 
needle  throngh  the  material,  and  then 
another  thread  was  carried  by  a  shut- 
tle between  the  needle  and  its  thread  ; 
but  as  Howe's  invention  was  as  early 
as  the  middle  of  May,  1845,  before  the 
enrolling  of  their  specification  in  June, 
1845,  their  invention  was  not  patented, 
within  the  meaning  of  8S  7  and  15  of 


the  act  of  1H:M),  imtil  offer  Howe's  in- 
vention,and  II(.we  became  entitled  to  •) 
patent  under  g  J)of  theactof  1H3D.  Ihiii 


Johnson's  Tatent. 
latueil  March  lih,  1854. 

The  patent  w.-^s  for  an  "improvenieiit 
in  sewing  machines,"  and  the  part  of 
the  patent  under  consideration  was  the 
third  claim: — the  fee<ling  of  the  nintc- 
rial  to  be  sewed  by  means  of  a  vihratiiiLj 
])iercing  instrument — either  the  needle 
itself,  or  some  other  instrument  in  (lie 
immediate  vicinity  thereof — subsinn- 
tially  as  described.  , 

Held  by  the  court,  th.at  the  ])at('iit 
was  not  for  a  result,  or  for  an  abstract 
idea  or  jirinciple,  but  was  for  a  nuiiiis 
or  mechanism  to  accomplish  a  certain 
end.  The  use  of  the  piercing  instru- 
ment to  feed  the  cloth,  and  its  use  siili- 
stantially  in  tho  manner  describeil— 
both  go  to  constitute  tho  invention  of 
the  patentee.  The  uso  of  either  of  tliu 
two,  and  not  the  other,  is  no  infriiiii;o- 
ment.  Johnson  v.  Root^  MS. — Spkague, 
J.;  Mass.,  1858. 

Sinoek's  Patent. 

Issued  August  \1th,  1851. 
Reissued  October  3d,  1854. 

1.  The  first  claim  was  for  giving  tlie 
shuttle  an  additional  forward  move- 
ment, after  it  had  been  stopped  to  close 
tho  loop,  for  the  purpose  of  drawing  the 
stitch  tight,  when  such  additional  move- 
ment is  given  at  and  in  combination 
with  the  feed  motion  in  the  reverse  di 
rection,  and  the  final  upward  movement 
of  tho  needle,  so  that  the  threads  shall 
be  drawn  tight  at  the  same  time. 

Held^  that  this  claim  was  for  the  com- 


rAUTKUTLAIl  PATIENTS. 


605 


BEWINO  MACHINES. 


biiiafioii  of  I  lie  niccliuiiism  (IcscrilK-dJiy 
melius  (if  wliicli  tlirci'  pulls  arc  ;j;i\tn 
siiiiullaru'tmsly  to  ti;^IitcM  f ho  stitch;  iiml 
that  the  piitont  (lid  not  cover  the  result 
attained,  but  the  particular  couibina- 
tioii  of  luechiiuism  )>roducin<^  the  result. 
Sinner  v.  Wul/nalei/,  MS. — Giles,  J.; 
Md.*,  1859. 

2.  The  second  claim  of  sudi  patont  is 
for  the  invention  of  a  friction  pad  placed 
between  the  seam  and  the  bobbin,  to 
make  a  slij^ht  pressure  on  the  thread  to 
prevent  the  formation  of  a  loop  above; 
the  cloth,  but  not  surticicnt  to  prevent 
the  needle  drawinjjf  the  thread  tlirou<j;h 
tiie  cloth  to  make  the  loop  below  it. 
Ibid. 

3.  The  third  chiim  is  for  tlio  cond)i- 
iiation  of  an  adjustable  arm  carryiiij^  the 
liobbin  or  sjjool,  with  an  eye  or  j^uide, 
attached  to  and  moving  with  the  needle 
carrier,  and  throus/h  which  the  thread 
passes,  so  that  by  chanLjin!^  tlie  anjjjle  of 
such  arm  any  desii'ed  length  of  thread 
can  be  given  for  the  formation  of  the 
loop.     Ibid. 

4.  The  fourth  claim  is  for  the  combi- 
nation (tor  feeding  the  cU)th)  of  the 
friction  of  the  surface  of  the  perii)hery 
of  the  feed  wheel  with  the  sjjring  pres- 
sure i)Iate  or  pad,  which  grips  the  thing 
to  bo  sewed,  against  the  feeding  sur- 
face ;  the  surface  of  the  feed  wheel  hav- 
ing a  fine  thread  or  parallel  groove  cut 
therein,  to  enable  it  to  perform  its  office 
in  combhiation  with  the  pressure  plate, 
instead  of  being  armed  with  pins.   Ibid. 

5.  The  sewing  machines  of  Ladd, 
Webster  &  Co.,  of  Boston,  are  not  an 
infringement  on  this  patent.     Ibid. 

Singer's  Patest. 
Issued  April  I3th,  1852. 
This  patent  is  for  the  inveution  of  an 


improvement  in  tlie  friction  pad,  where 
by  the  thread  is  saved  from  the  chating 
it  would  othi-rwise  be  liable  to,  by  sub- 
stituting for  it  a  cut-oil*  friction  pad, 
which  alternately  seizes  and  releases  the 
thread  at  proper  intervals,  so  as  to  cause 
the  ])ad  to  press  upon  the  thread  when 
reipiired,  and  then  to  be  released,  while 
the  needle  is  passing  through  the  cloth. 
Shiijer  V.  Wtdiiidiy.,  MS. — tJii.Ks,  J. ; 
Md.,  1H59. 

SiNOEu's  Patent. 
Issued  May  :\Otk,  1851. 

This  patent  is  for  the  combination 
of  the  following  mechanical  «levicos: 
First,  A  spring  arm  guide,  through 
which  the  thread  passes  from  the  ten- 
sion to  the  needle.  iSrcund,  The  needle 
carrier,  forcing  up  the  spring  arm  guide 
to  the  limit  fixed  for  it.  I'hird,  A  hxccl 
bridle,  limiting  the  upward  movement 
of  the  spring  arm  guide.  And  I'oiirth, 
A  movable  bridle  to  force  down  the 
guiile  to  give  the  required  amount  of 
slack  thread  for  the  formation  of  the 
loop ;  the  carrier  forcing  up  the  spring 
arm  guide  to  the  limit  governed  by  the 
fixed  bridle,  and  the  movable  bridle 
forcing  it  down  again,  to  make  tho 
slack  thread,  these  motions  being  inde- 
pendent of  the  thread  or  .my  contin- 
gency affecting  it.  Singer  v.  Walmsleyt 
MS.— Giles,  J.;  Md.,  1859. 


Singer's  Patent. 

Issued  Kovember  ith,  1856. 

1.  The  second  claim  of  this  patent  is 
for  the  combination  of  a  horizontal  ta- 
ble with  the  feed  apparatus — the  opera- 
tive part  of  the  feed  wheel  projecting 
throngh  the  table,  and  actmg  on  the 


A 


*%m  'L 


'^i. 


'^•m> 


"'>!«' 


0/' 


U 


BOrt 


I'AKTICULAU  PATKNTS. 


HRWINO   MACUIN'M. 


^ 


i**: 


^kkZ 


■^.,w>^^ 


under  KiirliU'O  of  the  iiiiitorial  to  lu' 
nowt'il,  while  the  tahio  aii^werH  tin-  imr- 
]ios('  III'  sti-ip|>iii;^  tlif  material  from  tlu; 
li'i'il  wliccl  and  to  cover  and  |irote<'t 
the  mechanism  wliich  operates  it.  Sui;/- 
er  V.  Wiilinnlei/,  ^lS.~Liiu:H,  J.;  ^Id., 

l8r,o. 

2.  Tlia  third  claim  is  for  impartinj; 
tlie  feedinij  motion  to  the  feed  wlieel, 
for  spacin-^  the  stitches,  hy  j^riitinj;  tlie 
Iterijiliery  by  u  griiiinj;  lever,  in  contra- 
distinction to  the  action  of  a  pawl  on  a 
ratciiet,  whereby  the  extent  of  the  feed- 
ini;  motion  may  be  adjhsled  a-id  varied 
to  any  dcLjree,  instead  of  beinj;  restrict- 
ed by  t  he  size  of  the  ratchet  teeth.    //>/</. 

:).  The  fourth  claim  is  for  a  combina- 
tion of  a  fi't'iler  with  a  presser  attaclied 
to  a  slide,  which  keeps  the  plane  of  its 
tmder  Hurface  always  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  platio  of  the  table,  thereby 
avoiding,'  the  ine(iuality  of  jn-essnre 
which  takes  place  when  th((  jtresser  is 
on  an  arm  Avorking  on  a  fulcrum  or 
hinge  joint.     Ibid. 

A.  B.  Wilson's  Patents. 

Issued  Kovemher  \'lth,  1850. 
Heinaual  Januwy  2'lil,  185t!,  and  divided  into  two 

pati'iits.  known  an  lieissucn  Xo.i.  345,  316. 

ITo.  315  reissued  December  Otit,  1856,  and  known 

as  lieissue  No.  414. 

liehsue  No.  346. 

1.  This  patent  embraces  foui-  claims.' 
1.  For  the  method  described  of  causing 
the  cioth  to  progress  regularly  by  the 
joint  action  of  the  surfaces  between 
■which  it  is  clasped,  and  which  act  in 
conjunction  in  the  manner  and  for  the 
purposes  mentioned,  that  is,  in  a  regu- 
lar intermittent  progress  of  the  cloth,  by 
the  means  described,  so  that  the  cloth, 
while  grasped  by  the  surfaces,  could  be 
turned  as  it  had  before  been  turned  when 


it  had  be<-n  advanced  by  the  hand  of  tlii> 
operator,  :ind  the  pu'pose  was  to  secure 
a  regnlarity  of  stitch  and  also  that  lln- 
seams  might  be  n('wed  of  any  conoid, 
erable  degree  of  curvature.  2.  For  llu' 
method  of  holding  the  cloth  at  rest  by 
the  needle,  as  described,  in  comliinatioii 
with  the  method  tlescribed  of  causiii^ 
it  to  progress  regularly.  ;i.  So  arran^'- 
ing  the  feeding  surfaces  that  they,  (ir 
one  of  them,  should  also  perform  tlu; 
otHc*  of  stripping  tho  cloth  from  tlio 
needle  as  it  rises.  A\\i\  4.  For  inoimt- 
ing  or  attiu'hing  one  of  the;  feeding  siir- 
faces,  HO  that  it  could  be  removed  or 
drawn  away  from  the  other  at  jileasmv, 
to  '.'fTect  the  objects  set  forth.  The 
secoml  claim  was  admitted  to  be  valid, 
but  the  others  were  disputed.  Potter 
V.  Ifollund,  MS. — Inokksoi.i,,  .1.;  Ct., 
1858. 

2.  JfdiJ,  th.it  the  devices  or  nuans 
specified  in  the  first  claim  were  sulliciciit 
to  cause  the  cloth  to  progress  rcyulaily, 
merely  by  the  joint  instrumeiMiilify  (if 
the  two  feeding  surfaces,  between  wliidi 
it  is  clasped,  and  without  the  aid  of  the 
needle  or  any  other  instrumentality,  and 
that  the  patient  was  not  invalid,  because 
a  useful  result  was  not  produced  by  the 
means  specified.  Potter  v.  Ifollmul, 
MS.— iKGKUSOLr,,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

3.  The  third  claim  was  for  giviiii; 
one  of  the  feeding  surfaces  the  addi- 
tional function  of  a  stripper;  Ifeld 
as  to  this,  that  the  mode  of  arrang- 
inir  the  feedinj;  surfaces,  as  i)ointe(l 
out,  so  that  they,  or  one  of  them,  in 
addition  to  the  office  which  they  per- 
formed as  acting  as  a  feeder,  should 
also  perform  the  oftice  of  a  stripper, 
was  new,  and  was  not  known  before 
such  invention,  and  therefore  the  grant 
of  right  in  that  patent  for  such  arrange- 
ment was  vaUd.    Ibid. 


'-il'*:  U 


I'AlillCULAU  PATENTS. 


fi07 


UWINil  MACHiyU. 


•  IduuI  rit"  till' 
vas  to  scciirf 
!vls<)  tlcit    tlic 
liny  (Miiisid. 
,     2.  l''nr  llif 
ih  :it  rest   liy 
I  fuinhiiiatinii 
1(1  of  ciuih'uij,' 
3.  So  arraii;,'- 
tliat    Uk'V,  iir 
I  jJiTfiinn  tlii; 
(ith  IVom  till' 
.  Kor  mount- 
(>  toi'diiif;  sur- 
c  rcmovril  or 
or  at  iik'asun', 
b  forth.     TIk' 
;(1  to  1)L'  valid, 
>\itc!(l.     J'offer 
tsoi.i.,  J. ;  Ct., 

ices  or  incaus 
wi'vo  suiViciiMit 
rress  remilaily, 
riuiK'i'lality  of 
bt't  wcoii  wliidi 
the  aid  of  the 
unontality,  ami 
iivalul,  because 
roilucetl  hy  the 
r  V.  Ifoll'iHiJ, 
,,  1858. 
as  for   givlntr 
ires  the   aihli- 
lipper ;   Jfehl 
ode  of  arrang- 
es, as  ])ointeil 
tie   of  them,  in 
■hich  they  per- 
feeder,  should 
of  .1  stripper, 
known  before 
■eforc  the  grant 
)r  such  arrange- 


4.  Hut  cuch  jyriuit  will  not  |»reveiit : 

any  oiie  li'oni  usiiij;  any  Mtripper  which  I 
WHH  known  and  in  use  prior  tu  thu  in- ! 
i«'nti<»'i  of  Wilson.     J/tiif.  j 

T),  The  fourth  claim  was  claimed  to  : 
bo  invalid  for  the  reason  that  it  re<juir- 
cd  no  invention  ;  J/ihl,  that  the  device 
mentioned  in  the  fonrtii  claim  Mas  new, 
;is  well  as  useful,  and  h:id  a  sntVicient 
amount  of  invention  to  uuthori/e  u  pat- 
ent.    Uiil- 

0.  The  leading  original  idea  of  Wil- 
non  is  the  substitution  of  the  two  siir- 
faees  between  which  the  ch»th  is  clasp- 
ed or  held,  for  the  baster-plate  of  pre- 
vious machineu,  and  so  arranging  these 
two  surfaces  that  one  ol'  them,  by  an 
aiiloniaiic  intermittent  motion  of  one  or 
hotli,  would  advance  the  cloth  to  the 
iilimH*',  in>d  at  the  same  time  admit  of 
its  being  turned  by  the  hand,  so  as  to 
new  curved  seams.  Potter  v.  Holland, 
jIS.—Nki.son,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1800. 

7.  This  conception  is  caj)ableof  being 
enihoilicd  in  a  working  machine  in  va- 
rious modes  and  forms ;  but  so  long  as 
the  inventor's  ideas  are  found  in  the 
construction  and  arrangement,  no  mat- 
ter what  may  be  its  form  or  shape  or 
appearance,  the  party  using  it  is  :ii)pro- 
liriating  his  invention,  and  is  an  infring- 
er.   Ibid. 

8.  All  the  several  claims  rest  upon 
and  grow  out  of  the  main  improvement 
in  the  feeding  apparatus,  and  this  -le- 
vico  being  novel,  these  deiiendent  com- 

)inations  and  devices  may  well  be  main- 
amed.    Ibid. 

Reissue  No.  414. 

1.  What  is  patented  by  the  patent 
No.  414  is  a  sewing  machine,  liaving  m 
combination  the  three  elements  of  a  ta- 
ble or  platform  to  support  the  material 


to  be  sewed  ;  a  sewing  MU'chanism  prop- 
er; and  a  mechanical  automatic  feed. 
The  only  element  claimed  as  new  is  the 
mt'chanical  feed  autoinatic,  by  whi'-h 
the  cloth  is  nuide  to  progri'ss  regularly 
to  be  sewe<l,  and  to  which  the  doth  in 
not  attached.  Potter  v.  Holland,  MS. 
— IxtiKUSoix,  J.;  Ct.,  1858. 

2.  There  ha*!  befor*-  bn  i  known  .and 
in  use  a  sewing  machine  having  in  com 
bination  the  three  elenu-nts  of  a  table 
or  ])latforin,  a  sewing  apparatus,  and  a 
feed  motion.  It  was  claimed  that  al- 
though the  patentee  had  invente(l  a;/<;ifl 
feed  motion,  that  he  couM  not  ]iatent 
tiic  combination  in  a  single  machine,  of 
the  elements  of  the  table  and  sewing 
mechanism,  which  cdiistituted  two  of 
the  elements  of  the  old  coiid)iiiation, 
and  his  new  mechanical  feed,  but  that 
he  could  only  patent  his  improvement 
on  the  feed  motion  ; 

Held,  that  as  the  mechanical  automat- 
ic feed  of  Wilson  was  a  new  invention, 
never  having  before  been  known,  was 
a  new  mechanical  automatic  feed,  and 
was  an  improvenn  nt  on  the  old  feed  oidy 
in  the  sense  that  any  new  and  useful  me- 
chanical device  to  accomplish  a  given 
purpose  is  an  improvement  on  otiier 
known  mechanical  devices  to  accomplish 
the  same  object.     Ibid. 

3.  And  that  as  such  new  mechanical 
automatic  feed  of  the  patentee  was  not 
to  be  used  in  conj miction  with,  or  in  aid 
of,  or  in  addition  to  the  old  feed,  but 
was  independent  of  it,  and  dispensed 
with  it,  and  discarded  it,  that  it  was 
an  entire  new  device,  and  was  a  new  and 
independent  element  in  the  combination 
patented  to  him,  and  that  therefore  it 
must  be  held  that  the  machine  contain- 
ing the  combination  of  elements  pat- 
ented to  him  was  a  new  and  different 
machine  from  the  macliiue  containing 


'■*^QJiu 


..,  ,,„/w .- 


S«A 


IWiMUilLAU  I'ATKN'IX 


*^r 


■  ^* 


.       '     W^. 


^%,^. 


Wmt<«tt  MtRIK 


irrRtM  KMIINM 


tlu<  I'OlullillitlitUt  Oi'oM  t>l«>lll(MllH  klHIMII 


A      11     \ViIJ«.»<i|'h   rATHNT. 


dial'  l'<  llio  liiii>  til'  lrii\  <<l  ol'  llit>  iiini'liini>, 
('iiAuou  \.   Iiiii>/,   MS.     I'l  iri-iiiii>,  .1. . 

'»'.  'I'lio  im|iit>vi>iiuiil  ili".i'riln',|  niilio 
•ii>i'<in<l  i'l;iiiii  iitii>«isi'*  i«)  II  riinih'l  ui  inn 

it-Ill  vliap.  .1     .llMt'lltlljrilljr    (<lllUlllll>|-,    lijiv. 

iiij.;  limit  I. tw  111  !nri's(  i|ii<  stuil  ;iii,|  in,. 
I  Mill  lit  ilii>|i|iiii)',  ii|iiiii  lilt'  i;riMiiii|.  ;uh| 
Tliit  |i,ilt'iil  ix  .III  iiii|in<\t'iiii'iil  <>iill\i'    ,i'.si,(  (ii  i;iii\  ii  riMiinl  llu>  umm  oi'  \,.\ 
I'll'.!  m.iii.'ii  tinlii  ii.i'.l   in  i.  i--«iii  ■■  Nnv    I'luunii    iiinl    iifi't'li'iiilo    ilN    i'«'iiliitii!i;i| 
:i|n,  III       I  111-  .mil.  .'.  iuti\  111!',  lltt' I'lxlh  I  |tir«'i',      //'ill. 

to   lilt'  tuM'tlU',  i"'  t',iiiHt<il   111  tlrti|i  iVinii.      M.  Till' lliiitl  ini|irtivtMiii<uf  I'tiiisiHiH  of 

llh'  t'lulli,  nil  il-<  iflnni  In  ;i<r;»iii  s»>i/i'  il.  i  u  \\h\  tir  |il;iit«  nf  iiii'l.il,  nr  iit  i'i|im:i 

mill  :i.l\  ,iii>  I' III'.!!' .iiinilu  r  slili'li.      Tlu'    Ifiil,   |iliifi'.l    in   iVtiiil   nl'  mul  t'lMiiMiiii! 


i'll'fi'l  I-,  i«'  I'n'i'  lilt'  f!«'lli  ri.Mii  lilt'  hill"- 
I'll  ('  in  it'^  r.iiiin,  willi  ii  Mim\  :ii;,iiii  In 
M.b  mitt>  il.     'riu>  ii.i\t'll\  t«r  ilu' iiixt'ii 


with  lilt'  t'i'iilril\iijiil  tli^'liiiriti'i,  i.>  |ii,. 
M'lil  llio  t'lili  iiiifi'  i>r  fill  it'iils  III' an  ml,, 
lilt'   tlisflimm'T,    wliicli   niii'.lii    iiiii'irii,. 


titui    >\  :i>*    ilis|iiili'.l.       //././,    I'loin    lln<    w  illi  llu>  |irti|iiT  tliHiriliuiiiHi  nl' llif  sni,!, 
t'\  i.ltMit'i",  ill. II   N\  lUiMi  \\;i-   lilt'  lii-i    in     In   lilnwiiij;'  il  mil  nl'  iis  |irti|ii  r  |i,.siii,,ii 


VtMitnr   nl'  lln>    iiii|irn\  t'liii'iil    ilt'^i'iilii'il. 

(; ■,>f-  •  ,("   /id.r  s,w.  M,h h.  r...  V. 

>,'...(/,  MS.      Ni.istiN,  .1.;    \.  v.,  l.'MlO. 
SowiXtJ  Skkp. 

Omioov's  I'virM'. 

Kufs:/..!  M.ii,    \';',.    ls,.S. 

1.  Tilt'  |i:itiMil  w  :is  Inr  mi  *' iinprnvt>- 
lUtMlt  ill  M't'iliii'j,  in;itliiiu's."  miil  llu<  nh 
jt'i't  nl'  tlu-  inxoiiliiiii  \v:is  (n  snw  sft'd 
liroatloiisl  ;is  I'lo  nincliiiif  \\:»s  tiriiwii 
altMiij.  Tho  nissiu'tl  patoiil  lia>l  Iniir 
claims. 

//</(/,  that  tlu>  iiuprnvi>!i'..'iil.>i  cnviTi'il 
bv  tlu>  ru>i  t'laini  nl'  tlu>  jliU'iiI  aro,  1st. 
A  tiiliular  oliamluM'  or  ili^'liariror  rnl.at- 
inj;  rapiilly  on  a  luMizniii.-il  .-ixis,  liaviiij; 
its  odiTO  in  a  plain*.  viMtifal,  t>r  near- 
ly so.  tt>  tho  hori/.nti,  and  nju'ralinix  liy 
ooiitriliisral  1\mvo  i;t'norali'tl  by  tlio  I't'vn- 
lution  nt'tlu'  oh.'unbiM',  t»>  throw  out  ilu> 
sooil  in  a  piano  ot'tlisi«harixi',  vrticil  or 
ucarly  so  to  the  horizon,  and  poi-piMulif- 


\\\n\v  il  is  siill  in  ilit<  fliaiiilifi'.      /A/,/. 

I.  Tilt' iiiiprti\(<nii<nl  foNficd  li\  iIh' 
rniirili  flaiiii  fniisisls  of  a  lio|ipi'i  In  ImM 
a  supply  III"  M't>d,  mill  ilfliMi-  it  in  (lu- 
iIIm  li.'Hi'.i'r,  siit'li  litippiT  lu'iiiL':  I'oiiiliiin'il 
with  lilt'  diM'liai'nt'r,  ami  Inn  inif  a  ^lir 
ri'i'  In  slir  lilt'  uraiii.  and  a  )'iili'  al  ih 
moiilli  lo  ii'!',nlali' till'  tpiaiilily  ni'i'iain 
thai  will  pa'-s  niil  ami  I'f  ,sn\\  n.      /A,./, 

."i.  Ill  III,  alsn,  ih.il  lilt'  st't'iliii;;  Ilia- 
fliiiin  palt'iili'tl  In  .\iiinn  IJiiiir,  Maiili 
'Jd,  IS.i'ii'.  was  an  iiirriiim'ini'iil  mi  ilu> 
piiUMil  ol'  C'ahonii.      //*/t/. 


Si'kam-Knuinich. 

SU'MKS"     P.VTKNT. 

Is.iu<\i  SfptrmWr  VMh,   \Hi(\. 

1.  Till'  palt'iil  was  I'nr  an  "  impnnc- 
nii'iit  in  sli'aiii-t'iiLjim's,  in  foniH'ctinij; 
the  i-ylimltT  ami  sit'am-flu'sl."  Tlu'  cLiim 
was  lint  simply  Tor  caslini!:  I  he  sicam- 
olii'st  w  ilh  llu>  fylimliT,  or  with  llu'  tvl- 
iiulor  bottom  and  oomlonsor,  hut  I'nr  tho 


l»i 


^m 


>v\\\<\  (•omiiun'ii 
liin  ill!':  !i  siii- 


;iiiliu  <'l  !',raiii 


M'llU'Ml     oil     till' 


ail  "  im|in)V('- 

ill  fonui'i'liiiu 

,.st.'"riuM-lmm 

Iiil:;  tilt"  sli'.'ii"- 
1)1-  willi  tlu'  ("vl- 
tsor,  but  (or  Uio 


ivMnnriMj  ivvri'M's. 


niip 


,.„,;|„i.l  i>i' fUMllHjt  tliotn  tiHflli''!  ikn  t!i'     «t»vuii    Hiitldi'iily.     In   oitniiPitlitn    wllfi 

.,  ,il„  ,1.  .  lltf  Inml  |>i  Mi|i  w  ii'i  ili'sfi  ili«'tl  II  "  «  lid  r 

//.  A/,  lit  <l      «ll!>l    «  K"*  HI'I'lllol    to   lllt<  I  llOX,"   t)|-  ll|lt<ll    H  llirr  V«"«>it'l,  NO  ttH  III   I'll 

.,,ji,,iil,n>  |»y  llti'<  |tiil»'iil  \M\-*,  ^fiiHf,  llic   iililo  lliii  iMiKiiit'i'r  III  it'i' llii' Wili'i' ^iiiiij^ 


liiilinU  lli«'  "ti'iHH  ••'••'  I  Willi    llii'<>liii 
,1,1,  \<\   llli>l»i"K  •!"'    ''i'l'"*    "•    ill"'  Nlrllll 

,'|ii"<l<  iIk'  '^i'l'"^  "I  *l'*'  I'^liixli'i'i  ill  •'•*iii 
iMiiiilioii  »)ll<  *!**'  iKiii'iii'i  III   lilliiii;  llii< 
,\liiii|i'r  lii'it<l  oii'i  ll)*'  liiNtrr  niil  ot'  llii> 
,\|in<li'i'  to  ll"'  'li«"*l^  ii"«  ill' >«'i  ilii'il,  timl 

til,'    IIKkI*'    *'I      lli:lkill)r    llli>    lllllli'llllli'lll'i 

williciiil  llii'  I'liiililiiiiiliniiitt  till'  llitiii'lii"*, 
will  It  till'  I'oiiili'iiNi'r  IN  iiiil  I'll  1  liiii' 
,.r  llii' oIiikI*'!'  KK'I  •li^lilli't  llirirlViMii. 
S.fUi>  V.  /Vii'  I'luufli'  Mitil  Sfrinu.t/it/< 
I..,,  I    niiilrlil.      Iniikiihiii.i,,  J.;    N.    V., 

'J.  Ami  Hd'intif,  wlii'ii  lln»  I'oiiili'iHor 
i'i  on  ll  liiii'  wilii  llii<  i'>liiiil<'r,  tiinl  iinir 
til  il,  llii'  riiMliii!:  <>iii<  Hli'aiii  rlii'^l  u  itii 
|!>i>   I'vlllliliT,    mill     llir    olIliT     Willi     llli> 

I  sliiiili  r  liiiltniii  mill  cutiili'iisiii',  liy  nmk- 
ii,.;  |ln>  siilc  iilniu'  sli'iiiii  I'lii"!  till'  tiiilc 
,.|     lIll'    OjlillillT,    illlil     till'    Midi'    of    llio 

dllu'i'  hli'iim-rln'^<l  till'  Hiili'  of  llu'  ron 
iliiiM'i,  ill  I'oinliili.'ilioii  uilli  llii<  iiiaiiin'i 
III'  iitliiii;  till*  cvliiiili'i'  lii'inl  iiinl  llu- 
l.ittci' ciiil  of  the  I'vliii'liT  to  tlic  i'IicsIm 
;is  ili'sri'ilu'il,  anil  tlic  iiioi|i<  of  iiiaUiii<; 
itic  altai'liiiii'iitN  i\H  ili'si'i'ilti'd,  ulii'ii  oiii> 
>li'aiii-i'lu's|  is  HO  I'liMl,  on  ilu'  rvliinliT 
mill  llii'  iilliiT  on  IIh"  I'lindi'iisiT.      I hiil. 


Sl'KAM  (iKNICItATOUH. 

I.mta'n  I'aiknt. 
Issu'd  Ai'iil  IK//),   lHr.5. 

1.  Till'  |iu(('iil  was  for  an  "  iiii|)i'ov('iiu<iit 
ill  sliaiii  },f('ni'ralors,"  ami  tin-  iiivriition 
ilainu'd  was  for  ji  iiiodo  of  fi'i-din;^  ii 
loili'il  tiiliiil.'ir  lioiiiT,  |»y  iiu'niiH  of  il 
liaiul  |>iiiii|),  so  as  to  throw  waliT  ii|ioii 
pipes  alivady  ho.'Kiul,  ami  thus  j^i'imrali! 


ill,  llloilidl  il'4  |it:iri<  riillld  Iik  Nll|i|ili)>i| 
li\  aii\  lliiii^r  lliiil  will);ni'  iiioiioii  |o 
Moiiii'  iiii'rliiiiiiial  ronli  i«iiiii'i<.  'I'liiM 
Willri  l)i'\  till'  di'li'iidtiiil  did  Hot  mhi<, 
niid  I'laiiiii'd  tliiil  lli«  |iliiintiirV<  |iiiti'iil. 
w iM  for  11  roiiiliiiiiilioii,  wliii'li  will  mil 
iiil'i  iii)tt'd  I)}  ti  iisi>  of  liHs  lliaii  nil  ilM 
|ijirls. 

//,/,/,  liy  till'  roiiil,  llial  llir  |ijili'iil, 
was  for  11  rondiiiiiiiioit,  III!  dial  it  Wii^ 
ll  i|iii»<lioii    for    ||ii>    iiii\    wliitliir  llio 

Wllll'l    lio\    WIIHHII   I'sNl'lllilll    rli'llll'lll    of 

till' I'oinliiiialioii,  iind  lliiil  llii<  di'lindiiiil, 
roiild  not  i'\adi'  tlic  |ialriil  l>\  iml  imiiiir 
ll  |tarl  not  iiiiiti'iiiil.  /.uttii  v.  i-i/iiiirf,\ 
MS.     1,1  win,  .).;  iHiio,  Im.iII. 

'J.  'I'lii'  jury  found  il  was  mil  a  niiil.i' 
I'iiil   I'liil  ot   llif  I'oiiiliimilion,  iiml  jiid^r- 
tiii'iit   was  for  llii«  |iltiiiiliir.     //»/>/. 

SloViCM,   CooKINil. 
IIiu'k'h  I'ithnp. 

Unxrit   Mii\i  'HUh,    I  Hill. 

I .  'riiin  |iali'iil  w  lis  for  "  iiii|irii\  inii'iilH 
in  llio  roiiHJ t'lii'l ion  of  slovi"^,  fur  rooK' 
in)f,"  and  llic  rlaini  wii'i  "llir  r\liiidiii'/ 
of  lilt'  ovrii  inidri'  llii'  a|iron  or  o|m'|| 
iirailli  of  ||ii>  slovr,  and  in  tin-  roniliina« 
lion  llii'i'i'of  witli  till'  lliii'sconslnicli'd  iih 
Hiii'fifu'd,"  lliiit  is,  ri'viTlirraliii);  llin-N, 
HO  I'lillcd,  ami  a  fionl  IIih',  IiiIwd'h  tlin 
front  |i!ali<  of  tin'  Htovi>  and  I  In'  IVunt 
|ilalo  of  IIm'  oK'Ii. 

lliiil^  tlial  till'  invciiliiin  was  llic /'«»»/- 
hitiittioii  of  llio  cxli'iision  of  iIm'  oven 
iimli-r  till'  lii-arlli  of  tin-  slovr,  and  llio 
ri'Vi-rlirratiii!^  Iliirs,  wit/i.  I  In-  fliir  in 
front,  finnicd  l>y  llm  front,  iilalcs.  /iui'h 
V.  llmnnnr,',  I  |5lalclif.,  100,  102. — 
Nklhon,  .1.;  N.  Y.,  I  HID. 


.•'■% 


'W"^ 


•-iw^^ 


\m>' 


.  .w....' 


f'":'      ••«»»  OKI 


bio 


I'AUTK  ri.AU  PATKNTS, 

HTOVtSM,  HTIUW-CM'TrKII. 


»«*•  ^. 


'4 


Vw 


.^,    -** 


^W^g 


Iffiu^ 


tiiMioi'ilic  f\irii<|i>i|  t)\i>ii  aiiil  llit>  rt> 
ViTWcratiiij^  t\\U"*,  thai  U,  l\w  nhU'  iitul 
iH'iitrt'  tliicM,  wnn  olil,  tilt*  liriii^iiijL;  into 
(■iiiiiirciinti  will)  Hiifli  iilil  t'oinltiiiatiiiii 
tli(>  tliit'  ill  tVoiit,  iiiailcit  ii«-w  uimI  u  pal- 
t'lilalilf  coiMMiiatioM.     /hnl.,  ■U)'\. 

'J.  TIk'  flaiiii  of  Hiu'k  \k  tor  tlh<  l1iit>M  tit'- 
Hcrilxil  i't'Vt'rl»i"ralin'4  IIih-h  —  in  fi»ml»i- 
iialioii  with  tilt'  t'\tt'ii<lt'il  (ivt'ii.  /lucft' 
V.  (ill/,  I  MtLtaii,  170. — MtliKAN,  .1.; 
Ohiii.  IH(U. 

Ft»t)rK'H    I'ATKNT. 

Is$ufd  .\f,iy  Ulh,  ISI'J. 

1.  Tilt'  |»!iti'iil  was  lor  "  a  iit'w  ami  iist>- 
fiil  iiiui|('i)f  n!j;uialiii^  tlit>  lit'at  ol'sliivi's 
aiKJ  uilu'i- stnu'tiiri's  lor  lilt's,"  and  tlif 
claim  was  lor  tlif  applifation  tif  tlio  t-x- 
|taii»i\t'  ami  t'ontrafliiiix  [lowtT  ol'a  int'- 
tallif  nxl  l»y  tliHtTt'iil  dt'^rt't's  of  heat, 
to  t)jii'u  aiitl  flosi'  a  tlaiiiptT  wliii-li  p»v- 
erns  tlit>  ailinissit)i)  ot'air  into  a  ntovt!  or 
otlitT  Ktnii'tnrt',  by  wliifli  a  nioru  ptT- 
ioi't  t'uiilrol  ovtT  lilt'  lit'al  is  olitaiiit'il 
tlian  fan  lio  l»y  a  tlaiiipfr  in  a  Hut' ;  and 
also  till'  iiumU'  tlt'scribi'tl  t)f  si-tlinuj  flit' 
lioat  t>t'  a  stt)Vt'  at  any  rt'tpiisito  tif- 
gri'i',  by  wliifli  tliHiTi'iit  tlt'Ljrt'ws  of  ex- 
pansion are  rt'tpiisito  to  t)pi'n  t)r  close 
tilt'  danipi'i*. 

J/(l<f,  that  tho  substant't-  of  tho  dis- 
covery as  claimed  by  the  patonteo  ami 
Bi'tMirctl  tt)  liiiii  by  his  patt-nt,  is  thf  ap- 
pUcatitm  t)f  the  principle  t)f  the  eon- 
traction  ami  expansion  of  a  metallie 
rod,  by  tho  use  of  certain  meclianieal 
contrivances  described  and  set  forth,  to 
the  cast  or  sheet-iron  stove  ir.  common 
use,  by  which  means  he  produces  a  self- 
regulating  power  over  the  heat  of  the 
same,  at  any  given  degree  of  heat  that 
may  be  desired  within  the  capacity  of 


tln«  Mtove.     /Wrt  >.  Sih/>}/,  \   Miatclif 
l(i;i. — Nki.ih<»n,  .1. ;  N.  V.,  |hh», 

'.'.  Thf  llrnt  claim,  "the  applic,iii,,|, 
of  tho  expaiiNive  aiKJ  c<inlnit'tiiii>  |„,<vi ,. 
tif  a  nit'tallif  rod,  by  ililVfitnt  ilcifr,,,,, 
of  heat,  to  ttpcii  and  cloMf  a  ilainiur 
which  governs  the  adniissitni  of  air  \u\„ 
It  Hlt)ve,"  it  not  for  a  tliwtivery  of  a  n.ii. 
nral  properly  of  the  mt'tallic  roil,  ujiirh 
of  itself,  is  not  a  patciilalde  suhj,,! 
but  for  a  new  ap]>lieation  of  it  \>\  imaiH 
of  mechanical  contrivances,  which  i, 
one  tif  the  commonest  Hiibji-i 's  nf  ;i 
patent,      f/iiif,,  Itll, 

:t.  'I'lie  claim  in  this  patent  in  rtt'cr. 
enee  tt*  regulating  the  heat  of  a  xtuvi' 
by  the  expansive  ami  coiitracling  pdwir 
of  a  metallic  roil,  is  tme  indcptiHliiii 
of  any  particular  arrangeiiieiit  or  cdiii- 
binati'Mi  )f  machinery;  and  the  in. 
veiilor  has  a  right  tti  use  any  iiuiiih, 
old  tir  new,  in  the  application  nl'  iIh. 
new  prt»perly  to  prt)tluct'  the  new  mihI 
useful  result.  I'ootc  v.  Siisfii/,  •.'  UlMtili!'., 
'2«!l,  'J(J4.— Nki.sox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  |h5|. 

1.  This  patent,  on  appeal  to  tlic  Sn- 
prenit  Court  Ih-IiI  lt>  bt^  valid.  A/My 
v.  Fo<>f(\  20  How.,  US'). — Nklsov,  ,!,; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 


STUAw-C'iTrmi. 
IIovey's  Patent. 

Lsued  February  Uth,  1811. 

This  patent  was  for  an  "improvoiiu'iit 
in  str.'iw-cnlters,"  and  tlm  claim  waslVr 
a  cylinder  "having  any  number  of  ariiH 
•aronntl  it,  to  which  ailjiistable  kiiivi"; 
are  .airixed,  constructed  as  dcscrihcd,  in 
combination  with  the  roller  au;aiiist 
which  they  cut,  in  tho  manner  and  for 
the  pnrpose  set  forth." 

Jleld,  that  tho  patent  was  for  a  new 


>ib4.,.^i^  '^ 


pAimcrr.AU  tatexts. 


m 


TAIU>HM'   HIIKAUH.        UMAII  fAUKIMU.      VALTMi 


<  patent  in  rofcr- 

I  lu'iii  i>r  II  Htiivc 

niilniftiiii;  powir 
nnt*  iii<li'|)i'iiili'nt 
i>^«'nn'iit  or  cniii 


arj. — Nklson,  .!.; 


[in  "  iinprovonu'iit 
i\w  cliiini  was  iVr 

nuinbiT  lit'  arms 
;i(ljustilblo  knivi» 
(1  iis  ili'scribt'il,  ill 
ic    roller   auaiibt 

manner  and  for 

;it  was  for  a  uew 


,.,iiiiliiiii»ii""<  wl'''"''  **'"*'  K'""^  ••nIi'?<H  iill 
llii'  iiai't^  l*i^''  been  known  in  Hinh  emn- 
|,iiiiii"ii-  //'"'''//  >•  lloiry  :•  NVe''!. 
l,;iw  Jt.iir.,  ir»l.     VVoonmiiiv,  J.;  Miihh., 

IH45. 


TaM-OUh'   SlIKAItM. 
llr.lNKIi.'irH    rATRMf, 

h^utd  Frbruary  21th,  I8:i9. 

Tlic  patent  wun  for  *'nn  tin|)rov(>nn>nt 
ill  taiiiir'n  shears,"  iinil  ibe  invention 
claiiiicil  i'(»n>*iHte<l  of  tliree  tliin;,'s.  1st, 
the  iifdjeclion  ill  tlie  [mint  of  tbr  Im'iiK, 
oiillie  ii|>|icr  bow.  '2t\,  ibe  mlililinn  of  a 
(niivrx  pioliiberanee  or  Hwellint;  on  tlie 
riirlit  Hule  of  llie  upper  ami  lower  bows 
III  till  till'  palm  of  llie  liaiiiJH  ;  ami  :i(l,  a 
('uiirave  lip  on  tlie  left  hiile  of  the  iip- 
imt  I">«',  lbr  tlie  tliiiinb  to  rest.  upon. 
Till)  iiiiproveinent  eiiableil  a  piMsoii  to 
holil  the  sliearH  witli  :i  lirnier  ijiasp. 

l/ihl,  lli.it  the  invention  ili<l  not  con- 
M>t  ill  a  iestii;;j,  point  for  t'le  baiitlles 
fo  ns  to  avoiil  a  Hirain  upon  ilu'  joint  ol" 
tlie  shears,  as  tliat  liad  been  tloiie  in 
inaiiv  ways.  Ibit  the  invention  eonsisls 
ill  till'  beak,  by  wliieli  hiicIi  old  result  is 
|irii(lm'('il  by  new  nn-ans.  I/t:inrir/i  v. 
Liillnr,  (I  MeliOan,  340,  348. — McIiKAN, 
J.;  Ohio,  1855. 


TnuKAi),  Packivo,  &o. 

Lanuuon'h  I'atknt. 
Issued  June  20th,  nil. 

The  patent  was  "  for  an  iniprovoment 
ill  preparinj^  antl  paekinjjf  cotton  and 
othur  threads,  and  floss  cotton  for  re- 
tailing," and  till)  BpeeifK^ation  set  forth 
llio  improvement  as  consistinij  "  in  Ibld- 
iiiij  thu  thread  and  Ho.ss    cotton    into 


nkeinn  or  banlcN  of  n  convenient  «|unn- 
•ily  for  rel.-ulin;^',  with  ii  Ne;ded  wrapper 
roniid  the  i^itine,  itnd  ti  liibt  I  eoiititinin^ 
the  iininbei   ;inil  «les«Ti|>tion  of  tlie  ar- 

liele." 

//</(/,  that  the  p:itcnt  was  void  bn« 
cause  the  invention  w.'ih  not  a  nsffiil 
ono  witliin  tbtt  meaning  of  ihn  patent 
liiw.  h<niii<fnn  V.  Ih.  iSmitt,  I  I 'nine, 
'204,  200.— Livi.voHToN,.!.;  N.  V.,  IHJ'J. 


VAI.VI'>i    KOIl   (SoVKUNUIW. 

Jl.liHo.s's   I'ATKMT. 

I.ivud  S'fiVftnliir  Ulh,  ISTiO. 
Jieiaaiu J  January  lu(/i,  1H04. 

1.  'I'his  p.itent  was  fof  an  "improved 
valve  for  ^'o\rrnors,"  and  the  object 
of  the  invention  was  an  iinpr'iveiiient  in 
the  valve,  by  which  ;.n  increase  or  do- 
crease  '•!  the  motion  of  an  enginu  is 
ell'ecied,  without  any  diHturhanco,  or  as 
little  .'IS  priicticablc. 

//ilif,  that  the  invention  was  f<M'  an 
iiiiprovt'inent  ami  was  not  for  a  combi- 
nation, and  that  the  ri^Iit  seiMired  by 
the  patent  was  for  the  inakiiii,'  an  open- 
ing or  openings  controlled  by  the  gov- 
ernor valves  of  Hteain-ongines  of  gradu- 
ally increasing  capacities  from  the  closed 
to  the  open  position  :  but  such  openings, 
while  gradual  or  regular,  are  not  ne- 
cessarily in  geonuitrical  or  arithmetical 
progression.  Jitifson  v.  Moort,  MS. — 
Lkaviit,  .r. ;  Ohio,  JHiiO. 

2.  The  principle  of  :i  gradual  ojieii- 
ing,  through  all  the  range  of  motion,  is 
tlie  distinct  characteristic  of  Judson's 
invention.     //nV/. 

!).  Thi^  patent  is  for  a  distinct  and  in- 
dependent improvement,  and  not  for  a 
combination.  The  claim  is  for  an  im- 
proved valve,  and  that  valve  to  operate 


I*    , 


<i^r:^^ 


r    «*>»■ 


mL 


*^^)>U 


!'«^ .-^MNh 


^'/**"a  :n 


b:-i 


VWnU  \  l\n  I'ATKNTS. 

vu.v>;rt,  iirriMii.  and  TNirfihu. 


'^^^' 

-^B. 


in  cmuirftioii  \vith  n  ^ii\«<riiur;  nml 
tliiTi*  it  MM  rliiiiti  i>r  an  iiixi'tilioii  )Im 
I'liiiiifi'li'il  iVoiii  till'  ^itMriiDr.  'I'Im'  >\\— 
liii^iiUliiii);  I'liiirtirli'rUtii'  oi'  fill*  wiUf 
\*,  lliiil  llif  i>|ii'iiiii^<«  mIiimiM  Im>  |iriM|iii-i>i| 

ll|>iilt    lilt'    |>rilli'i|ili<    nl'   ^l:ii|ll:lliiih tl 

tr«illi'<l  li|  (lir  yitwiliitr,  h4i  tlial  flu-  I'll- 
giiu*  hIiuII  1)1'  ^ovcnu'il  wirli  iiiii|iii-niil\ 
ill  iiiiy  Htiili'  «*t*  »>li>iiiii  ill  till'  liuiliT,  mill 
tit't'MtiiiiMMl.'ilc  ilHt'ir  lit  liny  ili'tri'i'i'  tf 
prcHHut't'  III'  liiltni'  lliiil  ran  In*  tin-own 
ii|M»ii  i».  ,hitfHoii\,  Cojf,  MS.  Lkav 
III',  .1.;  Oliiii,  \mw. 


Vai.vkm,  LiniNii,  AMI  'ritin'iNti. 
Bioxi.ut'  Pathnt. 
ImUfi'  J/.i['  Wh,  1    12. 

1.  TliiH  paltMit  was  fdr  "  appaiatiiH 
i'oi'  lilliii"  aiiil  ri'^iiialiii^  tlio  flnsin^  vf 
till*  valvi'4  of  Htfani-«>ii}{iiifH,"  ainl  llif 
Hiiliji'if  iiiattiT  of  liix  ini|>i'iivi'iii(iil  \mi>* 
llu>  |iii|i|i('l  valvi<  ai'li'il  on  in  tlir  ii>4iial 
way,  cotiiirrttMl  with  tt  viiivi>  Ktciii,  iiml 
raist'il  liy  a  liHtT. 

//(A/,  tliat  till'  pali'iifiM'  waM  tin'  llrnt 
iiuciitor  of  tlif  ini|>i'oM'i|  inariiiiu'iy  il«-- 
«''i'il»«Ml  in  liis  |)ali'iit,  for « tVriliiiLX  a  t'lit- 
olV  in  Hti<!iiii-(Mii;iiu>H.  SifAits  v.  (ilmi. 
Mmmf.  (.'<>.,  ,>is.— (Juii:i{,  .1.;  N.  J., 
iHiiH. 

'J.  'riu»  Hpccitioatioii  si'ls  I'orih  two 
>*(>|iarali>  iiii|ii'ovoiiU'iitN,  iiol  claiiniMl 
joinfly  as  ono  tntichim;  Init  iw  tiistiiu't 
im|ti'o\  t'liii'iits  of  two  si'vi-ral  parls  «>('  a 
known  iiiacliiiu'.     /f>i(f. 

n.  Tlu'  lirst  <'Iaiin  is  not  for  tlu' 
81'luMiH'  of  lrip|iiiiij  valves,  but.  for  a 
I'oinltination  (>f  ci'i'taiii  tli'viccs  as  an  ini- 
lirovomcnt.  in  tlu'  inanniT  of  tripitinir 
vulvos,   aiul    the   ooinbiimtioii   un«l   ar- 


miiKi'iiH-nt  of  partH  hnvn  nil  ii-fi.r.nr,. 
to  a  |n'iiiliar  norl  of  valvi  iif  |,ii|,i„.| 
valvi'.      //»!</. 

•I.  Tim  »«'«'oni|  claim  In  fur  iIh-  hini. 
laiin^  llif  «-|oNin)(  of  ih«>  \itlvi><  ainl  1,^,, 
\i'iiliiii,'  llii'in  from  nlaiiiiniiit;,  hy  iiiimi, 
of  a  ifiihr  /'( .ij'/VD/V,  or  a  n><»'r\iiir  .,|' 
tr,iltr^i>il,*^r**\\iv\jtii!,l.  Tl,,.  w,,i,|y^„/ 
U  iiM'il  in  its  |»o|iiilnr»ii-iix«.  nHijK^„„„^||| 
for  llijiilil.  'I'lhii-  Im  no  intinialiiirt  limt 
an  I'laNlii'  llniil,  \\n  air,  i-oiilil  lir  iim,.i|  i;,|- 
lhi>  xaiiH'  |tnr|toH»«.      /A," 7. 

A.   Kill  till' ti|>|ianitiiHi(()m>rili(>.|  mill,, 

iil'^t     lllltl     Mi'Conti    I'luilllM    IhllHt    III'   riiiii 

l>in«'il  to  rtVi'i't  the  |ini'|iiiHt<  iiiliii.|,<|. 
Till'  t«vo  lliinjrs  roiiNliluti!  oiii>  Hlh,|, 
invention.     //</(/, 

<l.  The  invention  of  CorlleH  fur  trju 
pill}.;  tifi>/hn/  viilv's,  ami  Itreakiii','  ihc 
kIhu'Iv  of  llie  Wfi^flil  iiMi'il  to  I'JiiM'  Midi 
valve  l»y  eiisliioMinjiC  '•  '••>  im  "<V  nnh 
/(»//,  irt  no  iiilrin^einent  of  SirklcH'  |»!ii. 
eiit.     /f)l,f. 

7.  The  elainis  of  the  patent  ufSiiklis 
of  .May  'JiMli,  IHI'J,  for  re;,Mil:iiiii;;  iho 
elimiii^  of  the  valvert  «»f  Hte!iMi-eiij;iiic., 
ami  prevenliiiK  their  Hlainiiiiii).',  "Iiv 
ineaiis  of  a  water  reservoir,"  ari'iinlin. 
frinj^eil  Ity  the  patent  ol'Corlies  otMiily 
•JlHli,  lH.M,in  whiili  (he  wei;,'li|«i  wliich 
elose  the  valves  are  pi'i'Veiited  iVmii 
sl:iniiiiiii>^  by  beiii;^  eiishioiii'il  mi  :iir. 
Silkies  V.  )'(H(i>i/s,  :i  nialiiif.,  ;iiil,— 
Nki.son,  J.  ;   N.  v.,  lH.'i:». 

H.  The  \vrm  Jlui'ff  in  Sickles'  |i;iliiit 
tiieans  a  Ibiiil  th.'it  is  tant^ihle,  that  an 
be  seen  or  hamlletl  like  water  or  nil, 
and  with  wliich  a  vt'ssel  e.'iii  lie  lilli'il  in 
pari  or  in  whole  at.  the  o|)tioii  nt' tlic 
patentee.  It  does  not  einhraco  air, 
though  the  Wnw  Jlitnl  in  its  j^eiuM'icami 
techiiieal  seieiitilie.  Honse  inchiiii'siiii'aiii! 
the  gast'S.    IbiiLy  .'<02. 


IVMnU  I'LAU  I'ATKNTH. 


%u 


\'m.\  Is  I. II  ii>'*. 

Ihiklm'  r*TKMr, 

L^Htil  S»i>hm>t-r  VAIS,  IHIft, 
A,:,fc,.,.<#.<  .'■'•/''•■"I'w  X'Mh,  IH59. 

I'lii,  |iniiiii    «•»•<   l"<*  »••  "iiit|»rnvi- 

,„,  „,  ill  .'III  ulVvnlvt'H  or«|.'lllll-rli^'illfS  ;'• 

ll^ll^  till wWy  oI'jIii'  iiiviiilinii  «<iii- 


^ovrrtiiii^  llin  lu'linii  III"  \iil\i'  riM-ks*' 
N)i!l|)li'i|  IoIIh'  |tUr|Mm«>i«ui' Wlllt'r-t'|i»M>lH, 

ami  tint  Mill  lint  nl'  ili«)  iiiM'tiiioii  i'nii«iMt< 
ltd  ill  |»rM\iiliit^iiiii|  ii|i|)lv!ii^  II  (jri>\i'iiiiti' 
t«i  fill'  ViiUr  or  \iiKi"*  III"  a  nM-k,  luliipl' 
•mI  til  till'  |iiii'|Mi<«f<i  iifii  walrri'liiMi'lt  •'k'i'M 

liy   wllirki  IImi    Vtllvi'    (^Olllil    llf    IPtuti*    to 

o|M>ii  or  I'loHi'  ^riiiiiiiil!}',  mill  >\liilr  him-ii- 
iii>4  or  I'limiii;^  to  !ii|iint  !i  liniih  il  xii|i|ily 
III'  >Viilfr  til  piiHH  tlii'iiii^li,  iiml  tliiiH 
iiviiiit  tliii  iiiii'«>Knily  III'  i>iii|il)iyiiit;  any 
rUliTii  i>r  n'Hi'rviiir  of  watrr  lirlwi'i'ii 
(III-  |i!ili"'i''«'  ""**'  •'"   po^siliilil)  lit'  <i;'*-|ilii'  iiiiiiii  supply  mnl  li;i"'iii.     'I'Ih'  \iirl;i- 

■'      ■       '■■■'  ''  Ifli- c'liaiuljor  t'liuKl  bu  lilliil  wiili  air  nr 

wali-r. 

/A  A/,  lliiil.    I  III'    pMli'iil   I'ovi-ri'il    iIhi 


|,,„;„^,   Hiih   tliii    lilliii^'    Hull    i»H   i» 

I,,.  ,„,  .it'  .|rl;wliiii«  «!»••  viilvo  ami  al- 
l„^»iiiit  il    III    '•••"IS   i»»"l    *'"    'l<>'viiiK 

I" 


nvor  iViiiii  H""!"'  "''"•'■  I'''"'  "'   •'"'  ''"• 
,,  .v;.x/..»  V.  Ii<>r,l,„,  :i  lllai.lii".,  :.;is.— 

\M.M.N..I.;  N.  v.,  Ih;,«j. 

J,  Till'  iiiiprovt'tiii'iit,  Imwi'ViT,  iIih-h 
ii„l  iitnil  till'  p!il«i»ti'»'  to  ihii  iiiiilinii  or 
Mutttr  ilcrivi'il  rriiiii  tin-  i-c'ii  trie  strap. 
lull  it  iii.i'  1)1'  taki'ii  IVniii  liny  ollirr 
iii„\iii';  pi'i.  <•!'  <•'•'  «'iik'"''«  iiiw'iyH  cx- 
iliiiliiij,'!  I«»**'«'vi'r,  tlio  iiiolidii  iVoiii  till' 

lilUii;:  I'o'l.     Il'til-,  '••'^. 

;i,  Siii'li  iiiili'pi'iiili'iit  inotiiiii  may  Im> 
uvil  t'l  trip  till'  »alvii  ui  (inif  ilrj-iraliK' 
IMiiiit,  at  till!  iliHcri'tioii  of  tlii'  i'ii;^iiu't'r, 
ur  ('oii>lru('loi'.     HiUL,  ti'M), 

4.  'I'll''  rlaiin  in  tlii^  rcissiici]  patriit 
tor  "iiii|i;ii;iii<;  a  ciK'xi.-sliiii^  iiinvrtiiriil 
to  tW(i  n'riprocatini;  ralcli  pici-cs,  in 
till- opi'iatii III  uf  tlu!  trip  nii-oH' valvi'H," 
is  lor  ail  I'lU'ct,  or  fiiiu'lioii,  ami  is  mil 
li;itilit;ilili>.      SicktiS   V.   Tlif    luilU  Co.,   •» 

Dliitilii'.—N'KLHON,  J. ;  Ct.,  1801. 

WaTEK-ClOHKI'    VaLVKS,    GoVKIlXOItB 
FOK. 

BvurnoLoaEw's  Patent. 
hmed  June  'mh,  1854. 

1.  This  patent  was  for  "  a  nicthod  of 


niiiiliiniii^  niicIi  varialilf  rliaiiiliiM*  ami 

valvi'M  II)   llii'   iiiraiiH   h| iliiil,  ho  thai 

l|ii>  varialili*  i-lianilirr,  liy  tli«'  ilinrliar^n 
of  llic  air  111-  wali-r,  or  tin-  ilri.Mtii^  in  of 
air  or  wali-r  mIioiiIiI  control  llin  rloHiii<^ 
of  till'  vaUi',  tlir  valvi'  liiiiiT  si'lt'-rlii>.ii| 
liy  a  Hpr'MLj  or  its  npiivali'iil.  liorllml 
oniitn  V.  tSttwi/cr,  MS.  — I.NiiKimoi.i,,  .1. ; 
N.  v.,  is:. I). 

'2.  Tlu^  olijccl  of  tiio  .  irialili'  cliain- 
lior  is  lo  ri'sisl  ilm  ai'lion  of  I  In-  spriii-^ 
or  wt'i;jlil  llial  i'Iohch  llio  v.ilve,  so  llial 
tliii  closiii';,  i'lslcail  of  la-iiij^  smMrn, 
shall  Ih^  j^iailiial,  to  allow  tliu  rcipiiivil 
How  of  walrr.     J/nd. 


Watkk-Wukixs. 
Pabkkh'h  Patkst. 

h^iied  Ortnhtr  \'Jth,  IH'JD. 
Fatcnded  (ktvber  I'Mh,  1843. 

1.  This  patiuil  was  for  an  "  improve- 
iiii'iil  in  pi'icussioii  a.itl  roat;tion  walcr- 
whecls."  T'Ih!  invi;nlion  consists  not 
only  in  the  comhination,  Imt  in  the  ini- 
provoiiHint  of  sovcral  of  ihu  parts  of 
which  that   combination  is   composed. 


•  -  '>i**»i»t'»( 


'W\.. 


*t. '4s„.  , 


6T» 


rAK'riCFI.AU  TATKNTS. 


WATKH-\VIIIE».UI. 


I*>fi4^ 


'i-^if^. 


-  Z  ''■■* 


Tlic  violalioti  of  one  of  llicin  is  tlicrc- 
fiMt'  ail  ii'lViiiLiniu'iit.  I'urkt'i'  v.  Ho- 
trorf/i,  4  .McLean,  IT  >.  -  M«'I.kan,  •!.; 
111.,  i.-^is. 

'.'.  Tlii*  «'laitn  iiiti-iidi'il  to  hv  iii;i<K>  in 
tills  patont,  is  that  of  the  wIiitI  i-allrd 
the  coinitoiiiiil  vt'i'tical,  |)t'i-(ti>sion,  anti 
iTafti'>n  wlu'i'l ;  (lie  coni'fiitrii'  rvlindt'is 
i"nclosinj;f  tlio  shall,  ami  tlio  iiiamu-r  of 
.su|i|iortin^  thciii ;  and  the  s|K>uts  which 
conduct  the  waicr  to  the  wlu'cl.  /\ir- 
Atv  V.  >y //(.•»,  ."»  McLean,  ;">><.-- Licvvnr, 
J.;  Ohio,  IHU). 

;?.  Iliit  it  docs  not  einhrace  the  ar- 
ran_LCenieiit  of  duplication  of  wheels,  on 
a  hori/.ont:il  rhat\,  as  a  part  of  tlw  iii- 
venli«iii  of  thv- pat'    *ee.     //'/(/.,  .^s,  .Mt. 

•1.  The  coiueiitri  yliiiders  eneloHin^ 
the  8hat\,  and  the  spiral  conductors  for 
leailinu:  the  water  to  the  wheels,  an- 
also  within  the  claims  of  the  patent. 
//*/(/.,  liO. 

5.  The  patentee  claims  to  have  l»een 
the  tiist  to  discoviT,  devise,  and  apply 
to  use,  1.  The  propulsive'  eU'eot  of  cor- 
tical motion  of  'vater  in  a  reaction 
wheel,  operatiiijjj  l»y  its  contrifiij^al 
fore,  .'ind  so  direct eil  by  mechanism  as 
to  operate  in  the  appropriate  direction. 
Pdr/cer  v.  //:<lim\  7  AVest.  Law  .lour., 
4'Jl. — K.vxK,  J. ;  r.i.,  lH4i). 

t>.  And  'J.  The  mechanical  .irran<fc- 
meiits  for  inakiiii;,  <j;uidini:f,  and  conlrol- 
lini;  the  vortical  motitm,  as  sot  forth  in 
their  speoitication,  both  as  new  mechan- 
ical devices,  considered  separately  in 
their  aj^plication  to  these  objects,  and 
as  new  in  their  combination  to  produce 
and  ellectuate,  or  perfect  the  same  ob- 
jects.    IbuL,  42L 

7.  Jfdd,  that  the  mechanical  ar- 
rantjements  and  devices,  separately  or 
in  combination,  are  patentable.  In  re- 
gard to  the  arrangement  of  vertical 
wheels  in  j)airi;  ou  u  Lorizoutal  shaft, 


the  meri«  fact  that  this  w;is  ;i  (hih|i,,.j. 
linn  of  the  single  wlu'el  did  lu.t,  „f  [( 
sell,  inviilidale  the  patent.  Diiplirmi,,,, 
producintx  a  new  and  useful  rcMiii,  mnv 
be  pat»'i;table.  It  is  ofu-n  the  iii;ii,.|j."ii 
part  of  a  discovery,  because  it  iii;,\  j,,, 
that  which  lU'iiders  useful  what  Wiisiii,.. 
vioii-ly  useless.      //»/«/.,  I'Jl. 

H.  /A A/,  alst),  that  tlm  more  pnciiil 
subject  t(f  the  claim — the  pinpulsiv,.  ,.|'. 
feet  of  vortical  niotioi.  of  water  in  ii  re 
aitioii  wheel  operatini^  by  its  cciitriru. 
^\\\  fore*',  and  so  direeli-d  by  merliuiiMn 
as  to  operate  in  a  ]s\\vn  diioclloii— was 
also  . a  valid  subject  of  el.aiin,  niiil  imm 
erly  to  be  secured  by  letters  |iat(iii, 
//'/./.,  4 'J -2. 

U.  Ililtl  as  matters  of  law— 1.  'fjiat 
tlie  letters  patent  vesteil  in  tiic  |i;iii:i. 
tees  an  exclusive  rii;ht  to  coiistnict  mul 
use  inech'Miical  device's,  whet  lit  r  smli 
as  are  dcsciibed  in  their  spccilicalidii, 
or  eepiivalent  therefor,  for  prtMliicini;, 
directing,  and  applyini,',  as  a  iiKiii*^' 
powi'r,  in  reaction  wheels,  the  ceiiliiru. 
gal  force  of  water  revolving  veiticullv 
round  tlie  sliaO,  and  passing  inio  mi,,! 
acting  upon  the  wheels  in  the  diroctldii 
of  their  revolution.     ihUf.,  ^'I'l. 

10.  And 'J.  vV  similar  exclusive  ri^'lit 
to  employ  vortical  reaction  wluris,  Inn- 
ing two  or  more  wheels  arnuigiMJ  in 
pairs  on  the  same  horizontal  sliat't.  Ibid., 
42;i. 

11.  In  Parker  v.  J/idnii\  I'li.,  die 
jury  found  specially  that  the  patciitois 
"  were  the  iirst  to  invent  and  apply  to 
use  two  or  more  reaction  wliccls  ar 
ranged  in  pairs  on  an  horizontal  slnit't." 
Parker  v.  iSeurs,  MS. — Gkikk,  .1.;  Pa., 
1850. 

12.  In  Parker  v.  Stiles,  Ohio,  it  miis 
so  fully  proven  that  the  patentees  wiio 
not  the  first  .••'ventors  of  such  arrange- 
nicnt  that   the  plaiutilTs   adaiitted  the 


.^.W 


'I'l  dill  imt,  111"  it 
(•III.  l)\i|>ru';iliuii, 
US»>rill  It'Mllt,  lll;iv 
ol'icii  the  iiiiUcriiil 
lu'f;uis»'  il  iii;i\  li,. 
loful  wliiU  w;^  |irv. 

llio  www  i;('t\tMal 

-   lIlO  |lltt|llllM\i'  if. 

on  of  wiUi'i'  in  u  rv 
m^  by  it!<  ci'iilririi- 
•I'U'tl  liy  nu'('li,uii>m 
vrn  tliioctiKii — wan 
ot'i'laim,  i\i\il  )iiii|i- 
by  li'Ui'vs   |iuuiit. 

.vs  of  l:i\v— 1.  Thiit 
csh'd  in  tlu-  ii:itt';i- 
x\\i  to  const  nut  and 

^"UH'S,    wlu'tluT    sllcll 

\  tlu'ir  s|n'i'iru!iti(iii, 
('for,  lor  |ifiMliu'iiiu', 
ilyinir,  a«   iv  motive 

Wlu't'ls,  tilt'   Ct'lltlil'll- 

ri'volviiifj;  vorl it-ally 

(1   iiiissini;  into  aii.l 

lo.ols  in  tlu'  iliivctiuii 

Ifntf.,  4-."J. 
nilar  t'xrluMvo  vii^lil 
ri'iu'tion  whirls,  liav- 
wlu'c'ls   ari'iiiiLri'il  in 
.)rizontiilsluit'l.  Uid., 

V.  Jruhnc,  PM.,  ilic 

ly  that  tho  |>!itiMitws 

invent  and  iipl'ly  to 

roaction  whi'i'is  ar 

an  horizontal  sliati." 

Ils^.—Gijini!,  .1. ;  !*«•. 

Stiles,  Ohio,  il  win 
It  the  patoiitet's  were 
jors  of  such  arrange- 
[iutiffs   adiuilted  tlio 


rAKTICUI-AU  rATKNTS. 


570 


WIIKKI.S,    IIOUIZDNTAU 


W0<tI>«nMN|i|N()   MACIt.KK. 


Ilu't  luid  dt'iiit'il  that  the  patent  «'Iaiined 
Il   Ik    niat'liine,  and    the    eonrt    hehl 


fllU 


^tliat  the  |>hiinlilV's  |iatent  did  not 
cliiiin  tlie  dnplicalion  of  w heeJH  on  a 
hori/.onlal  shaCl."'     //'/<A 

1.1.  h\  l*iti'ker  V.  /•'ii'i/KSoii,  X.  Y., 
ill,,  court  instrneted  tlie  jury  the  wheel 
,!iiined  was  "one  eonstrneted  by  plne- 


iiiiT  two    o 


nn)re  ol'   the  wheelH  on  a 


liori/.ontal  Nliaft,  vith  the  iinnT  and 
,, liter  cylinders  supplied  with  watt.T  by 
:i  spiral  spout."     //»/«/. 

11.  This  p.atent  is  not  tor  the  vertical 
or  horizontal  arran,^jeinenl  of  the  wheels 
iihoii  tlu^  shaft,  or  tlie  pnttin;r  them  in 
ii.iirs;  neither  does  it  embrace  as  a  »lis- 
tiiu't  discovery,  the  eoiu'eiitrit^  cylinder 
t'lU'Iosiiifi  thi>  sh.ill,  nor  the  spout,  the 
ff\[v,  the  otiter  cylinder,  or  the  buckets 
(III  llie  wheel.  W'inttrmuto.  v.  liafliig- 
?o«,  MS.— Wilson,  .1.;  Ohio,  !s.-,o. 

IT).  'I'he  purpose  or  aim  is  to  (d)tain 
!iii  iiu-reaso  of  power  with  u  ^ivee  «(nan- 
tily  of  water;  and  tin*  soisret  of  the  in- 
vention of  the  wheel  is  the  vo'.lical  mo- 
tion of  the  water  on  the  wheel,  which 
(iperates  .as  a  eoeflicient  to  the  reactive 
'power  of  the  water  in  the  buektJts. 
Ihkl 

10.  The  essence  of  the  Mivention  is, 
tlie  proibieinjjf  a  vortical  nuttion  (»n  a 
miction  wheel,  in  the  line  of  its  motion, 
aiul  t!io.  iiivontiou  t)f  protbiein^  a  vor- 
lieat  nioti'.m  upon  a  p^trcussion  or  im- 
paet  waler-w'heol,  is  not  within  i!;e 
elaim.    Ibid. 


Wheels,  IIomzoirrAL,  fob  Boats. 

Isaacs'  Patknt. 
Issued  November  11th,  1819. 

7.hc  patent  was  for  "  an  iinproveiuont 
on  the   horizontal   circuUvr    plauo    or 


wheel,"  invented  by  the  patentee  Ibrlho 
purpose  of  j^aiiiinu'  power  by  appiyiiijj; 
animal  w  cii^d'l  to  the  propellim;  ot'  bo;iis 
on  water,  or  to  machinery  on  land  ;  but 
it  was  not  stated  what  was  the  nature 
iif  the  invention  upon  which  il  was  a!- 
let^ed  to  bo  an  iniprovt>ment,  nor  wheth- 
er patented  or  liul. 

//(/</,  that  the  n.iliire  of  the  improve- 
ment was  altogether  nnintclli;:;iblc,  nnd 
the   patent   void.      In<nicn  v.  Oon/wr,    t 


ISll. 


Wi 


1  s-j  I . 


'.n. 


itil.— NVasiiivuton,    J. 


WooK  IJi'.Ni>iN<;  Maciiink. 

Mouiiis'    I'atknt. 
Issued  MiircU  1  \l/i,   1850. 

1.  This  patent  was  for  an  "improved 
method  of  bending  wood,"  iiiwl  the  im- 
pntvement  was  for  workinj;  the  leviM'H 
that  bent  the  wood, on  "fixed  fulerums," 
to  prevent  the  wood  twist iiii^  while 
bciiiL;  b(!nt,  and  also  in  attaehiiii;  clamps 
to  the  levers,  which  should  abut  aj^.'iinst 
till!  end  of  lh(i  wood,  thus  npsettinj^  tlio 
libre  and  preventiiii^  bre.'ikaL^e  nn  tho 
ontsid<M)f  lh((  «Mirve,  and  the  cl;iiiii  was, 
1st,  Ibr  the  chimps,  to  prevent  end  ex- 
pansion; and  2d,  the  levt'is  w()rkin<j 
on  lixed  fulenims,  for  tho  jMirposes  set 
forth. 

J/ilif,  that  the  elaim  was  not  (or  a 
combination,  but  for  two  distinct  im- 
provements in  the  art  of  bendinij  wood, 
and  that  the  nsci  of  both  or  either  was 
an  infrin«,'ement.  Morris  v.  .li<irrelt, 
MS.— LiCAvriT,  J. ;  Ohio,  IH.IH. 

2.  Jlcld  also,  that  the  use  of  radiat- 
iijf?  arms  with  rollers  for  the  plaint ifF's 
fulerums,  and  clamps  permitting  a  par- 
tial  relaxation,  was  an  infringement  on 
the  patent.    Jbid. 


K 


fe^f 


,  .\^m 


f^^>> 


It;.-' 


^-^ 


"  i( 


^vt^ 


PATKNIKI)    MMICI.KS,  OK   MAilllM.S.   A. 


Htlilir  or  I'l'UI'lUHKIM  TO   I'HK,    UII'Allt,    KIC. 


I'ATKN  TKh    AIMUI.KS    OlJ    MA 
CIIINKS. 

A.  Unnir  or  I'l  HniAHKus  it*  i  »k,  mirAtH, 

A.> ft7rt 

II.  riioiuris  OK,  IJuiiir  ro  si'i.i,  am>  i  sk  TiSO 

A,     Kit. 11  r   or    Pi  lit  iiAsKHs   to  i;hk, 

IJIIVVIK,    A,i'. 

I.  ir  oiu'  \\:\H  !i  liLvIil  to  !i  iniu'liiiic. 
;»ii«l  (o  ill.'  iiM'  «>1'  it.  Iii>  li;is  a  riiilil  lu 
work  i(  Iiiiiisfir,  or  liv  liis  servants,  or 
to  Irasi<  ij  out  loaiiN  oiIht  |tt'rsoii.  A^/^ 
</in\.  h'<i)ioiir,'<,  1  Wasli.,  UKS.  -  AVAsii- 
iSMiioN,  .1.;  I'a.,  1H()4. 

'J.  Tlic  power  ol"  ("oiiiiTesH  is  only  to 
aseertain  unil  ileline  tlio  rinlils  of  |»ro|i 
ovty  in  the  inv<'nlion  or  work  ;  it  does 
not  exlt'ml  to  re^iilalinu'  tlie  »ts«>  ol"  it. 
This  is  exelnsively  of  loeal  e»>u;ni/,anet>. 
^^lleh  property,  like  every  other  spceies 
of  propi-rty.  unisl  he  used  and  enii>yed 
within  eaeh  stale  aeeordiny;  to  the  laws 
ot' such  slate.  l/ii'inifK(iin  \.  \'iin  In- 
(/(»,'^  .l«)hn,  r)Sl.— Kknt,  (.'h.  .1.;  N. 
Y.,  lSf2. 

;i.  The  sale  ol*  a  |>atented  maehine 
by  a  sheritV,  (iinU'r  an  execution,  does 
not  in  and  of  itself  eoiivey  to  the  pur- 
ehasei  any  ritrht  to  use  the  inn«-hine  in 
the  manner  )>oinfed  out  in  the  ])ateut- 
right.  Thi>  purchaser  aets  at  his  own 
peril,  ^'>lllri/^  v.  (iiii/J,  1  (.Jail.,  487. — 
Stokv,  J.;  Mass.,  \SIA. 

■I.  To  entitle  a  purehas(»r  of  a  maehine 
to  the  bi«netitsol5;  ';  of  the  aet  of  IS:?!), 
he  must  l>e  oiu'  who  has  usi>d  the  inven- 
tion before  the  application  lor  a  patent 
by  license  I'vom  the  inventor  liimself, 
and  not  a  fraudulent  puroliasor,  or  a 
jMU'ch.'iser  from  a  \vron<r<loer,  without 
the  knowledifo  or  against  the  will  of  the 
inventor.     I\o'son  v.  Ua^/lc  Sci'Cto  Co., 


l\  Story,   10(1,   107.     Srouv,  .1.;   );    | 

IHIJ. 

it.  I'nder  }}  IM  of  the  act  uj'  is.;,^ 
those  who  aie  in  the  use  of  |||,.  i,,,, 
onted  article  at  the  lime  cf  the  r<'iii>^v;il 
ar«>  enlilled  to  the  iteiielit  of  u  l'ciit>W:il 
of  a  p:itenl,  :u\d  such  persons  lia\,.  ||„, 
right  to  continue  to  use,  durimj  m,,,|, 
evteiiNion,  the  machines  held  hy  tlion, 
at  the  lim«'t)f  Hueh  renewal  "in  thnv 
lent  of  their  interests,"  he  thai  inicnM 
in  one  or  more  maehiiu's.  W'llno,!  \ 
h'ossuin,  i  Ilow..  (IS'2,  vlSU. — Nici.N(.\ 
.1.  ;  Sup.  ("t.,  IH»5. 

(».  The  rij^ht  to  ii,w  a  maehiiu.  to  1„ 
eonstrucled  according  to  a  eerl.iin  (.p,.^ 
ilic.'ition,  involves  ihe  right  ^^  imi/:,,,, 
e:nise  to  he  made,  the  machine  llius  | ,.; 
milted  to  he  \iscd.  W'itix/irorf/i  \,  c^j. 
//.>.', 'J  Wood.  A-  Mill.,  i't'Jd.  W'o.'inu  1.'. 
.1.;  Mass.,  IS  17. 

7.  In  respect  lo  Hoiiie  patents,  ij 
right  lo  make,  vend,  or  use,  in.iv  li, 
scparatcil.  Thi>  eireunisl:mees,  iiiitin, 
and  words  of  each  grant  must  (jcci,!, 
theeonstruction  which  is  just  and  Icl;;!] 
I/tid.,  n'2(\. 

S.  Where  .\  o\vn(>d  the  riglil  lo  x 
invcnlion  -\Vo(idw(U'lh's  plaiiinjr  iii:i 
chine  for  a  certain  district,  aiidcii; 
vey«>d  to  |{  the  authority  to  iixc  hd, 
machine  in  that  district,  J/d</,  tlial  ]'< 
t'oulil  build  as  well  as  use  such  niMcliiin, 
ami  that  h«>  might  build  and  useaiKiili, 
instead  of  it,  but  not  both  at  oiicliiiii. 

Jf>iil.,  r)'20,  rvj7. 

1).  The  right  or  license  to  use  d;, 
machine  during  tlu>  term  of  the  p.iUiii, 
does  not  mean  any  i)artieular  iiiinhiih 
then  Hold,  but  has  reference  to  «li;i 
must  be  considered  tine  niaehiiic  in  nun; 
ber  at  one  lime.  A  second  inacliii, 
may  therefore  be  run  if  the  liist  oiu 
wears  out,  or  i.s  destroyed  by  liiv,o: 
is  eoiistructcd   erroneously,  or  is  Jii- 


■w;^ 


^ 


A. 


Sroiu,  .I.J   K.  1, 
r  \\w   'M'\    of  ls:i,; 

lU'     MHO      «>r        |1\1'      |r|l 

illli'  I'l"  tlH>  n'llrv\;i!, 

l'l\t>lil    of    !l    KMIC^V;)!, 

Il  juTNons  li;i\('  il , 

11     USt>,    tluiilllj   SMcl; 

lilies  Ill-Ill  liy  tlicm 
rciu'Wiil  "  to  iIkm  \- 
Is,"  lu«  llial  iiilcr.s; 
fliiiii's.  ir//.i(),(  \ 
OHV!,  »'•«;«. — Ni.:iMi\, 

186  a  umvliii\i'  ft»  Ik 
\t\yr  to  a  oorlaiiiKinv 
lu>  right  /<»  iiiiil:i,  m 
lie  niju'liiiii'  |Ih^h> 

».,  O'JtI.        WocDlU  1,'., 
)     HDlllC      ItJlli'llls,  ill, 

ikI,  or    nsi<,  iiiny  In 

ircuniHlaiKH's,  n:iiuv., 

i;;i':ili(    liiilsl    tlriii 

licli  is  just  aiiil  Ir;^:,; 

iM'd  tlu'  riglil  to  ;i! 
ortli's     |il!Uiiii,if  iii;i 

liiii   district,  mwl  c. ,; 

luilliority  to  use  in 
istriot,  .//(/(/,  I  lull  1' 
as  \iso  Hiicl',  macliiiu', 

llmild  and  use  aiidllu 

liot,  liolli  at  one  iiiiu\ 

Tu'i'iiso   (o  use  (In 

L<  tlTin  of  till'  I'MlCllI. 

ly  jiartitMilar  iiuuhiiii 
lis   rt'l'iTiMicf  to  y\\n: 
oii«>ma*'Iiiii*iiniiiir,- 
A   second  iiiat'liiiii 
I  run   if  ll»c  liist  oiio 
|dcstroyod  l)y  lii'^^ 
roneously,  or  is  dis- 


i'AriN  ri.i>  Airni'i.Ks,  ou  maciunks,  a. 


mi 


UKMII    nr  PIMtOMAHHRN  Tt)  VHt,    lUrAIII.    XTO. 


udt'tl  cnlii't'ly  lor  want  oCit'iiair.     //)»'</., 

10.  Tlic  right  to  nsc  such  a  machine 
liiii\  he  .■e»-i)IMed  to  a  lliiiil  perxoii.  .\ 
inni'hin»'  and  a  right  to  use  it  i><  pergonal 
fivo|)(<ily  rather  th.ni  a  mere  |ialenl- 
liijlil,  and  has  all  the  in«<idents  nl"  )ier 
Hoiial  propeity,  m.aking  it  snhjeel  to 
iiiiHH  l>v  sale.      /A/(/..  A'j;. 

(I.  Iiider  U    l.s  .if  (he   a.-i    of  I  s;l(l, 
the  ti'^c  ot'  such  a  machine  m!i\  he  con 
linacii,  notwithstanding   the   extension 
(it' (lie  |iitent,  until   it    is   worn  out,   nr 
(li>st resell.      /A/W.,  e'2.S. 

IJ.   Tiie  assigiuu's  and  jxraniecs  li.av 
iiiir  such  right  to  nsc,  .are  (hose  holding 
;'i:il  light  !>t  the  time  of  the  renewal  of 
tli(<  patent.      /A/7.,  .^:n». 

l;l.  Their  right  is  not,  however,  a 
mere  pcVMCvil  priviloge,  luil  a  right  ol' 
la-epcrly  in  and  attached  (o  the  machine 
iiv<(>(I.  when  i(  is  the  last  one  used  at  the 
liiiic  tlic  (enii  expires.      /f>ii/.,  TiMO. 

11.  The  machine  and  tlu'  right  at- 
taclu'tl  to  it  may  pass  l»y  nale,  devise, 
or  lew  of  <'xeen(ion,  or  assignmen(  of 
;(n  iiisdivcnt's  elVeets.      /hii/.,  5.'!0. 

1.5.  'I'lic  right  to  use  a  maehine  cannot 
1)1' made  to  dcncnd  upon  or  lu>  alVect«'tl 
livtlio  factof'tlu'  sidcofone  m.'ichine  or 
llicpmvhasc  of  another.  VVIn<re,  (hore- 
I'dic,  aparly  had  the  right  to  use  one  ma- 
cliiiu',  his  right  w.as not  alVcctedhy  selling 
that  particular  ma(^him>  an*i  purchasing 
iiiuitlicr.  ]\lf.iini  V.  f^tolli'j/,  4  McFii-an, 
•J".~McI<icAN,  J.;  Ohio,  IH17. 

1(1.  A  license  to  use  oiu'  machine  will 
.ilw.'iys  he  construed  to  run  :i  m.'ichine, 
wliollicr  (he  |)arlicnlar  one  existing  jil 
till'  tiiiic  of  the  license  or  not,  tmless  (he 
liiTiisi'  in  express  terms  is  limited  to 
Olio  idonticul  nuichiiio.     If>i(f.,  2V8. 

17.  The  sale  of  a  patented  ma(diin«> 
ilocs  not  necessarily  carry  the  right  to 
iisc  it.    A  8ale  by  tl»e  patentee  gives  an 

a7 


implied  right  of  use ;  hut  sueh  an  infer- 
ence does  not  necessarilv  follow  where 
the  M.ale  nl'  the  machine  is  made  hy  one 
who  has  no  exclusive  right.  Iml  only  a 
licen>.e  to  use.      /Am/.,  •JV.'^. 

IM.  I'nder  (he  rule  laid  down  in  UV/- 
Knii  \,  /min.<i«<»)/,  4  I  low.,  (un,  |;<^.^, 
where  (he  material  of  a  eoiiihiiiatioii 
ce.ises  to  exist,  in  whatever  w.iy  that 
may  occur,  the  right  to  renew  dcpeinis 
upon  (he  right  to  niaKe  the  invention. 
If  the  right  (o  make  does  not  exist, 
there  i'l  no  right  to  lelniild.  ]\'i/s,i»  \. 
SJin/>.s<»t,  !»  How.,  I'j;i.  AVavni;,  .1.  • 
Sup.  ('!.,  IH41>. 

in.  lint  i(  does  not  follow,  when  one 
iA'  the  elements  of  the  ciuiiliination  liaH 
iMM'uine  HO  much  wiun  as  lo  he  inopera- 
tive, or  has  heen  Itroken,  that  lln>  ma 
chine  no  longer  exists  for  restoration  to 
its  original  use,  liy  the  owner  who  has 
hoiight  its  use.  Wlieii  the  wearing  oi 
injury  is  parli.al,  then  repair  is  resto 
ratiiui   and   not    reccuiHtriiction.    /AA/., 

'JO.  Uepairing  partial  injuricH,  whelh 
er  they  occur  from  uccident  or  wear,  is 
only  refitting  u  maehine  for  use.  And 
it  is  no  imn-e  than  tha(,  though  it  shall 
he  a  rephicement  of  an  essendal  part  of 
a  coniliination.      /A/i/.,  I'jii. 

'21.  Hut  if  a  patenled  m.'ichine  as  a 
whole  Hhoiild  happen  (o  he  hroken,  no 
that  itH  partH  could  not  he  readjusted, 
or  be  HO  much  worn  as  to  be  uscIckh, 
a  purchaser  eannot  m.'ike  or  replace  it 
by  another,  but  must  buy  n  mnv  one. 
The  doing  of  either  would  b(>  ii  reeon- 
Nt ruction.     Jhhf.^  I '2 1. 

'12.  If,  however,  it  is  a  part  of  an 
(U'iginal  combination,  essential  to  its  use, 
then  the  right  to  rejtair  and  replaci!  oo- 
eurs.     Thiil.^  124. 

2."l.  The  right  to  replace  the  cutters 
in  Wood  worth's  planing  maoliine  is  n 


''^tfl  ■  ^ 


«.. 


.  ;?^M^ 


v  %■ 


i 


^m  i 


u 


..■»»■:■    --yuiiii**! 


578 


I'ATKNTKI)  AUTICLKS,  OR  MACIIINKS,  A. 


4 


Hiaiir  or  ■■uiit'iUHKiiH  ru  i  hk,  kki'aiu,  kiu 


1' 


.       f 


"**Ww, 


KM 

i 

jmrt  of  tho  iiivt'udoii  tniii^frrriMl  to  an 
as(<ij;iif»>,  as  tint  use  of  tlu'  macIiiiH'  df- 
pi'iids  upon  llu'  ri'|il;u'i'iu"iit  of  Hiuli 
ciittorH,  art  u  niachiiio  will  hiMt  Hi'vonil 
yc>ars,  whereas  iho  ciitti'i'M  must  bt(  n-- 
j>Iart'(I    I'vi'iy    Nixty    «>r    uiuoty    days. 

24.  Aiul  an  assij^iu'c  <if  a  riji^lit  to  use 
Huch  a  plauin^  niacliiiu',  who  has,  uiuloi' 
the  decision  in  MlLnon  v.  JfonKcaii,  4 
How.,  U4(l,  the  riiclit  to  cduliuue  the 
use  of  a  i)ar(icular  inaehiue  alter  the 
extension  of  the  patent,  may  rephiee 
the  knives  or  cutters  wiien  worn  out, 
wilhout  destroyiu}^  tlu'  ith-iilily  of  tlu- 
niaeliiiu' ;  the  rijjfht  to  replace  is  a  part 
of  the  iiuention  transferreil.  JOid., 
125,120. 

25.  A  replacement  of  temporary  parts 
does  not  alter  the  identity  of  anuichine, 
but  preserves  it,  thou<>;h  there  may  not 
bo  in  it  every  part  of  its  original  mate- 
tial.     Ibid.,  120. 

2(i.  Under  $^  18  of  the  act  of  18;U5,  as 

•onstriied   by   the   Supremo   Court   in 

^yiIson  v.  JiosseKu,  i  How.,  082,  a  li- 

junsee  may  continue  to  use  an  invention 

ictually  in  use  by  him  at  the  time  of  an 

•-'xM elision,  iluriiig  the  term  of  such  ex- 

(Ciision  ;  but  no  such  right  exists  under 

an  extension  by  act  of  Ctmgress,  unle.  s 

e{)ecially  jirovided    for.       JJloonicr  v. 

Stolky,  5  jNLcLeaii,  103. — McLean,  J.; 

(Jhio,  1850. 

27.  Contracts  in  relation  to  a  patent- 
ed machine  or  implement  are  regulated 
by  tho  laws  of  the  several  states,  and 
are  subject  to  state  jurisdiction.  Wilson 
y.  Sandford,  10  IIow.,  09.— Tanky,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

28.  The  right  to  make  a  machine  is 
distinct  from  that  of  using  it. — Bicknell 
■v.  Todd,  5  McLean,  238. — McLeax,  J.; 
Ohio,  1851. 

29.  The  right  to  use  implies  a  right 


I 

to  repair,  but  not  to  ciinstruct.  It  also 
implies  a  right  to  (nn'ch.ise  when  tin, 
one  in  u.>o  is  worn  out  or  desiiuyod. 
Ibid.,  'I'M). 

ao.  The  purchase  of  an  impliiniiii  nr 
nuiehine  for  tlu;  purpose  of  iim>  in  ||„, 
ordinary  pursuits  of  life,  does  not  1,,,. 
«'ome  possesseil  of  a  portion  of  tin- IVmii- 
chise  or  monopoly  conferred  by  the  pat- 
ent, derivt'd  IVom  and  under  the  I'liit.  ,1 
States,  ami  w  liirh  is  the  rigli!  loexdii,!,. 
t!very  one  iVoui  making,  using,  m-  vend- 
ing the  thing  patt-nted.  Hlotmur  \. 
.yr(^iicw(in,  14  IIow.,  541).— Taxkv 
Ch.  .1.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

31.  Such  a  purchaser,  in  using  {\\^' 
thing  purchased,  exercises  no  right  cdii- 
ferred  by  the  acts  ofC'ongress,  nor  dins 
he  derive  title  t«)  it  by  virtue  of  tlu. 
franchise  gr-mted  to  the  patentee;  wluii 
the  machine  passes  into  his  hands,  it  i> 
lu)  longer  within  the  limits  of  the  mo- 
nopoly, or  under  the  protection  of  the 
act  of  Congress.      //>/{/.,  540. 

32.  If  his  right  to  it  is  iiifriiigol,  ho 
must  seek  redress  in  the  courts  of  tho 
state,  and  according  to  its  laws,  and  not 
in  the  courts  of  tho  United  States,  or 
under  the  acts  of  Congress.  Tlio  im- 
plement becomes  his  private  proporty, 
not  protected  by  tho  laws  of  the  United 
States,  but  by  those  of  the  state  in  which 
it  is  situated.     Ibid.,  540,  550. 

33.  Like  other  individual  ]tropirty, 
it  is  then  subject  to  state  taxation. 
Ibid.,  550. 

34.  The  value  of  the  implement  or 
machine  in  the  hands  of  a  j)iiicliaMri:M' 
use  does  not  depend  on  the  time  I'ur 
which  tho  e.vclusive  possession  is giaiii- 
ed  to  the  patentee,  nor  upon  the  exelii- 
sion  of  others  from  its  use.  He  does 
not  look  to  the  duration  of  tho  exeiii- 
sive  privilege,  but  to  the  usofiiliie.ss  of 
the  thing  he  buys,  and  the  ailvautagefl 


rATLNTEl)  AUTICLKS,  Oil  MACHINES,  A. 


679 


HKIIIT  or  I'lIltCIIAHKM  TO  UM,   MPAIR,   KW. 


nu-t.  It  nliio 
ISO  wlu'ii  tlio 
t>r  «K'HtroyiMl. 

iiii|iK'ii)('i\t  (ir 
of  UM'  in  till' 

<lo«'s  not  lu'- 
oii  of  the  iVaii- 
\\'i\  hy  tlu'  yM- 
ilt'i'  tlu'  I 'nit  I'll 
ijflit  to  twclmlc 
usiii!^,  or  vi'iitl- 
JiliKumr  V. 

540.— 'l-AXKY, 

,  in  usini,'  tlie 
I'S  tio  rij^iit  con- 
igri'ss,  nor  dois 
'  virtiit'  of  tlu' 
[)!iti'uU'o ;  wlu'ii 
his  hands,  it  i> 
nils  of  tho  mo- 
rot*'(ition  of  lliu 

is  infrin;^oil,  he 
ic  courts  of  the 
ts  liiWH,  luul  not 
litod  Stiitos,  or 
j;ross.    Tho  iiii- 
rivuto  jtroporly, 
vs  of  the  Uiihc'ti 
10  Htatoiiiwliicb 
H),  550. 
iilual  proptTty, 
Htato    taxation. 

c  imidcini'Mt  it 

'  a  purchaser  for 

Ion  tlu'  lime  fill" 

l^scssion  is  irraut- 

npon  the  exehi- 

1180.    n«  tloesi 

Ion  of  the  exchi- 

lie  iisofuhiess  of 

the  ailvautugea 


he  will   tlcrivo    iVoni    its   nso,       Ifn'd., 

SoO. 

H5.  Vn<lcr  tho  <locisioii  of  Wilmm  v. 
liih-^i^nni,  \  I  low.,  OHS,  lino  in  tho  hiw- 
fiil  use  and  ownorship  of  a  |iat<  iitcil 
machine,  under  ii  purchase  niaih<  (InrinLT 
the  ori|,'in:il  torni  of  tln«  paleiit,  may 
c'diiliiiue  to  use  such  a  niacliine  durini; 
an  I'xtensioi'  -iC  ilie  patent,  under  llie 
provision.^  of  8  ^^  •'•'  the  act  of  ls;»il, 
and  is  also  cntitk'd,  wiliiiii  tho  spirit 
and  intention  of  «tho  patent  laws,  to 
(Miiitinuc  to  use  such  machine  during  an 
•it'ior  exteiisi<ni  nnide  Ity  special  act  of 
l'onj;ress,  unless  there  is  soniethinj^  in 
flic  hnii?uaj;o  (»f  tho  act  roipiirinj^  u  dif- 
ferent citnstniction.      /fii'd. 

;(((.  Where  a  patentee  uikUt  his  ori- 
L'iiial  patent,  prior  to  tho  comtncMico- 
iiient  of  an  extended  term,  had  sold  u 
iiiMchine  made  hy  hiinsolf  umler  his  pat- 
ent, I/ilif,  tlnvt  tho  vendee  had  a  rij^Iit 
to  continue  to  use  such  machino  diirinf^ 
tho  extended  term :  and  th.at  this  rij^ht 
existed,  though  such  oxtensioii  was  hy 
stpecial  act  of  ('ongross,  without  any 
saving  clause  in  favor  of  assignees,  or 
of  persons  who  had  accpiirod  rights  un- 
der the  previous  term  of  tho  patent. 
Illanchurd  v.  W/tilitei/,  ;}  Blatehf.,  ;JOt).— 
Nklson,  J. ;  Ct.,  1855. 

37.  There  is  a  nianifost  distinctioti 
helweon  a  case  wlmro  tlio  title  to  a  ma- 
chino is  derived  from  a  person  who  li.as 
purchased  simidy  a  right  or  license  to 
mainifacture  it  under  the  patent,  ami  a 
ease  whore  the  purchase  of  the  article 
is  made  directly  from  the  patentee.  In 
one  case  tho  patentee  h;is  jiarted  only 
with  his  interest  in  tlic  term  ot"  the 
patent,  which  is  limited :  in  the  other, 
he  has  sold  tho  madiino  itself,  with  all 
the  rights  .appertaining  to  his  title  as 
vendor;  and  cf  course  without  any  limita- 
tion of  its  use  v->t  enjoyment.     Ibid.,  300. 


.MM.  ruder  tho  pn)visionH  »f  ^  in  of 
the  act  of  18:<G,  an  assignee  or  person 
in  use  (d'  tho  invention  at  tho  time  of 
the  expiration  <d"  the  original  piiteiit,  has 
a  right  to  continue,  under  an  extension 
of  HUeli  pati'ut,  the  use  of  "tho  thing 
patented,"  whether  the  |>atent  ho  for  !i 
process,  and  a  machino  to  hit  used  in 
sindi  process — or  for  a  proci'ss  :ilone — 
or  for  a  machine  alone,  and  whether  tint 
identical  machinery  in  use  hy  such  pi<r- 
son  under  the  extended  patent  was  or 
was  not  in  existence  prior  ti»  the  re- 
newal of  the  patent,  /hii/  v.  I'tiioii 
Rnh.  Co.,  :\  rdiitdi.,  4»,  504.— IIai.i,,  J.; 
N.  v.,  |H5«. 

;<0.  Where  at  the  expiration  of  the 
original  term  of  {\n>  patent,  A  had  a 
right  to  use  the  patented  itivention  for 
the  manufacture  of  certain  articles,  and 
continued,  during  an  extension  of  tho 
patent  granted  under  J^  IH  (d'tlic  act  of 
IHiiO,  the  use  of  the  invention  to  the  ex- 
tent he  was  entitled  at  the  time  the  orig- 
inal expired,  /fuld,  that  A  had  tho  right 
to  continue  such  use  during  the  extended 
patent  as  against  15,  an  assignee  of  tho 
original  patentee,     fhitf.,  407. 

40.  The  language  of  g  1 8  of  the  act  of 
iHltti,  as  to  the  rights  of  assignees  .and 
grantees  of  an  original  patent,  under  an 
extended  term  thereof,  is  hroad  enough 
to  cover  and  protect,  and  was  intended 
to  cover  and  protect,  the  right  to  use 
the  patented  invention  during  the  ex- 
tension, whether  such  right  arose  from 
a  direct  assignment  or  grant  (from  the 
patentee)  of  a  limited  or  unlimited  right 
to  use,  or  from  tho  purchase  of  the  ma- 
chine.    Ihid.,  497. 

41.  The  sale  of  a  machine,  .and  the 
right  to  use  a  patented  article  with  it, 
imports  a  license  to  use  the  article  j/at- 
ented :  aiul  such  license  is  not  within 
tlie  provisions  of  §  1 1  of  the  act  of  1 830, 


■.iv^'N*?;! 


''^/ ' 


""5V 


^Ui 


^Lm^kmA^^t 


"S**— * 


*'^tr'k^>  ij,?!} 


«■'   ^^^iia^'i 


fido 


TATKNTEI)  AKTK  LKS,  OH  iMACIIINKS,  U. 


■:^i'^y 


'**  ^ 


r 


'rCr 


■*»«.  u 


t'HOIMi'lS  (IK,    HIOIIT  TO  IILL  AND  UM. 


wliioli  ictiiiiif  !iu  :i.s,Mi^Miiu>nl  or  j^nuit 
«<)  1(0  ill  writiii;;.  Huhh  v,  Putin y,  11 
Mo.  I,a\v  Kop.,  (IH7.—  .1.;   N. 

II.,    IH.-)H. 

■1'-'.  When  a  palcnliMl  mafliiiic  lij^lil- 
t'lilP'  passes  to  tilt'  liaiiils  of  a  imrcli.'isci- 
iVo.ri  tlu'  patfiitfi',  or  any  lu'rsoii  aii- 
tlioi'i/,c(l  to  fonv(-y  it,  such  iiiacliiiii'  in 
no  loii^t'i'  witiiiii  tilt'  monopoly,  or  iiii- 
iUt  the  peculiar  protection  granted  to 
patented  rights:  it  is  no  lon;j;er  pm- 
tectetl  l)y  tlio  laWM  of  the  Ignited  States, 
Init  liy  the  laws  of  the  stati>  in  which  it 
is  situated.  C/ioJ'ir  v.  lioxton  /liK.Co,, 
'JJ  How.,  'JLi;i.— Clu-koiu),  J. ;  Sup.  (,'(,., 
ls.5i). 

•t;t.  l^y  :v  valid  sale  and  i»urohas(',  the 
jialcnted  !na<"liine  liecoinc.s  the  private 
individu.al  property  •>!'  the  purchaser, 
and  it  is  no  lon<;er  jiroti'oted  hy  the 
laws  of  the  United  States,  hut  hy  the 
laws  of  the  state  in  which  it  is  sitnatc*!. 

44.  The  perHon  actpiirinjjf  title  may 
continue  to  use  the  machine  until  worn 
out,  or  may  rep.iir  it,  or  improve  it,  in 
the  same  manner  as  if  dealim^  with 
j>roperty  of  any  other  kind.     J  f>l(f.,  2'J.'l. 

45.  The  fact  that  certain  machines 
were  a  j>atentcd  article  cannot  aflect  a 
contract  of  insurance  .lujainst  loss  by 
fire,  to  measure  the  dama<j;es  by  its 
value  when  the  loss  occurred.  AVhat 
they  were  worth,  patented  or  unpat- 
ented, is  the  measure  of  their  value. 
Com.  l/is.  Co.  v.  ^Scnnett,  37  Pemi.,  209. 

— TnuMi'Sox,  J.;  l*a.,  1800. 


th«>    machine,    upon   wliich 
/I'l/ilioi/er    V.    JJc     Vuniitf,    10 


B.    Pkoducts  of,  Right  to  sell  and 

USB. 

1.  A  contract  to  buy  all  the  product 
of  a  patented  machine,  during  a  certain 
j>eriod,  does  not  render  the  purchaser 
liable  to  an  action  of  infringement  for 


the  iisi 
made. 

Whe.lt.,    ;»(ll. —  WahIIIN(1To.N,   J.;   Sill 

Ct.,  ihj:.. 

'2.  Ollierwise,  if  such  contnicl  is  (mlv 
a  colorable  purchase  of  the  proilnct^ 
but  is  ill  re;ility  a  hiring;  of  the  iiiacliiiic. 
/A/(/.,  ;i(tl. 

.'I.  Articles  manufactured  underapni. 
ei.t  may  be  sold  at  any  and  every  plate, 
i»y  any  one  who  hsis  ]>iircliaseil  furspcf. 
Illation  or  otherwise.  The  patent  j.iw 
protects  the  thiiifj;  palentetl  ami  nut  ijn' 
prothicts.  liiiydw  /Iroirn,  .'t  .Mcbcm 
•jm>.— M(  I.KAN,  .1.;  Ohio,  lH4;i. 

4.  The  rijjht  of  an  assiHr|i,.(.  ,,f  a  |,;i(. 
out  ri.Ljhl,  for  a  particiil.ar  di>tric|,  is  iiui, 
infriii;,'ed  upon  hy  the  sale  within  mkI, 
tlistrict,  of  the  proiluct  of  the  kuw 
pateiit-riixht,  manufactured  by  a  party 
lioltlinj;  an  interest  in  the  same  piilciit 
ill  :motlier  district.     Iftiii.,  2i)(i. 

5.  Whether,  if  the  manufacturer  in 
the  second  district  was  actually  eiij^'aijcd 
in  selliiifT  hucIi  articles  within  tlie  (lis. 
trict  held  by  the  other,  it  would  not  Im' 
a  violation  of  the  rit^ht,  of  such  otlior 
person  ;  tjuery.     If/id.,  206. 

0.  The  exclusive  grant  in  a  p.ateiit  is 
the  construction  and  use  of  the  tliiiii,' 
p.atented.  The  patent  law  i)rote(ts  tlio 
thing  patented,  and  not  tlie  product. 
Iftid.,  2i)7. 

7.  The  sale  of  a  thing  nianufaduroil 
by  a  patented  machine,  is  no  violation 
of  the  exclusive  right  to  use,  construct, 
or  sell,  the  machine  itself.  The  product 
cannot  be  reached  except  in  the  liands 
of  some  one  in  some  manner  eoniit'cted 
with  the  use  of  the  patented  niacliiiic. 
Hoyd  v.  McAlpine,  3  McLean,  429.— 
McLkax,  J. ;  Ohio,  1844. 

8.  But  if  the  sale  of  the  product  is  I)y 
some  one  connected  Avith  the  illojral  use 
of  the   machine,   he  is  responsible  in 


PATKNTKl)  AliTULKS,  oil  MACllINKS,  IJ. 


in 


PRonuoTS  or,  Motrr  to  siti.  ami>  vul 


(l:iiii:ii;i>S  jiikI  tilt'    coiii-l    will    rcslriiin 
him  iVoin  st'lliiin  tlio  proiluct.     I  hid,, 

4:<o. 

<».  Ami  this  may  ho  (h)in>,  if  the  (•(•mt 
li;ut'  jiiris(liftii>ii  nf  the  ]h'I'S(>ii,  tlioiii^h 
till'  use  of  tli«>  iiiachinc  is  Itcyoml  the 
jiiriHiliclioii  dC  I  he  fourt.      /A/'*/.,  IMO. 

10.  All  !issij,'iiiiiciit  of  nil  rxclitsivc 
ijirlit  lo  iiiakt',  use,  uidI  vend  to  nihcrs 
it  |i:it«>iitt'<l  iiiacliiii(>,  within  a  ccrlaiii 
li'iritory  only,  docs  not  |>roliihit  tlii>  as- 
((i"iiot'  iVoiii  Ntllinj;  t'lscwIiiTc,  out  of 
tlic  saiti  territory,  tlio  jiroiliicts  of  such 
inaihiiii's.   Si)in>Hi>ii  \.   IT//."'*'//,  Hlow., 

;i|,__X,.;|,S(>N,  J.;    Sup.  Ct.,    1845. 

11.  'I'lu'  rt'striclion  in  the  assi<;min'iit 
iiiiplit's  solely  to  the  iisiiiu;  oft  lie  maehine 
iukI  is  no  l-esti'i<'tion  as  to  plaee,  of  the 
Kile  of  the  proiliu't.     //>/</.,  711. 

]'J.  A  purchaser,  for  his  own  account, 
of  articles  inanufai^turetl  l»y  a  patented 
iiiacliiiie,  though  [mrchased  with  a  full 
kiiowledj^c  that  they  were  nianutiietiired 
ill  \iolation  of  the  p.atent,  cannot  he  eii- 
jiiiiKMl,  or  held  liahU-  in  any  other  way. 
A>ioti./,\  West.  Law  Jour.,  14 1. —  Tucits, 
J.;  N.  v.,  1H45. 

l;t.  The  salo  of  an  article,  if  the  pro- 
duct of  an  invention,  is  not  a  "Hale  of 
the  invention,"  within  the  incanintif  of  i^  7 
of  the  act  of  1H;{!).  A  sale  within  that 
section,  must  he  a  sale  of  the  invention, 
or  patented  article.  IJiit  where  a  patent 
was  for  a  (festV/w,  an  ornamental  dcsij^n 
for  fiii;ured  silk  huttoiis — and  such  de- 
tiiirn  was  worked  on  the  face  of  thehiit- 
ton,  whether  a  sale  of  the  hutton  would 
not  he  a  sale  of  the  ifciij/ii,  the  thiii!^ 
|)iiteiited.  Booth  v.  Odrelli/,  1  IJlatclif , 
HoO.— Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1H47. 

14.  An  action  of  infringement  cannot 
be  maintained  against  a  mere  purehaser 
of  articles,  manufactured  in  violation 
of  a  ])atcnt,  after  they  have  been  man- 
ufiiL'tured,  unless  he  is  couecrned  in  the 


niafiiifaetiire.  Iliinrh.  <!>iii-Sto,'k  Tur. 
Tf).  v.  .hii-ohs,  J  lUatchf,  70,  71. — 
r.KiTs,  J.;   N.  v.,  lHi7. 

l.'i.  Where  A  and  W  agreed  witli  I', 
to  purchase  of  the  latter,  all  of  a  certain 
article,  lead  pipe,  which  he  sjioiild  iiiaki>, 
A  and  15  agreeing  to  furnish  the  lead, 
and  p!iy  ('  a  given  price  for  inaiiiif ictu- 
riiig,  and  ('  nse<l  in  such  maiiiifaiiiire 
a  machine  patented  to  plaintiff's  as- 
signor. //(/(/,  in  an  action  for  infiinge- 
iiieiit  against  .\,  15, and  (\tliat  if  A  and 
II  had  no  coiineclion  with  the  niaiiii- 
facture  except  to  fiirnish  the  lead  and 
pay  a  given  pric»',  that  they  were  not 
lialile  for  infringement.  Tnt/idtn  v.  Le 
A'ny,  MS.-Ni:i.soN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1H49. 

10.  Ihit  if  the  agreeiiH'iit  was  only 
colorable,  and  entered  into  for  the  piir- 
|tose  of  securing  tli«'  prolits  of  the  bus- 
iness without  assiimiiig  the  responsil>ili- 
ty  for  the  use  of  the  invention,  then 
they  would  be  liable.  Aitling  ami  assist- 
ing a  jierson  in  carrying  on  such  a  busi- 
ness, and  in  operating  the  machineiy,  will 
implicate  the  parties  so  engaged,    /hid. 

17.  Where  a  li<'ense  to  run  a  planing 
machine  contained  a  condition  that  the 
licensees  should  not  sell  dressed  lumber 
out,  of  the  limits  of  the  territory  as- 
signed, nor  dress  lumber  for  other  per- 
sons to  bo  carried  out  of  such  terri- 
tory, and  sold  as  an  .article  of  merchan- 
dise, /fcld,  the  true  meaning  of  the 
condition  was,  that  under  no  (Circum- 
stances, could  the  planed  article,  with 
the  privity  or  consent  of  the  licensees, 
be  sold  out  of  their  territory,  or  be  sold 
within  such  territory  to  bo  carried  out 
and  resold,  and  that  such  use  would  bo 
enjoined  as  in  violation  of  the  license. 
Wilson  V.  Sherman,  1  lilatchf,  539, 
540.— Ni.:i.soy,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

]  H.  Where  a  lit-ensc  to  nse  a  patented 
machine  contained  a  clause  restricting 


'<^^ 


'^ki 


i-"!** 


!« 


tt«»"l,nl 


-    ' -■'' V-  1  . 


'\fM: 


1«S*!l 


;i.^i 


\' 


682 


rATKNTKI)  Ainu  LKS,  ()U  MACIIINKS,  11. 


pRoiiitm  or,  Movr  to  mux  amu  vu. 


r\ 


I* 


llin  Hulo  of  tlu)  product,  I'xci'pt  in  tlir 
ttrritory  williin  wliiili  hiicIi  iimchiiu' 
cniiM  l)M  tiscil,  Ixit  lliit  actual  n^^rcc- 
iiiciil  wan,  tliiit  (lie  lici<ii)<(>c  was  to  liavt* 
tlio  ri,L;lit  to  voiid  the  )it'o(liictrt  without 
aii\  ii'fltric^tioii  us  to  place;  /A/'/,  tluil 
a  court  of  equity  would  refoiui  the  con- 
tract to  niak«»  it  as  the;  particH  (uider- 
Mtood  it  nt  tho  tiinu  it  was  made;  Init 
if,  in  tho  mean  time,  the  ri<;litH  o\' /lomt 
fiif)  purchasers  intervened,  whicii  miijht 
he  prejudiced,  then  tlio  contract  coidd 
not  he  reformed.  Woo(fw<>r(h  v.  (Utok, 
'2  IMatchf.,  154,  150.— Nkt,son,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  IS50. 

1!).  The  sale  or  use  of  tlie  product  of 
a  patented  maeliine,  \h  no  violation  of 
tlie  t'xchisivo  right  to  use,  construct,  or 
pell  tho  machine  itself.  Gooihjvur  v. 
The  ItxHroiKh,  2  W:ill.,  Jr.,  302.— 
GuiKit,  J.;  N.  J.,  lH5:f. 

20.  VVhero  a  known  manufacture  or 
product  is  in  the  market,  purchasers 
are  not  bound  to  impiire  whether  it 
Avas  made  on  a  patentecl  tn:ichiue,  or  by 
a  patented  process.     I/iid.,  ;102. 

21.  IJut  if  a  j)atentee  be  the  inventor 
or  discoverer  of  a  new  mantifacture  or 
composition  of  matter,  not  known  or 
used  by  others  l)efore  his  discovery 
thereof,  Ins  franchise  or  solo  right  to 
use,  and  vend  to  others  to  bo  used,  is 
tho  new  composition  or  substance  itself 
The  product  and  the  process  constitute 
one  discovery,  the  exclusive  right  to  vend 
•which  is  secured  to  the  inventor  or  dis- 
coverer.    Ifnd,  302,  S03. 

22.  The  purchaser  of  the  product  of 
a  patented  process,  may  use  such  prod- 
xict  for  any  purpose  he  may  see  fit ;  and 
cannot  be  compelled  to  use  it  in  subservi- 
ence to  any  arrangement  made  between 
tho  patentee  and  any  of  his  licensees. 
He  may  use  it  for  his  own  purposes, 
without  inquiring  for  or  regarding  any 


private  airre«'!nent  l»etween  Iic(  iiMcvittift 
to    compete    with    one    another.       'J'/n 
]\'ii»hiiiij     Mile/line    Co.    v.    /'.'i(i-/i'^  ;i 
Wall.,  Jr.  -(tiiiioit,  J.;  I'a.,  ISOI. 

211.  And  every  person  who  purcliuKc-, 
the  right  to  use  a  patented  machine  (ir 
process,  may  sell  the  manufactini'  nr 
product  to  whom  they  jtK-ase,  wiilioiii 
intpiiring  the  purpose  of  the  iMirchascr 
or  imposing  any  condition  on  him,  hh 
to  how  he  shall  use  it,  mdess  he  liindo 
himself  by  covenants  to  restrict  Midi 
right.     Ih'tf. 

24.  A  patentee,  (toodyear,  sold  tlic 
plaintiiVs  the  exclusive  right  to  use  liis 
vulcani/«'d  rubber  in  its  application  (d, 
and  in  combination  with  all  wrin^ini,', 
washing,  and  starching  machines.  l\v 
hail  previously  sold  a  like  right  to  the 
IJoston  Ib'lting  ('o.,  for  "hose,  pijn', 
and  tubes."  The  defencbints  pnrcliiiMil 
india-rubber  tubing  of  the  IJoston  I'xli. 
ing  Co,,  and  used  it  to  make  wringers. 
//if(/,  that  the  defendants  had  tlu'ri<,'Iit 
to  apply  such  article,  purchased  by  tlnni, 
tonuvking  rollers  tor  wringing  macliiiics 
without  infringing  the  rights  of  tlio 
plaintiffs,  andth.it  the  arrangements  of 
the  plaintiffs  to  create  a  monopoly  could 
not  ;iflect  defendants'  rights  to  do  as 
they  pleased  with  their  own  property. 
Ibid. 

25.  A  patentee  may  hold  a  close  mo- 
nopoly of  his  right,  or  he  may  grant  out 
his  cjitire  right.  But  he  cannot  divide 
his  right  into  parts,  and  grant  to  one 
man  the  right  to  use  it  in  its  connection 
with  or  application  to  one  thing,  .ind  to 
another  in  connection  with  a  dillercnt 
thing,  to  such  an  extent  as  that  pur- 
c/iasirs  from  any  of  these  j)crsons  may 
not  use  the  fabric  purchased  exactly  as 
they  like  and  if  they  please,  in  violation 
of  what  the  patentee  has  supposed  Avcre 
rights  not  granted  by  him.    Jl/id. 


PENALTIES,  A. 


C83 


lold  a  close  mo- 


t-NriHIl  mi  OOPTMOItT  I.AW& 


•26.  All  nKn'oriH'nl  hctwt'i'H  lioenHfOJ*, 
tlint  otiu  hIiiiII  tnaki>  n  ffrtiuii  artif|«>, 
mill  tlio  •>llior  miotlu'r  iiilicU',  >,'1vch 
iicitlu'r  11  rij^lit  t(»  ail  iiitcrtl'rt'iicf  of 
cliaiit'iT}'.  to  ooiniK'!  n  |iiircliiiMfi'  trom 
tlifiii  to  UHo  thfl  artiolu  luiiclmsnl  for 
nil V  I"""* •''"''"■  "^0  or  |iiiri»os(' ;  mnl  if 
•uiv  lovciiiiiits  arc  iiiailc  Ix'twi'i'ii  the 
piiUntcc  aixl  Ills  lii'ciist'i's,  tlio  jiuldic 
are  not  coinpcllcMl  to  iiotu-e  or  ro^^anl 
tliuin, or  tho  rifjflit  coiiftMn'tl  or  rost'rvutl 
by  tlit'in.     Ibid. 


rKN\M;nKS,  and  actions  for. 

A.     rrSDKK  TUB  (!OPTniOIIT  IjAWB C8:i 

II.    Undeu  tub  1'atent  Laws 684 

\,    Undeu  the  CopvuKiUT  Laws. 

1.  Wliore  a  copyripjlit  of  a  work  liad 
iH'oii  taken  out  in  this  country,  and  tlic 
ckfciidants  had  imported  a  number  of 
copies  of  the  same  work  j)iil»li>:lied  in 
En<,'land,  and  sold  the  same,  Jfdd,  that 
the  penalty  of  fifty  cents  Wiis  incurred 
for  every  sheet  contained  in  the  wliole 
niiml)er  of  volumes  found  to  have  been 
in  the  defendant's  possession,  or  which 
tl"'y  had  imported  for  sale,  or  sold,  or 
licUl  for  sale.  Dwight  v.  Appletons,  1 
N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  198.— Thompson,  J.; 
N.Y.,  1843. 

2.  The  penalty  of  infringement  is 
fixed  by  law.  If  the  jury  tind  there  has 
heen  an  infringement,  they  must  asccr- 

ain  the  number  of  sheets  proved  to 
lave  been  sold,  or  offered  for  salo  (not 
Jie  number  printed),  and  return  a  ver- 
dict for  one  dollar  for  each  sheet  so  sold 
or  offered  to  be  sold.  Millett  v.  Snow- 
den,  1  "West.  Law  Jom-.,  240. — Beits, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1843. 

3.  A  defendant  is   not  liable  to  the 


penalty  under  g  7  of  thn  net  of  1831, 
iiiileMH  ho  was  guilty  of  the  infraction  of 
the  copyright  within  two  years  bcforo 
actinii  was  broiiglil.  litul  v.  ('iini»i, 
H  Law  Kep.,412.— Tankv,  fh.J.;  .Md., 
lH4.'i. 

4.  Hut  though  the  plates  of  a  piooo 
of  11111x1(5  were  engraved  more  than  two 
years  before,  yet  every  printing  for  Male 
would  bo  n  new  infraction  of  the  right, 
and  if  such  printing  was  within  two 
years  before  nuit  brought,  the  defeiitl- 
ant  is  liable.     //</7.,  412. 

fi.  The  penalty  is  at  the  rate  of  one 
ilollar  for  each  sheet  the  <lefendant  may 
have  causeil  to  be  printe'd  Ibr  sale,  with- 
in two  years  before  suit  brought.  Ih'nL, 
412. 

0.  The  i)enalty  imposed  by  §  11  of 
the  copyright  act  of  1831,  for  putting 
the  imprint  of  copyright  upon  a  work 
not  legally  copyrighted,  and  given  by 
such  act  "  to  the  person  who  shall  sue 
for  the  same,"  cannot  bo  recovered  in 
the  iiiinie  of  more  than  one  person.  T^r- 
ri(t  V.  Atwill,  1  Hlatchf,  154,  155. — 
I  {kits,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

7.  A  declaration  for  such  peiudty  in 
the  name  of  Una  i)ersons  is  bad  on  gen- 
eral demurrer.     J  bid.,  154. 

8.  In  actions  upon  a  statute,  the  p.ir- 
ty  prosecuting  must  allege  .and  i)rovc 
every  fact  necessary  to  make  out  his  ti- 
tle to  the  thing  demanded,  and  his  com- 
petency to  sue  for  it.     Ibid.,  155. 

9.  There  is  a  manifest  difference  be- 
tween giving  a  penalty  to  a  common 
informer,  .and  imposing  one  for  tho 
benefit  of  tho  person  Aggrieved :  in  the 
latter  case  tho  term  i)erson  m.ay  be 
regarded  as  comprehending  every  one 
affected  by  the  injury.     Ibid.,  150 

10.  The  language  of  the  statute  is  to 
be  particidarly  adhered  to  in  tho  con- 
struction of  i>enal  laws.    Ibid.,  150 


^"'?f>^; 


.i*^\ 


<*w  iUl|^||> 


',WI;.| 


fc-  'i^^is^nj'i 


'iSf, 


1- 


AM 


iM:\Ai/nr,8,  ii. 


I*  I 


l<»  fcfj 


II.  X'tuUr  ^  i\  of  llio  .i.pyii^lit  lul 
of  I  H.I  I,  till'  |ifiiiill)  »»r  WWy  I'ciilH  on 
(■licit  nIu'i'I  (wlii-tlii'i-  |ii'iiili>(|  or  IxMiij.; 
]iriiili<<l,  or  |Milili>lii'<l,  or  i<\|ioMt<l  to 
m\v),  in  liiiiiicil  to  till'  Hlit'i'tM  ill  |io>(MfM 

Hloll  of  till*  tlct't'lliluilt,  illlil  i|oi>s  not   clll- 

linifc  I'Vi'ry  Nlicct  which  I  he  <h'rt>iiiliinl 
has  |Mi)iliHh('ti  or  |iriiriirt'il  In  he  piil)- 
liNlu'il.  liih-kiii*  \\  <ii>iilil,",  flow.,  ^II. 
—  M«I,i:an,  .1.;  Sup.  Cl.,  |n|h. 

I'J.  A  |ii>ii:il  ^latiili'  iiiiiHt  hf  foiii>.lru«'<l 
hlriotlv.     tlmt,,H\\. 

\'\,  'I'lic  Mlatnli-  pfiuilty  iiiip«ixt'.|  h_v  >{ 
U  of  I  ho  !ii'l  of  iH.ll,  iH  not  inriiricil  hj- 
priiiliii;^  milt  piiiihshiiij^  no  ihiu'Ii  of  it 
hook  iiH  to  niiioiiiii  to  ail  iiil'i  iii^'ciiiciit 
of  it«  ropvrij^lit.  /iiij/ii'n  \.  J,  null,  \'> 
-Mo.  I. aw  l!tp.,;il().     I'l  uri.s,,!.;  Mumh., 

I  I.  Coiiiti't'ss  iliil  not  iiilt'inl  to  inllict 
tlicMo  pi'imltit'H  upon  ilui  unlawful  print- 
iiii'  or  puhlifutioii  of  Iohs  tliuii  an  cutiro 
work.      //*/(/.,  .'M. 

I.*).  'riii.H  (picslioii  WHS  not  (U'ciilcil  in 
1infk-u»  V.  (,'i>itlif,  I  llow,,  7l»H,  thoiiirh 
r.'iisi'd  in  (ho  »'uurt  hrlow,  and  rulcil  />ro 
j'onnti,  tliure.     Jfn'd.,  ;M'J. 

II.     U.NUKU  laii:  I'xVriCNT  Law.s. 

1.  Wlion  an  action  is  liroujxht  on  a 
penal  statute,  an  the  statute  is  the  only 
founiation  of  the  action,  the  deelaralion 
must  aver  that  the  act  complained  of 
was  done  contrary  to  tin*  statute.  J'ar- 
hcr  V.  Ifdwortfi,  4  Mcrican,  y7;K— Mc- 
Lkan,  .1.;  III.,  iHtH. 

2.  I'nder  5^  G  of  the  act  of  IS4'2,  the 
assii^nees  of  an  interest  in  a  patent- 
right  are  no  more  liable  to  Mie  penalty 
]irescril»ed  by  the  act  for  si'lling  p.'it- 
cnted  articles  not  h;iving  the  date  of 
the  patent  stam})od  on  them,  than  any 
other  persons,  unless  it  appearetl  that 
the    articles    were    manufactured    by 


them  or  with  llieir  oonnivunee.  /'.///,,,,. 
V.  ,!//(»,  MS.  IIki-ih,  ,1.;  N.  V.,  |m,,| 
:i.  It  JM  not  the  Nclliiiij  of  the  iirtii'|i>M 
NO  iiiiNtainped  that  iiiakeM  Ihein  liullf  tn 
the  peiiiilly,  but  llie  oinitliti^  to  pm  t|„, 
Ntainpoii.  If  the  urlieles  were  iiiaiiiiliu'. 
lured  befoi't>  roiiiin^  to  the  p■lXH|.^^il||, 
of  the  iiMiiignees,  or  veiidoi-N,  thfv  ari> 
Dot  boiiiul  to  put  on  the  Ntamp.  /A/,/, 
J.  The  penalty  attaches  for  each  j,,.!, 
.'trale  article  sold,  and  not  for  all  xi>|,|  ;,t 
each  lime  in  I hc<  aggregate.     Ihi,l. 

ft.  The  tinit  y«'»rs'  limilitlion  in  wh;,.), 
to  bring  Niiits  for  peiwillies,  prescriln'.l 
in  the  criincH  ad  of  I  VIM),  is  rcpcaliMJ 
by  implication  by  J}  (of  the  act  of  |s;ii)^ 
which  eiiactH  (hat  suits  for  pcnalliiM  nr 
fitrfcitnres  may  be  brought  at  fiiiy  tinm 
williiii  Jin'  years  fruiii  the  time  ulun 
the  same  acciiictl.      Stiitiptin//  v.  /'o//./ 

2  Curt.,  r.();i,  r.()(.— CuiiTIH,  J.;   Mass,, 
I  H',r,. 
(I.   ^   r,   of  the    act   of   IHI  •  aiiili„f. 

i/.cH  the  indict  ion  of  a  peiiall     of  just 

one  hiiiKlred  dollars  for  the  oll,iin>  ,|,. 

scribed   therein,  and  no   more.     /A/*/., 

.^(Ml, 

7.  The  penalties  pn'scribed  by  the  p.it. 

eiil  acts  may  be  recovereil  in  an  .'utidii 

of  debt.      lhiil.,Um. 

H.  It  is   necessary  (hat   each   arliclt> 

should  be  stamped  with  the  day  of  tiic 

month  as  well  us  (he  ye;ir,  but  il'  this 

is    tlone    it    is    snflicii  it,    even   if  llu! 

word  "patented"  is  abbreviated.  Ilnw. 

liif  V.  liityhy,  .MS.— JJK-ns,  J.;  N.  Y., 

18.^)5. 

».  To  entitle  the  plaintilV  to  recover, 
he  must  allege  and  prove  facts  sliowiiij,' 
tluit  lie  has  a  title  to  recover,  and  tlio 
proof  must  corres|)ond  with  the  allega- 
tions. Where  the  declaration  diargoil 
the  defemhmt  with  having  sold  an  "ex- 
tension pen  holder,"  while  the  juoof 
showed  the  patent  to  bo  for  an  "iai- 


n.KAIHNti,  A. 


6SS 


mot'.     I'tilnuf 

\  N.  Y.,  IM.M. 

iti'  tilt'   lltiirli'H 
lIliMII  liul'li'  til 

liii>4  to  I'lit  llii> 
wi'i'i'  iiiaiinriti'- 

lilt'    |HmMt"«Kili|| 

iliifH,  llicy  ail' 
Hllllll|).  //>/>/. 
M    I'of   tiull   f<l'|| 

I  fill'  nil  HI  till  at 

littiiMi  ill  \\\\\v\\ 
lit'H,  |irf^('iilHM| 
>M),   in  I't'iit'alnl 

lilt*  lift  of  Ih:io, 
fur  |icmilliis  or 
kIiI  at  any  tiiiio 
Ihf  tiiiit'  wlicii 
npHoii  V.  /'«>/*</, 
iiTiH,  .1.;  MaitH., 

.1"   1H4J  millior- 

|M'll!tll         of   jllHl 

ic  olVciit't'  do- 
molt'.     //'/(/., 

)(>(l  Ity  tlic  |iat- 
(I   ill  an  actinii 

at  t'acli  aiticlt" 
llio  (lay  of  ilit> 
car,  but  if  this 
even  if  lliu 
ri'vialt'tl.  /Anr- 
•IS,  .1.;  N.  v., 

tiiV  to  rocovor, 
0  luctHHliowiii;,' 
ccoV'tT,  and  tlic 
rtitli  tlir  allt'i,':!- 
iration  i-liavj^a'd 
i}ir  Hold  an  "  ex« 
hilc!  tlu!  jinxtf 
(0  for  an  "im- 


DHtXAH^TIitN:    WHAT  T»  HKr   roltril. 


IHOVI 


inir. 


//>/•/. 


iiii'iil   ill  |M<iiH  mill  pfiifil  fiiMi'H."   ^rikiii,  >'(/7»<i/mi,  or  ni'citriliii^  In  itx  toil* 
'//./>/,  ilxit   t''*'  pliiiiiiiir  I'iMilil  nut  ri*-  or,  tlii<  hIiKliti'Mt  viiriutioii  \*  latal,  iiml 

for  Hiicli  viu-iaiii'«'a  iioiiiiiiit  will  Itf  ^riiiit- 
i»i|.     /A/i/.,  t»7. 

:t.  It  in  not  n  ^rtiiiinl  for  it  iioiiMiiit  in 
tin  lu-tion  ftir  violiitiii);  w  |tiiti<nt-ri^ht, 
lliiil  till'  ilt'flitriition  ilium  not  lav  tlii'  ai*l 


|o.  Till'  I'i'iially  N|ii'i'i|]i>il  in  )|  n  of 

l|„i  ai't    I't    l^('-\   ti»'  illllxili;^    lilt'    Wol'il 

to  an  iin|iati'nli'il  arlirif,  \*  in- 

tl  lia\ 


till' lilt 


lurri'i 


I  a^  to  ail  artirli'H  inaili'  am 


lii|: 
iiuriK 


r  Hiirll    word    alliM'il,    with    a   ^iiilly    i'oiii|dain<'il  of  to  lit>  "iii;aiii>«l  llir  form 
iiikI  llii-<   in   not    i'liaii};i'i|   liy  i  of  tlu' ^tatlltl■,"  Init  nii'rt'ly  claiins  dam 


the  itarly  iiiakiii^  a|)|>lii'alion  for  a  pat-   a^l'M.    r'o/«fr<f  yor/zKim  «^{/«^' is  mattor 


,'iit  during  Mii'li  iiiaimfai'tiirc,  nt  K'iihI 
n,H  ii)  Mii'li  ai  wt'ri'  iiiadi'  or  oiilwrt'il 
i,i  III'  inadi',  and  ho  stampi'd  lirfort'  liis 
aiiplication.  Sfi/>/iiii.i  v.  Culifwill^  MS. 
— Sl'IUiiUK,  J.;   MllMH.,  IHilO. 


PKKI''i:(TIN(}.  AN   INVKNTIOX. 

Sec  titlu  l.NVKNTU»V,  1{. 


PLAN  OK  A  WOItlC. 
SceCoi'Yuiuur,  11. 


PLKADING. 

A.  PrciAUAnoM ShTi 

B.  Wv.KA  IN  Hah 5HH 

f .   Oyeb  and  rimrKiiT 58!) 

IK     ItKKKCIH  IN,  OIRKI*   IlY    VkKIUCT fi'.M) 

11.     DflMUUIlKK O'JU 

A.    T>i;(i-Ai:.\Tioy. 

1.  In  gi'iuM'.il,  ii»  .'ill  action  for  tlio  vio- 
latiim  of  a  pati'iit,  it  is  sunii-iciit  to  state 
ill  tlio  dwlanitioii,  tlic  siihslaiicc  of  tlio 
jTrant  or  siiecilicatioii  to  wliicli  tin-  ^rant 
Idbrs.  Tryon  v.  White,  IVl.  V.  C,  07. 
— Wasiiinuton,  J.;  N.  J.,  iHl.'i. 

2.  1)111  if  the  iloclar.'ition  professes  to 
fit  forth  the  speeification  as  part  of  the 


id*  form,  uml  llu<  want  of  it  would  hu 
t'lirt'il  Ity  venliet.     //»/(/.,  ll7. 

I.  'riie  di'i'laration  oii^hi  always  to 
mIiow  a  lille  ill  till'  plaiiitilV,  and  thai 
with  t'oiufiiii'iit  i-erlaiiity.  !l  oiij^ht  to 
state  all  iiialterH  that  are  of  the  esseiieu 
of  the  arlimi,  without  whi.di  the  plain- 
till'  fails  to  show  a  ri^ht  in  point  nl'  hiw 
to  ask  for  the  judgment  of  the  eoiirt  in 
his  favor.  O'rat/  v.  ,/iinii.i,  Pit,  ('.  ('., 
•IH'J.    -WAslllNtiloN,  .1.;    Pa.,  IHI7. 

^»,  If  his  title  depends  upon  the  per- 
forinaiiee  id'  eert.iiii  nets,  he  inn^t  allirm 
the   performantH)  of  sntdi  nets.     I/uif., 

4H'J. 

tl.  Put  if  eiion^li  Is  slaleil  to  show 
title  ill  tilt;  plaiiititf,  and  with  snIlieieiiL 
eerlainty  to  enahle  the  eoint  to  ^ivu 
jud<{nii'iit,  lint  the  ileelar'ition  is  less 
explicit  than  mi^ht  have  heeii  rcipiired, 
the  defect  will  lie  irurcil  liy  verdict. 
/A/7.,  \H'2. 

7.  Where  the  ileclaration  tlcsij^tiatcs 
the  patent  Ity  the  lernis  nsisl  in  the  p.-it- 
eiit,  it  is  not  ni^ccssary  th;il  the  speeifi- 
eation  should  Ite  set  out  in  the  declara- 
tion. It  is  a  matter  of  evidence  to  ho 
nsi'il  at  tlio  trial,  iuid  the  ilefeiidant  may 
have  it  placed  on  the  record  l»y  askinj^ 
oyer  of  it.      //>/(/.,  tH'J,  tH;t. 

K.  The  declaration  must  show  u  titio 
in  the  plaintilf;  hut  if  it  aver  tli.'it  tho 
j^rant  or  patent,  in  the  form  prescriheil 
Ity  law,  was  issued,  this  shows  the  very 
title  on    which    tliu  action   is  fonndod. 


S§! 


w  ^ 


'*<^iii, 


'  Wi« 


!bu 


11 


)80 


rr.i:Ai)!\<;,  a. 


MWLA«ATMW(  WHAT  10  WKf  nmiU, 


^      [W^ 


*W»„i 


\'  ^', 


C'lttiiifj   V.    M>y,r0,    I    Wii^li.,  221.-- 

\V.\HlllN..|i»\,  .1.;    I'll.,   |S|N. 

0.  Il  U  tiui  iii'*-i>N«ar}  to  iivt>r  llint  tlu< 
|iri'liiiiitiiiry  iilt>|M,  hiu'Ii  nn  |tri>««>iitiiti<)ii 

«i|'  |M>tiliiMl,    tti'.,    Wltt'it    lakl'll,    Milllnlll 

>vliii-li  II  \iiliil  ^niiit  nxilil  not  ixHiic,  !)«>• 
fiitiMu  tltt>  coiii-t  will  |iri>Mitiiii>  ill  liixornr 
tlio  K>'""'«  t'"'t  cvitry  tliiti;x  ^viim  li^jlitl}' 
(Itiiiu  wliirli  till*  law  rri|iiii'«'il,  i.i  oi-iIit 
to  iiutliori/.u  till)  iiiNuiii;{  of  ili(>  ^niiii. 

\0.  Tlio  tlccluritlioii  iimsi,  liowiivi-r, 
nll<*};t>  not  only  tliiit  n  ptilfiit  wiih  nmiU> 
out  ill  iliii>  t'oriii  of  law,  liy  wliicli  ilirri' 
UiiM  ^i'iiiiIdI  to  till'  |il:iitititrcn'taiii  privi- 
h'^X^'^'t  '•"'  liMlxt  iilsK  iiIIih;(>  11  ifrltrifif  of 
■iicli  piiliMil  to  till'  |il!iiiititr,  iiikI  tliat  llii* 
piiti'iit  \v:iH  iitti'Mtnl  l)y  tlic  |irt'Ni(l('iit,  or 
|iro|ii'r  olllccr,  as  niu'Ii  atii'xlatioii  i«t  iirc- 
CMsary  to  tlu'  form  ami  \aliilily  of  ilu« 
)>at«>tit,  atitt  raiiiiot  bo  iinplicil  from  the 
nllf;^atioii  thai  n  patfiit  wiim  madi'  out. 
Till'  want  of  tlu'so  iilli'^atioiiH  ix  i-atiMC 
lor  ^'('iitral  di'miirriT.      //>/</.,  'J'J'J. 

11.  Tilt'  (li'claratioii  iummI  not,  liow- 
cviT,  Ktali'  ill  wliat  the  iilaintilV's  Im- 
Iirovi'ini'iit  I'onftiftM,  or  ^^l't  out  tin-  pat- 
I'lit  (U*  spccilii'atioii  I'itlur  verbatim  or 
Kub.sfantially.  If  tin-  (leffinlaiit  tli-hirt's 
itH  prod  not  ion  ho  can  pray  oyer  of  it. 
Ihtil,  'J'.'a. 

I'J.  Whi'rc  tho  doflaratlon  laid  tlio 
breach  that,  thu  defondants,  without  tlu' 
leave  or  license,  etc.,  used  the  improve- 
ment invop'ed  by  the  i)atentee  contrary 
to  the  form  of  the  actn  of  Conj^ress  and 
nj^ainst  the  privilej^es  so  j^rautod,  ///</, 
Hutlieient — the  breach  assi<;ned  beinj^  as 
broad  as  the  right  gnintcd.  Ibid..,  223, 
224. 

13.  Whoro  n  plaintiff  claims  ns  an 
assignee  under  a  patent,  the  declaration 
should  set  out  the  fact,  and  that  Huch 
assignments  had  been  recorded  ;  but  if 
the  declaration  omit  to  state  th.it  such 


nMlt(nini>ittii  wtra  reef»i'ili>d,  nml  n  str. 
diet  \*  kUcii  in  iHvnr  of  the  plnuitifT,  ili, 
di'ffi't  will  bi'  cured  by  verdici      //„/. 
»t>H  V.  VinnftfhU,  I  Sniiin.,  ii'jtj.— ..Hfn^ 
.F.;  .Me.,  IM.II. 

U,  A  declnrntlon  In  n  »tniiiiiri,i  „|' 
fluid,  whii'h  ill  law  j{ivei«  the  |,|„i„ti|y 
a  right  to  recover.  It  iit  nialfri.ijlv  tU 
fiM'livu  if,  to  lay  the  foiindalinii  of  n  r,,. 
covery,  the  proof  nniNt  go  fiirili.T  ih,.,,, 
the  alli'gatioiiN  it  oiilaiiis.  Sl<h,lni\ 
\Vliiiyj4i\  'i  McIa'uii,  n.  — Mi  I,k;.v>  J/ 
Ohio,  IH31>. 

I.**.  In  an  acli«>n  of  Infringeincut  nf  i 
patent,  the  deilaratiou  ||lu^l  avtr  thi! 
the  plaintitf  had  obtained  u  pati'iit,  h 
that  till)  ex<"lu«*ive  right  was  voicd  in 
him.     /A/*/.,  43. 

1(1,  Where  the  declaration  xtiiti-dtiim 
the  plaiiilitf  dainieil  ii  p,!»«'nl,  aiul  tlin 
the  defendant  possessed  and  etijiiM,! 
the  right,  //*/</,  that  it  woiiM  In.  im,! 
on  general  demurrer.     //>/«/.,  t:i. 

I".  Ibil  in  such  case  after  V(h|i,t,;i 
motion  in  arrest  of  judgment  will  M>t 
be  granted,  as  the  court  will  pri'Mink' 
that  till'  fai'ts  showing  the  right  wdo 
proved  at  the  trial.     //>/(/.,  43. 

|H.  The  cleclaration  in  nn  aitiim  for 

the  infringement  of  a  patent  iiei'd  not 

80t    out    the    specification.      I*itt*  v, 

]\7n'tin(i)i,  2  Story,  014. — Srouv,  J.; 

Me.,  1M43. 

11).  It  would  be  more  furinal  tonniux 
a  copy  of  the  letters  patent  ami  s|i('(iti- 
cation  to  the  declaration,  and  to  nlir 
thereto  in  the  declaration,  but  iIich'  is 
no  substantial  objection  to  a  prajlrt. 
Ibid.,  014. 

20.  In  an  action  at  law  for  an  iiifiiiittc 
ment  of  a  patent  for  an  improvi'iiicni, 
the  decl.iration  must  set  out  in  what  the 
improvement  of  the  patentee  coiisist^- 
this  being  an  essential  f)art  of  the  plniii 
tiff's  case — or  else  it  will  be  doniunable 


ri.KADlNU,  A, 


MT 


<>r<l«'i|,  mill  tt  \rr 

.fllu'  plniiiliff,  ii„ 
It)  vvnliit  />,,/. 
mil.,  H'Jrt,— Hriiuv, 

U  n  NtiUi'iiit'iit  <.|' 
Hivi'it  tlif  |tliiititirt' 
It  U  timlcri.illy  .If. 
riiiiinliiliiiii  III'  ti  r,. 

\h\  j»i>  riiiiiiiT iiiiui 

illl\in»».  Stfliilry\, 
4l.-M.I.KAN,J.; 

I'  iiilViiigi-iiit'iit  lit  ,t 
on  iiiiiMt  nv«<r  that 
tiiiniMl  u  |iitti>iit,  (ir 
■ij,'hl  wftH  vi'ntwl  ill 

olaralioijstMti'ilthut 
I  II  {latent,  mill  that 

OHStMl    nilll    «'lljn\i'<l 

III  it  woiil'l  lie  latl 
r.     7/'/</.,  »;i. 
•as*'  nWi't  viTtlict,  !i 
ji|cl;^llli'lll  will  111  t 
foiiit  will  iin-iitiii' 
liiii;  llu'  right  wtic 
IhhL,  4;}. 
)ii  in  nn  uctiim  I'or 
II  pati'iit  iii'i'il  imt 
liiatinii.      I'lttn  V. 
[,  iiU.— Stouv,  J.; 

Iiori'  formal  to  nniu'x 

paU'iit  ami  >\nv\f\- 

alioii,  uiul  to  111.  r 

fratioii,  l»iil  tlicrc  in 
•tioii   to  a  profirt. 

law  tor  an  iiilViiij,'e 
Ir  an  iin|trovi'iiH'iit, 

Hft  out  ill  what  the 
J  patentee  consists- 
tal  part  of  llu'  i«la'm 
1  will  bo  doimirrable 


VKiAUkmrn  \  WHAT  10  mt  nnu. 


Ifitw  wii«,  lioW(>vcr,  (fivt'n  to  ninoiiil. 
/V/c  ■«••'•  V.  iro«»»/»'M,  ;i  .Mi'I.«'i»ii,  "^41).— 
M.I.MN.  J.;  Ohin,  |M»:l. 

2\.  U  t\  tlfi'lai-iitiiiM  in  n  paloiit  inil 
,|„»M«  lliAt  till'  |)l:uiiliir  liuM  an  int«>i'i>Ht  in 
only  II  |»"i"^  "*'  '*  I"kl«'»»l.  "I*  '»  II*'"'"*''  to 
iKC,  in  ll"'  iiii»imt'>''"in' i>l' II  pnrticiilar 
lilii'l  of  I  "»''S  ''»*'  invi'iilinii  ilcMrrilicd 
li,  ii,  it  in  bail  '»■  itM  tur«>,  and  Jmli^nK'nl 
y,\\\  lit'  ri'iDliTixl  for  t)ii>  ili'ffiKlant. 
Siitft'on  V.  />.///,  '2  IMal«'lit'.,  •.'.».— Nur.- 
io<,  lUns,  J.I.;  N.  v.,  IHHI. 

•>>.  TIh'  ilrclaratioii  fir  an  infiin^^i'- 
iiiiiit  of  a  patonl  m-od  not  aviT  tli»' 
ipt'i'itli'  tiiiif  of  tiio  invftition.  It  nct'd 
mitv  !••  lo'f'""''  •'"'  appliiMlinti  fur  a  pat- 
ent, It  i)*  wliolly  iiiiniatfrial  as  to  tlu' 
iiliMiling^,  whi'tlu'r  the  invention  was 
I.iiijf  aiili'i'udi'iit  to  till'  iippliration  or 
(lirictly  pr«'o«'di'd  it.  Witihr  v.  J/«'- 
('„mli'k^  •-'  Illatrlif,  :i;». — IIkiis,   .1.; 

N.  v.,  I'^Ki. 

•j;l.  Tlic  lU'rIaration  nt'od  not  s«'l  forth 
mivi'f  till"  steps  taken  in  nt'eiirinjj  the 
pati'iit.  Tlio  j^raiit  of  the  piitint  it>«'lf 
is  (tiitlli'it'nl  i'\  ideiiee  that  all  the  preliiii- 
iiiarj'  steps  rocpiirod  by  law  wore  prop- 
erly taken.  It  is  snflieient  to  set  fm'tli 
the  |i.it('iit  in  substance,      fhht.,  ;t  t. 

'.'4.  The  (leelaratioii  must  temier  an 
issue  iipiiii  tho  novelty  and  utility  of 
till'  (lisi'ovory  jiatoiitod  ;  but  it  need  not 
aviT  till!  regularity  of  tlio  preliiniiiary 
proiriMliiij^s  in  its  isHiie.    Th!,l.,  ;ir». 

26.  A  tleclaratioii  which  avers  tlie 
jiati'iil  and  specitication  to  bo  "  in  laii- 
j,'imi;i'  of  tho  import  and  to  the  etfect 
I'ollowinjj,"  .nnd  which  sets  forth  tho  lot- 
tiTs  iiateiit  accordinjj;  to  their  words 
and  flames,  is  siifllcient ;  ami  it  is  not  a 
gi)0(l  I'xcL'ption  that  tho  word  "  import" 
is  used  instead  of  "  tenor,"  oven  if  tho 
words  are  not  identical  in  Hi,:;nification, 
because  the  language  is  that  of  recital, 
and  uot  of  grant.     Ibid.,  35. 


'ii\.  A   ri*<iinl  In  a  drnfiAnitlon  tlmt 

"  the  Iftlerit  paleni,  in  duo  form  of  law, 
are  ready  in  eoiirt  to  bi>  produeed,"  i* 
eipiivaleiit  \n  fn-ojVrt  in  the  nio'it  formal 
and  ample  termi.     Ifiii/.^  3.^. 

87.  A  reiternlioM  of  infringement"!  of 
n  patent,  like  a  repetition  nf  torts  of 
any  other  kind,  may  !>(•  hiu><1  tor  and 
lecoinpenNed  in  one  action.  A  deetai'M- 
tlon  \n  not  bad  or  demurrable,  for  dii* 
plieity,  beeailMe  it  NetM  forth  ditt'erent 
and  tlislinct  intVinifements.     Pn',/.,  ;i(». 

'JH,  A  decl.iratioii  which  coinnienceit 
in  rtiMA  and  coneliideN  in  the  form  of  an 
action  of  debt  by  demaii<liii)'  actual 
damages  in  gross  in  compeiisalion  of 
the  wnnig,  is  good.     /fii,f.,  .'Id,  :I7. 

'.Ml.  'riioiigh  a  dei-laration  is  not  for* 
mal  in  its  frame,  if  it  ombouieH  all  that 
is  essential  to  enable  the  plaintitV  to 
give  evidence  of  his  right,  and  of  its 
violation  by  tlu>  defendant,  and  alVonls 
the  di'fendant  the  opportunity  to  inter- 
poso  the  defeiici'H  allowed  by  law,  tho 
court  will  not  eiicoiirago  objections 
merely  critical,  and  will  seek,  even  on 
special  demurrer,  to  sustain  pleadingH 
substantially  siitllciont.     //>/«/.,  37. 

:I0.  In  an  action  for  an  infringement 
of  a  patent  bearing  d.ate  tlit'  n)th  of 
October,  IH'JO,  and  which  has  been  ex- 
tended, tho  declaration  averred  '"that 
before  tho  expiration  of  the  term  for 
which  tho  original  p.-iteiil  was  granted, 
to  wit,  the  4lh  of  October,  1H43,  such 
pat"nt  was  in  duo  form  of  law  extondod 
for  tho  term  of  80von  ycarH  from  and 
after  tho  19th  of  October,  1843."  On 
di'iiiurror  that  tho  mode  of  extension 
should  bo  set  out  at  l.'irge,  JJdrf,  that 
tho  general  avorniont  was  suHiciont. 
Plulpa  V.  (^oitistock,  4  IMcLoan,  353.-— 
M<  Lkav,  .r.;  Iiid.,  184S. 

31.  If  tho  declaration  aver  that  the 
Jefondunt  has  made  the  thing  ^'  In  iuu- 


•It 


.....  '.'A. 


(I 

'  ^*U    'II 


.-»•■ .   •— <.4t»ir( 


m 


58B 


I'l.KAhlMJ,  15. 


*t*^i; 


J  <;.. 


»l: 


i>koi.%h.vtion;  wiuv  to  lllit  voutii.    i-ucaii  ih  hih. 


tutiKii  of  tlio  |i|;uiitifV'.s  pati'iil,"  it  uill|  inoof  iiuist  ciirroHiKuitl  with  tlu' alKcv 
lui   Hiitthit'iit    to    maiiiliiiii    llu'    aitioii. 
Vurkyr   v.    //itiet>rt/i,    »    MrLouii,  iiTl, 
yV'.l.     .M»  l,i.\N,  J.;   III.,  lstf<. 

;t'.'.  Ill  uii  at-tioii  lui-  (iaiiiai^t's  t'oi-  an 
iutViiiu[fiiioiit  i>t'a  patt^iit,  it  is  luit  lutoo^^- 
Nai'\  lliat  llu'  tU't-laratioii  slioiiM  Hct  t'ui  tli 


witiunil  Mtaiii|iiiig  on  it  tlio  ilati^  ot  i|,. 
I'Uloiit,  whilo  tlm  proof  show  t-d  tlu' pai 
»'i»t  to  \h^  t'or  ail  *' iniproNtMiiviit  m  i,,.,,, 
till"  art  riim|ilaiiu'il  ot'a-<  t-Kiitiai  N  lo  (lif    aiitl  (ii-nril  oaiti's,"    //(A/,  ih^t  tin- iilnii, 


tioiiH  til"  tlui    ilt'rlaralioii.      \Vlu«it)  j], 

(U''-laiation  i-liuri,'t«»l  llio  lU'tVii.luut  wii|, 

having  sold  ail  "  oxtriis'oii  |>i'ii-lu>M,.i " 


staluti'.      This  is   (>nly   iui»-.>an    w  lion 
tlu'  ai'tioii  is  liroiii;lit  on  a  j>»'iial  statutf. 

;i;t.  WlnTi'  an  iniyiiuil  pati-nt  ami  llu' 
iin|>roMiiu'iit  on  it  aro  niiilcd  in  llu- 
sauio  iMMstMi,  tlu-y  rt>nstitutt'  a  \\  liolr, 
an  tMitiio  riij;lit,  and  tlioy  mast  !«o  as 
sk'tit'u  ;is  siicli  in  the  dt'i-laration  in  an 
artionot  "an  intVinijt'iiU'iit  ottlu-in.  ('((>•<<' 
V.  AV«//»V/./,  4  Mfla'an,  5vJU. — lliiNTiNii- 

TO\,  .1.  ;    llld.,    IS  t!». 

34.    It' tlio  d»>ilaiali*>ii  riaims  dainai^t's 
111  tlu»  iiit'i  iiigi'nu'nt  »>t'tlio  oiii^inal  pat 
I'Mt,  and  also  st-paratt'ly  lor  tlu*  iiitViiig«'- 
iiuiit    ol"  tlu'    iiiiprovi  Hunt,  tlif  action 
oainiol  ln'  siistaiiK'il.      lt>id..,  oJl>. 

So.  Tin-  lU'i-laratiou  lU'i'il  not  si't  out 
in  w  liat  or  liy  what  iiumiis  tlu*  di'tl'iid- 
aiits  lia\t'  iiitVingfd :  it  tu-kul  only  avor 
that  llif  di-tt-ndanl  has  inadf,  fonstr<.i<-t- 
(<d,  usi>d,  and  sold  tlio  tliiiiL,  patentod. 
7/.<(/.,  o;fO. 

iWS.  Lt^ttors  patent  nro  not  nocessarily 
a  part  of  tlu*  din-laration.  Smith  v.  A'/y, 
o  .MoLt<an,  HO.  —  AULkan,  J.;  (Miio, 
184SI. 

iiT.  'I'ho  .'.'.'flaratit'n,  in  a  patont  suit, 
uvorrinjjf  an  assignint'iit  of  tlu'  invention 
be/ore  tlu*  issiiiiitf  of  tlu>  patiuit,  .suoh 
l>fiiii;  till!  tiu-ts  i>f  tho  caso,  and  rlaim- 
iiii^  titlo  uiuUt  siuli  an  assii;ninoiit,  is 
not  doiiiiiri;ti>U',  siu-h  assi^niiu-nt  In-iiii; 
Mitlirii'ut  in  law.  liatht'one  v.  Or)\  o 
JNhLoau,  laa.  —  Mi'Lkan,  J.;  Minh., 
ISoO 

38.  In  an  ai-tiou  qui  t<fm,  muU^r  Jj  ti 
of  tho  act  of  184*',  lor  a  |)onalty,  tho 


tilVi'ould  not  itHU»voi'.     tItiwlti/\,  /;„, 
lit/,  MS.-  IlKTis,  J.;  \.  v..  isw.     " 

n.       I'l  KAS    IN    l\\\i. 
Soo  also  l>KKKNi'KH;   (iK.NKIiVI   Usi  (. 

I.  Tho  rooovi'i'y  of  a  vi'iili»i  liy  ji|^, 
|>laiiilitf  in  an  aitiiMi  for  tlu-  iiit'i iiiij,'. 
nuMit  t>f  a  patont  will  not  pivvnii  jiiiu 
lVt>in  Ininijing anotlu'r  aotion  of  iutViiii;, 
iiu'iit  foi  a  futiiro  nsiM«f  tho  di'tViulHiit', 
inaihino:  ovory  t'uturo  uso  is  an  uitViii>v 
nu'iit.  W hittt >n{»v.  V.  (\(tttr,  I  (lull., 
4S4.-  STt»»!Y,  J.;    Mass.,  I8l;t. 

'2.  Whoi'o  a  doolaration  j^ot's  for  tho 
usiT  oi'  a  niai'hiiio  diiriiii^  a  liiuiti'il  iv 
riod,  a  vtMiliot  aiul  Judj^nuut  in  mi 
aotioii  is  ni>  bar  ti»  a  siiliso(|Uiiit  Mm 
for  a  lister  diiiiiii;  anotlu-r  and  miI.h^ 
ipu-nt  poriinl.  h'ttrle  \ .  Satc^/t  r,  i  .M:is., 
14.-  S'iH>KY,  J.;   Mass.,  IS'J:*. 

;t.  If  tho  inattor  all('<;*'d  in  a  [.Km  i^ 
not  a  bar  te  tho  ai^tion,  tho  [•Iniiitills 
may  tlonuuid  I'.iul  havo  sul>mitti>l  tho 
(pu'stion  of  law  to  tluM-oiirt.  Oi' ilu'V 
may  tltMiy  tho  faots  allogoil  in  tlif  pk;!, 
and  tako  issno  thoivon,  and  i^o  to  tho 
jury.  (Sfntnt  v.  lut;/tm>ni(,{>  lVt.,:'15. 
— .Mausiiai.i,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1S32. 

4.  A  ph'a  adinittiui^  tho  oxistoniv  I'f 
a  patont  but  ilo.iyiiig  its  validity,  isM, 
as  tho  ploa  rotors  a  inattor  of  law  to  the 
jury,  lientu'tt  \.  .!/(</•;//<,  ti  Mo.,  liil. 
— ToMi'iviNs,  J.;   Mo.,  1840. 

0.  A  ploa  of  prior  uso  t>r  salo,  uiuloi\^ 
V  of  tho  act  til  isau,  to  Ito  u  bar  to  tho 


nil  w  iilt  tlu'  Mv\^ 

tlu<  (U'U'inluiii  with 

It  It  tlif  ilatf  ot  ilu 
iH»t' sliowftl  th«<  jiat. 
i>|>iovonh'iil  ill  jH'i^ 
'/<7i/,  that  \\w  |.l;uii 
r.     iIaiclii/\.  ^i^,J. 

',  N.  Y.,  I «;>:>, 

m;  tiKMatvi  Usu:. 

oi'  a  \in\\'w\  \<\  ijio 
M\  t",>r  tlu'  iiitViiiijc. 
till  liul  |>iv\i'iii  hiiii 
air  »oti(>iu>t'int"nus,'<>- 
u»  i)f  tlu'  ili't\'iuliim\ 
iro  iisii  is  ail  iu!'iiii>;i' 
V  V.  C'««(/-,  1  i;,ill., 
iliiss.,  is  I;), 
iii'iitiou  i;ocs  tor  tlio 

liiriii>^  ii  liiiiiti'd  [H' 
iiul>;iiu'ut  ill  siul. 
sulisi'niu'iit  ai'tii'ii 

!Ui«>tlu<r  mill  subsf- 

iss.,  is'.':>. 

ulli'i^iul  ill  11 1'K'u  ij 
»'tioii,  tlu'  i'laiiiti»!'> 
lavo  .suluuittivl  tlu' 
llm  nmrt.  Or  llu'v 
ilK'goil  ill  till"  |>!>'.i, 
I'l'iiii,  ivihl  l;v>  to  tlu' 
tyinoiulyd  rot.,'.'45, 
up.  t't.,  is;!-.'. 
11'^  tlu^  fxisli'Uri'  I'l' 
«;•  its  valiilitv,  i^l*!, 

lUUttlT  I't'hlW  to  till' 

Martin,  0  Mo.,  401. 
>..,  1840. 

•  uso  or  sail',  uiult'i' § 
>,  to  Ito  a  li:ir  to  the 


iM.i: AhiNti,  II.,  c. 


580 


t'IKkS    IN    II  \U       OtKH    \M>    rUOk'HHI'. 


i.hiiitirt"!'  avtiou,  inuHt  state  that  it  was' 
mort"  tli!»>  l^^*'  >»■'*'"'  l'»>t'oro  tlu-  applii-a 
lion  t'i'V  '»  patoiit,  or  i't|iiivah'iit  to  an 
alamli'i»i'»>'»N  '*'  »'oM>titiito  a  har  to  (ho| 
jtitioii    il"  >t  'I*'''"'  '"'•'  ''  '"*  *l«'i'>iinal>l*'. 
llM'ts.  ISiiia  Mrl.iaii,  I7t).      .M.  I.kan,  ' 

J.;  Ohio,  ism.  I 

it.  .\  I'li-H  in  )>ar  iiuist  ooutain  a  full ' 
ilitWuv  against  tho  lights  »>l'  tlu>  plaiu- 
lill"  that  the  phiiutilV  lias  no  ri^ht  to 
noovi'i'  »>r  it  is  hail  oinUiiuirr»'r.  It'llit- 
tnitliet'tlio  ph-aH  may  lu>  ailinittotl,  aiul 
tho  lU'lioo  l>k'  still  niaintainahli',  suoh 
i«K;i<*  aro  I'ssi'iiiially  ili'l\'oti>  »•.  Smith 
\.  Ely,  '•>  Mkli'un,  S.S,  SU.  -Mrl.i;.vN, 
J,,  Oliio.  ISH». 

:.  Wlit'ri',  thfri't'oro,  tlu'  ph-as  allo^tnl 
ibt  tlu'  pati'utoo  was  ni>t  tho  iiivoiitor 
>,l'l!u'  tliiiiiX  ilainu'il,  ami  iH"laiii  othors 
lull' iiaiin'>l  ;»^  <!>*'  ''>'">•  inxi-iilors,  hut 
.Muli  I'loas  iliil  not  alh>go  a  kiiowhnJsio 
iit'tho  part  ot'tho  patonti-o  ol"  siu-li  prior 
iini'utioii,  ami  that  siu-h  prior  iii\fiitioi>. 
luivl  Ikvii  pali'iiti'il  or  ih-irrihi-il  in  skuu^ 
writti'ii  puhliiatiou,  /A  A/,  that  suoh 
luoas  wt'i'o  ilotVotivi*  and  »U<munal)h*, 
not  coiitaiiiini;  a  full  ih'fonco  to  tho 
|.l:iiiititrs  aotiou.      ilnd.,  So,  S(i,  SD. 

S.  Ami  a  ph'a  allogiuo;  tlm  uso  of  an 
iiiMUtii'ii  uith  tho  ooiisont  uuil  aUow- 
aiuo  of  tho  patoutoo,  shouhl  avor  also 
an  uKuuK'iinu'iit,  or  that  tho  salt*  lU' 
prior  uso  liail  hoou  for  nioio  than  two 
Yi'ai's  hot'oro  tho  applioatiou  k'>(  tho  jtat- 
viiti'o.    //>«(/.,  8(},  87. 

l>.  Cravingiiyor  of  lottovs  jiatont  iloos 
not  iiiako  thoin  a  part  of  a  ploa.  I  bid.,  W. 

hi.  It'  a  party,  by  his  ph-ailin*;,  tt-n- 
iliT  mi  iiuuiatorial  issuo,  tho  jury  must 
liiid  tlio  issue  a.>t  prosoiUoti,  ami  assoss 
ilamant's  for  tho  broaoh,  if  any,  of  tho 
timis:;  alloi^oil.  It  makos  m>  tlitVon'tioo 
that  it  it)  an  iininatorial  issuo.  Good- 
!/ttir  V.  Z'tiy,  MS. — Ukikk,  J.;  M.  J., 
IS30 


II.  A  ploa  (»f  a  ilotViiilant  sottinv»  up 
an  ayit'oniont,  ainl  ju>>til\  iiii;  umUr  ilio 
samo,  shoulil  a\or  tho  porformauoo  on 
tho  part  of  tho  tlotomlani  t>f  tho  oon- 
ilitioiis  proooiloiil  pro\  iiloil  thorol>\,or 
avt-r  that  tho  il  ■fomlaiit  hilonns  to  tho 
olas.s  of  porsiius  \vh«»  aro  pr»i\  iiloil  t'or 
hy  suoh  aijrooiiu'nt  :  if  it  iloos  not,  it  in 
uroiuiil  for  iloniiuri'i  Ihtij  v.  Hiirtih 
/torn,  MS.— TirMW,  J.;    l{.  I.,  Ih:>1. 

i\      0\t:il    AMI    TuotKUT. 

1.  If  tho  ili'olaration  ilosi^^natos  tho 
patont  hy  tlu»  tonus  u-,oil  in  tho  p'.u^nt, 
it  is  not  nooossary  that  tho  spooi  '.^'itioii 
shoulil  ho  sot  out  in  tho  iloolaraiion. 
That  is  niattor  oi'  ovi»lonoo  to  ho  'istnl 
at  till'  trial.  If  tho  ih-foiuhnit  wislus  it 
to  ho  put  on  tho  ri-ooril,  ho  i';iii  lia\o  it 
put  thoro  hy  asking  oyor  of  it.  (irttt/ 
V.  Jamen,  IVt.  (\(\,  4S'J,  4s;J.— Wash- 
iMii\>N,  J,;  Pa.,  IHIT. 

2.  Tho  iloolaration  noivl  not  sot  out 
tho  patont  or  spooilioation  oitlior  vorha- 
tini  or  siihstanlially.  If  th"  ih'fonilant 
ilosiros  its  proiluv-tion,  ho  .'aii  pray  oyor 
of  it.  ( 'lit'ixi/  V.  .V(/(T,v,  4  Wash.,  iJ'ja.— 
NV  AsiiiNtiri>N,  J. ;  l*a.,  isis. 

;t.  'Tho  pi'o/*rt  of  lottors  patont  mako.H 
thorn,  wlu'u  proiluooil,  a  part  of  tho 
iloolaration,  anil  givos  all  tho  oortainty 
as  to  tho  iiivontion  patontoil  whioh  is 
roipiiroil  hy  law.  It  is  thi-rot'oro  not 
good  oauso  of  ohjootion  that  tho  ileo- 
laratiim  iloos  not  sot  thom  out.  I'itts 
v.  Whitman,  •-'  Story,  lU4.-  SriMtv,  J.; 
Mo.,  is4;i. 

4.  It  wouhl  bi'  nioro  formal  to  uniio.x 
a  copy  of  tho  lottors  patont  ami  spyoill- 
I'ation  to  tho  tloolaration,  but  thoro  is 
no  substantial  ohjoo»ii>n  to  a  pro/ert. 
7 />«./.,  til 4. 

5.  A  rooital  in  a  iloolaration  that  tho 
lottors  patont,  in  duo  form  of  law,  are 


»M 


^«>'( 


^•^^Hw 


tW;» 


mh 


500 


PLKADIXO,  D.,  E. 


DKrECTS,   Cl'UiiU  IIT  VERDICT.      SEHURRER. 


roa<ly  in  coiii't  to  lu;  product'cl,  is  cqiiiv- 
iik'iit  {o pro/ert  in  tlic  most  I'lrnial  and 
atnpic  tcrniH.  Wilder  v.  Mt'(Jurmu-lc, 
2  IJlatclif'.,  35.— liKiTS,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  184(i. 

0.  Oyer  of  letters  patent  is  not  dc- 
manduble  as  of  a  deed  ;  but  bein<jf  mat- 
ter of  record,  it  is  aecessiblc  to  the  dj 
fendant.     ISmith  v.  7i7y,  5  MuLeun,  00. 
— McLeav,  J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

7.  Letters  patent  are  not  necessarily 
a  part  of  the  declaration,  and  therefore 
where  a  jtlea  alIe<.ros  any  thing  respect- 
ing them,  tlioy  should  be  stated  in  the 
plea.     Ibid,^  DO. 

8.  Craving  oyer  docs  not  niako  the 
spciification  of  letters  patent  part  of  a 
plea.     Ilnd.^  v»0. 

9.  Oyer  of  letters  patent  referred  to 
In  the  decl.'iration  is  not  demaiKbible  as 
of  right ;  being  matter  of  record,  the 
defendant  can  obtain  them  if  he  desires 
them.  Singer  v.  Wilson^  MS. — Inger- 
soLL,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1858. 

D.    Defects  in,  cured  «y  Verdict. 

1.  Want  of  form  in  a  declaration  for 
an  infringement  of  a  patent,  as  not  lay- 
ing the  act  complained  of  as  being 
'■  against  the  form  of  the  statute,"  Avill 
bo  cured  by  verdict.  Tryon  v.  White, 
Pet.  C.  C,  97.— Washington,  J. ;  N. 
J.,  1815. 

2.  If  the  declar.ition  show  title  in  the 
plaintiff,  and  with  sufficient  certainty  to 
enable  the  court  to  give  judgment,  but 
the  declaration  is  not  as  explicit  as  might 
have  been  required,  the  defect  will  be 
cured  by  verdict.  Gray  v.  James,  Pet. 
C.  C,  482. — Washington,  J.;  Pa., 
1817. 

3.  In  an  action  for  infringement  of 
a  pateiit  brought  by  an  assignee,  the 
declaration  omitted  to  state  that  the  as- 
pignmeuts  had  been  recorded,  as  requir- 


ed by  §  4  of  the  act  of  1703,  but  ju,|.t. 
mint  was  rendered  f<»r  plaiiniH';  y/;/,) 
that  the  d<;fect  was  cured  by  the  vcnjid 
as  a  verdict  could  not  have  bt'i-n  riihli.r! 
ed  for  the  plaintiff  if  the  assigniiuntl,;,,! 
not  been  recorded,  as  nothing  w,)„ij 
puss  by  the  deed  unless  recorded,  Jj,j}^ 
son  V.  Catnphell,  1  Sumn.,  320.— Stoiiv 
J.;  Me.,  1833.  ' 

4.  Where  a  matter  is  so  essuntialK- 
necessary  to  bo  proved  to  establish  j 
plaintiff's  right  to  recovery,  tliat  tln> 
jury  could  not  be  presumed  to  h;ive 
found  a  verdict  for  him,  unless  it  lia,i 
been  proved  at  the  trial,  the  oiiii.ssion 
to  state  the  m.atter  in  express  tciiiiK  in 
the  declaration  is  cured  by  the  vunlitt 
if  the  general  terms  of  the  decliimti^,,' 
aie  otherwise  sufficient  to  conipiehcDj 
it.     Ihid.,  320. 

5.  After  verdict,  defects  in  suLstance 
in  the  declaration  are  cured  if  the  Um 
joined  be  such  as  necessarily  rc^jiiireii  i 
on  the  trial,  proof  of  the  facts  delict- 
ively  or  imperfectly  stated  or  omittcJ' 
after  verdict,  the  court  will  prosiinie 
that  the  facts  showing  the  right  were 
proved.  Stanley  v.  Whipple,  2  JMcLeai,  | 
42,  43.— McLean,  J.;  Ohio,  1839. 

£.  Demubreb. 


As  to  necessary  substance  in 
ing,  see  Pleading,  A.,  B. 


1.  Where  a  plaintiff  brought  elmil 
qui  tarn  actions  for  penalties  against itij 
same  defendant,  who  demurred  specii!>| 
ly  to  each  declaration,  and  the  jilaintUl 
joined  in  detriUrrer,  a  motion  that  m 
demurrer  be  argued,  and  that  prooedj 
ings  in  the  other  cases  be  stayed,  mI 
abide  the  event  of  the  one  argued,  m 
denied.  A  party  bringing  a  niultipliiil 
ty  of  suits  must  take  the  respoui>ibii!!l 


WN 


PRIXCIPLE. 


501 


WllKTIlKIl   PA TKN TABLB ;    TO   WHAT  KXTEKT. 


,  of  1703,  but  jud'^. 

for  jihuntitV;  JLil, 
jureilby  tho  vcvd'ut, 
lOt  hiivc  bi'i'ii  VLiulir- 
f  the  assif^iiiiicutliail 
I,  as  nothing  would 
nless  rccortU'tl.  Thlf 

Suran.,  320.— Stouy, 

alter  is  so  cssonl'mlly 
>roved  to  cstiillbh  a 
,0  recovery,  tliut  tlw 
be  presunieil  to  Iv.ive 
"or  him,  unless  it  1ml 
the  trial,  the  oiiiissiuii 
ier  in  express  tonus  in 
;  cured  by  the  vuvilid, 
ii-nis  of  the  dei'liiiatkn 
tfficient  to  coinprcln.'iid 

ict,  defects  in  siihstimct 
)n  are  cured  if  the  issiie 

as  necessarily  rc(iuired  I 
oof  of  the  facts  dtftct- 
jctly  stated  or  omittca; 
[be  court   will  pvosuniel 

ibowing  the  right  wtre 

ivv.irAJi>P^e,2MeLcai, 

,  J.;  Ohio,  1839. 

Demubreu. 

3ary  substance  iupleaij 
JlNG,  A.,  B. 

plaintiff  brought  elovt! 
L  for  penalties  agmnsttli 
ft,  who  demurred  specii 
laration,  and  the  ylM] 
Inrrer,  a  motion  that  ok 
Irgued,  and  that  proccti 
Ither  cases  be  stayed,  w 
V  of  the  one  argued, « 
Lty  bringing  a  nuiltipfc 
Lt  take  the  respousi« 


of  meeting  thetn  in  the  usu:d  way.  Fer- 
r,lt  V.  .1^"///,  1  Blatchf.,  152,  15:j.— 
lh;Trs,J.;  N.  Y.,  1840. 

j.  Wlicre  it  is  alleged  as  cause  of 
,l(i!UUTcr  tliat  the  declaration  is  not 
.,f„|,efly  entitled,  but  the  defect  is  not 
iioiiitotl  out  until  on  the  argiunent,  and 
consisted  in  a  variance  between  the 
writ  and  the  declaration,  the  court  will 
not  act  upon  it  upon  such  suggestion. 
]\'!l(k'r  V.  McCormii'k,  2  IJlatchf.,  32. 
-Hctts,  J.;  N.Y.,  1840. 

.•].  But  if  the  objection  had  been  prop- 
erly raised,  the  court  would  liavo  allow- 
c'll  nn  anuMidnient  of  the  error,  under 
5;  ,!:>  of  the  act  op  789.  (1  U.  S.  <Stat.  at 
bmje,  91.)     Ihid,  32. 

4.  Variances  between  the  writ  and 
declaration  cannot  be  taken  advan- 
ta!,'e  of  on  general   demurrer.     Ibid., 

5.  Courts  will  not  encourage  objec- 
tions merely  critical,  and  will  seek,  even 
on  special  demurre'',  to  sustain  plead- 

ijiigs  substantially  sufficient.  Ibid.,  37. 
(J.  If  a  demurrer  is  taken  to  all  the 
[pleas,  and  any  one  is  found  good,  the 
[domurrer  will  be  overruled.  lirown  v. 
Wiioheane,  2  Curt.,  07.— Curtis,  J.; 
JMass.,  1854. 

7.  Where  in  an  action  for  the  violaf  ion 
[of  a  patent,  the  defendant  pleaded  the 

general  issue  and  two  special  pleas,  and 
be  plaintiff  demurred,  alleging  that  the 
ever.al  pleas  were  insufficient,"'  Held, 
bat  as  one  of  the  pleas,  the  general  is- 

|ue  was  good,  the  demurrer  must  be 

jiverruled.    Ibid.,  97. 

8.  Where  a  demurrer  does  not  restrict 
self  to  the  usual  form  of  replying  to 
Bc  or  more  pleas,  which  is,  as  to  the 
|ud  pleas  by  the  defendant  secondly,  or 

condly  and  thirdly  pleaded,  the  legal 
|tendment  is,  that   it  applies  to  all. 
U,  97. 


PIIINCIPLE. 

See  also  Aht;  Discovery;  Ei''1"K(t; 
^loDK  oit  ^SIkthoi)  ;  Purpose. 

1.  The  legal  title  to  a  patent  consists 
not  in  a  principle  merely,  but  in  an  ap- 
plication of  a  principle,  whether  i>re- 
vloiisly  in  existence  or  u'^t,  to  sonu'  new 
and  useful  piu-pose.  }]7nt/H'i/\.  Carter, 
Fessenden  on  Pat.,  2d  Ed.,  139.— JoiiN- 
80X,  J. ;  Geo.,  1800. 

2.  A  more  altstract  principle  is  inisus- 
ceptiljlo  of  ai)propriation  by  patent. 
The  applicant  for  a  p.atent  must  show 
how  the  principle  is  to  be  used  and  ap- 
plied to  some  useful  purpose.  IJiians  v. 
IJaton,  Pet.C.  C,  341,  342.— Washing- 
Tox,  J.;  Pa.,  1810. 

3.  A  principle,  in  the  sense  of  ,an  ele- 
mentary truth  or  power,  is  not  the  sub- 
ject of  a  p.atent.  The  true  legal  mean- 
ing of  the  principle  of  a  machine,  with 
reference  to  the  patent  act,  is  the  pecu- 
liar structure  or  constituent  ])arts  of 
such  machine.  Barrett  v.  Ihdl,  1  Mas., 
470,  471.— Storv,  J. ;  Ma.ss.,  1818. 

4.  The  word  "  principles,"  as  used  in 
the  act  of  Congress,  does  not  mean 
merely  the  elementary  principles  of  bod- 
ies, as  earths,  alkalies,  «fcc. ;  or  of  me- 
chanic power,  as  the  lever,  screw,  wheel, 
&c. ;  or  of  power  obtained  by  water, 
air,  fire,  &c.  Because  scarcely  any  ma- 
chine, medicine,  or  utensil  could  be  con- 
structed or  operate  without  the  aid  of 
some  such  principles.  It  means  not  only 
elementary  principles,  but  the  applica- 
tion of  them.  Ilolden  v.  Curtis,  2  N. 
Ilamp.,  04. — Woodbury,  J. ;  N.  II., 
1819. 

5.  There  must  be  the  discovery  of 
new  principles,  or  the  employment  of 
old  ones  in  a  new  proportion,  or  in  a 


A  J '  I^LL'i 


:4^i» 


t«.^WM* 


w 


502 


PIIINCIPLE. 


4   .  i 


I 


l!! 


pm 


h 


I  ""  w, 


C'V 


WlirrtlER  PATKXTABLl;  TO  WHAT  KZTENT. 


new  process,  or  to  a  ik'w  imrposc.  In 
tlio  laiij^miLft'ofLonl  IJaooii,  tlierc  muHt 
be  "an  iiivi'iitioii  of  further  iiieans  to 
endow  the  coiKlition  and  life  of  man 
with  now  powers  or  works.     Ifu'd.,  (It. 

6.  The  thing  to  be  patented  is  not  a 
mere  elementary  prineiple  or  intellectual 
diseovery,  but  a  prineiple  put  in  prac- 
tice and  applied  to  some  art,  machine, 
mamifaeture,  or  composition  of  matter. 
J'Jarle  v.  Sntci/er,  4  Mas.,  0. — Story,  J.; 
Mass.,  1 H25. 

7.  What  constitutes  form,  and  what 
prineiple,  is  often  a  nice  question  to  de- 
cide. The  safest  guide  to  accuracy  in 
makii'g  the  distincti<m,  is  to  ascertain 
wh.at  is  the  result  to  bo  obtained  by  the 
discovery ;  and  whatever  is  essential  to 
that  object,  independent  of  the  mere 
form  and  proj)ortions  of  th-  thing  used 
for  the  jmrpose,  may  generally,  if  not 
universally,  be  considered  as  the  jjrinci- 
ples  of  the  invention.  IVeadwcll  v.  lila- 
den^  4  Wash.,  700. — Washington,  J. ; 
Pa.,  1827. 

8.  A  patent  cannot  be  for  a  principle 
or  function  of  a  machine,  detached  from 
machinery.  Slanchard  v.  Sj/rarfue,  li 
Sumn.,  540. — Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1839. 

9.  A  patent  cannot  bo  maintained  for 
an  abstract  principle,  or  for  all  possible 
and  probable  modes  of  doing  a  thing ; 
but  such  a  patent  would  bo  utterly  void. 
Stone  V.  Spraffue,  1  Story,  272. — Story, 
J.;  R.  I.,  1840. 

10.  A  patent  for  an  abstract  principle 
is  void.  Wycth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  285. 
— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

11.  Where,  therefore,  in  a  patent  for 
an  improvement  in  the  manner  of  cut- 
ting ice,  the  patentee  claimed  "  as  new, 
to  cut  ice  of  a  uniform  size  by  means  of 
an  apparatus  worked  by  any  other  pow- 
er than  human,"  Held,  that  such  a  claim 
was  utterly  unmaintainable  in  point  of 


law,  as  it  was  a  claim  for  an  art  or  in  in 
ciple  in  the  abstract,  and  not  lor  any 
particular  method  or  machinery  l.i 
which  ice  Mas  to  be  cut.  No  man  (;,I, 
have  a  right  to  cut  ice  by  all  nicms  ur 
methods,  or  by  all  or  any  sort  of  aim;!, 
ratus,  although  he  is  not  the  invcutur 
of  any  or  all  of  such  means,  method.^ 
or  apparatus.     If)id.,  285. 

12.  There  cannot  be  a  patent  for  a 
principle,  nor  for  the  application  o{  a 
priiuriple,  nor  for  an  effect.  Jioln  \, 
Morse,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— C'ltANcu,  (i,. 
J.;  1).  C,  1840. 

13.  Two  persors  may  use  the  same 
princijile  and  produce  the  sanie  ofTtrt 
^'i/  different  nieaua,  without  interfcreiico 
or  infringement,  and  each  would  be  ph. 
titled  to  a  patent  for  his  own  invention. 
Ibid. 

1 4.  A  mere  difference  in  form  or  sizo 
is  not  a  difference  in  principle;  but  a 
new  application  of  known  niecliaiiical 
power  is,  in  regard  to  invention,  a  new 
principle.  Foote  v.  Slhhy,  1  IJlatcIit"., 
459,  460. — Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

15.  A  principle  is  not  patentable. 
"  The  motive  power  of  the  galvanic  cm- 
rent,  however  developed  to  produce  a 
given  result,"  can  be  no  more  patcntctl 
than  the  motive  power  of  steam  to  pro- 
pel boats,  however  applied.  Smith  v. 
Ely,  5  McLean,  01. — McLean,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1840. 

16.  The  discovery  of  a  new  principle 
is  not  patentable,  but  it  must  be  em- 
bodied and  brought  into  operation  by 
machinery  so  as  to  produce  a  new  mui 
useful  result.  Tatham  v.  Le  Roy,  MS. 
—Nelson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

17.  He  who  first  discovers  that  a  ww 
of  nature  can  be  applied,  and  having 
devised  machinery  to  make  it  operative, 
introduces  it  in  a  practical  form  to  tlio 
knowledge  of  his  fellow-men,  is  a  (lis- 


•^*t'»s«..k- 


for  an  art  or  prin 

ami  not  lor  any 

)r    inacliiiicry  l,y 

!Ut.     No  iiiiiu  cm, 

e  by  all  means  or 

any  Hort  of  ii\y^v\- 

not  the  invciitnr 

nioans,  nictliod.H, 

285. 

be  a  patent  for  :i 
3  ajiplieation  of  ;i 
1  effect.  Jldin  v. 
as.) — CitANCM,  Cli, 

may  use  tlio  samo 
CO  the  sanu"  oftVii 
itbojit  interfereiiro 
each  would  he  cii- 
his  own  invention, 

(nee  in  form  or  size 
in  principle ;  hut  a 
known  mecliaiiiciil 
to  invention,  a  new 
Silshj,  1  IJlatclit:, 
.;  N.Y.,  1849. 
is    not   patentable. 
of  the  galvanic  cm- 
ped  to  produce  a 
no  more  patented 
er  of  steam  to  pro- 
applied.    Smith  V. 
McLean,  J.;  Ohio, 

of  a  new  principle 
it  it  must  he  ern- 
into  oper.ition  h\- 
rocluce  a  new  and 
mm  V.  Ze  i?oy,MS. 
".,  1849. 

iscovers  that  a  law 

)plied,  and  havini^ 

,  make  it  operative, 

?tical  form  to  tlio 


HloAV-men,  is  a 


dis- 


PUINCIPLK. 


003 


WMKTIIKIt  PATKMTAni.*;   TO   WHAT  MTE.VT. 


covercr  and  inventor  of  the  highest 
jrratle— not,  men-Iy  (»f  the  mechanism, 
but  of  the  force  which  operat"s  tliVongli 
the  mechanical  medium,  I  Ik;  principle, 
or  to  use  the  synonym  given  for  this 
term  ill  the  act  of  l7f>M,  the  (-fitirai'tir 
of  tlio  nuichine.  J'arher  v.  Jliilttie,  7 
West.  Law  Jour.,  422.— Kaxi:,J.  ;  I'a.., 

1849. 

18.  lie  nniy  assert  and  establish  his 
iiropcrty,  not  only  in  the  formal  device 
for  which  mechanical  ingenuity  cmi  at 
once,  as  soon  as  the  princijdc  is  known, 
imagine  a  thousand  substitutes — some 
JI.S  (rood,  others  better,  perhajis  all  dis- 
fiiuiilar,  yet  all  illustrative  of  the  same 
principle,  and  depending  on  it — but  in 
the  essential  principle  which  his  ma- 
chine was  the  first  to  endjody,  to  e.vom- 
jdify,  to  illustrate,  to  nuike  operative, 
and  to  announce  to  mankind.  Ibid, 
422. 

19.  This  is  not  to  patent  an  abstrac- 
tion, hut  rather  the  invention,  as  the 
inventor  has  given  it  to  the  world,  in 
its  full  dimensions  and  extent — nothing 
less,  but  nothing  more.  It  is  to  patent 
the  invention  in  the  broad  and  general 
terms  that  properly  express  it,  and  to 
secure  to  the  party  the  exclusive  right, 
for  a  limited  time,  to  precisely  that  dis- 
covery which  he  has  imparted  to  the 
public,  and  Avhicli  the  public,  when  that 
limited  time  expires,  will  enjoy.  Ibid., 
422,  423. 

20.  What  is  to  be  protected,  is  not 
an  abstract  or  isolated  principle,  but  the 
embodiment  of  a  principle  into  a  ma- 
chine or  manufacture,  as  described  in 
the  specification ;  and  it  is  the  inven- 
tion in  conformity  with  that  embodi- 
ment or  representation  of  its  working, 
which  the  act  of  Congress  protects. 
Smith  V.  Downing^  MS. — Woodbury, 
J.;  Mass.,  1850. 

38 


21.  It  is  well  settled  that  a  patent 
caimot  cover  a  new  principle,  without 
reference  to  any  mode  or  method  of  en- 
forcing it.     Ibid. 

22.  The  impropriety  of  granting  n 
patent  for  the  invention  or  discovery  of 
a  principle,  however  important  it  nmy 
hi'  per  tie,  rests  on  the  idea  that  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  the  invention  is  giv(>n  to 
the  patentee  to  reward  his  genius  and 
exi)enso  in  making  the  invention,  and 
pointing  out  how  it  can  be  used  bene- 
ficially. The  j)atent  is,  and  niust  be,  in 
order  to  possess  viiiidity,  not  for  the 
priiuMpk' — but  for  the  machine,  mode, 
or  nnnmfacture,  to  carry  out  the  priniM- 
ple  and  reduce  it  to  practice.  The  prin- 
ciple thus  becomes  the  modus  operandi, 
and  rests  in  the  new  mode  adopted  to 
accomplish  certain  results.     Ibid. 

2;i.  Though  some  exp'-essions  may 
have  been  used  by  some  of  the  judges, 
';»hich  look  like  a  sanction  to  patenting 
a  principle,  yet  they  are  used  in  the 
sense  of  a  principle  in  operation,  in  the 
manner  set  out  in  the  specification,  or 
are  used  too  loosely  from  haste  and  inad- 
vertence.    Ibid. 

24.  A  patent  cannot  be  for  a  princi- 
ple or  a  result,  but  must  be  for  the  me- 
chanical means  by  which  the  principle 
is  carried  into  effect,  or  the  result 
attained.  Urooks  v.  I^iske,  M'*^, — 
Spraguk,  J.;  Mass.,  1851. 

25.  Although  a  mere  abstr.ict  concep- 
tion of  the  application  of  a  principle  is 
not  the  subject  matter  of  a  patent,  yet 
when  it  is  reduced  to  practice  by  any 
means,  old  or  new,  resulting  usefully, 
it  is  the  subject  of  a  patent,  independent 
of  the  machinery  by  which  the  applica- 
tion is  made.  Ihote  v.  Sihby,  2  Blatchf., 
265.— Nelsox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1851. 

26.  And  it  is  immaterial  whether  the 
means  used  be  new  or  old,  for  though 


,   ..- ,.».^'V'-''I 


Ui/Wi»^^^'^' 


,-^'V-'JS..'J»' 


4  A  '       !  I 


''■■ 

■1 

.^' 

'^Mfk^v 

I^^^Pnl 

i 

^yi^u 

'::wm 

n 

;^^^'^^'*****a 

-'-' 

k 

by 


/  /. 


nH 


PKINCirLE. 


WUKTIIKR  I'ATBNTAULB;    TO   WHAT   KXTBNT. 


!»'■ 


^**'- 
>^..*«. 


l«-ifW 


nl)1  ini>an8  be  iikciI  for  j^iviii^  iippliciition 
to  tlio  lU'W  coiK'cption,  yi't  the  imti'iit 
t'Xclutli'H  J?U  ptTHdns  otlu'i"  tlinii  llic  pat- 
fiitec  from  thi'  tise  of  thoM"  iiu-niis,  and 
of  all  utiicr  iMc'iiiN,  in  a  hiinilar  applioa- 
tion.     I?)id.,  205. 

27.  A  priiu'iplo  in  tlic  abstract  is  a 
futubuiu'iital  tniih — an  original  cause — 
a  motive;  these  oannot  be  patented,  as 
no  one  ean  elaiin  in  either  of  them  an  ex- 
clusive right.  Nor  can  an  exclusive  right 
exist  to  a  new  power,  shouhl  one  bo  dis- 
covere«l,  as  steari,  electricity,  or  any 
other  power  of  nature,  f^e  Itoy  v.  2\i- 
t/i(wi,  14  How.,  175, — M<Lkan,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

2H.  In  all  such  eases,  the  processes 
used  to  extract,  modify,  and  concentrate 
natural  agencies,  constitute  the  inven- 
tion. The  elements  of  the  power  ex- 
ist ;  the  invention  is  not  in  discovering 
them,  but  in  applying  them  to  useful 
objects.  The  right  of  the  inventor  is 
secured  agaii.st  all  who  use  the  same 
mechanical  power,  or  one  substantially 
the  same.     Ibid,,  170. 

29.  In  this  case  the  patentees  claim 
the  combination  of  machinery  described, 
as  their  invention,  whidi  can  oidy  be 
sustained  by  establishing  its  novelty. 
The  question  whether  a  newly  discover- 
ed property  of  lead  might  be  patented 
is  not  in  the  case.     Ibid.,  177. 

30.  A  patent  cannot  be  for  an  effect 
produced,  distinct  from  the  process  or 
machinery  necessary  to  i)roduce  it. 
CBidly  V.  Morse,  15  How.,  120.— 
Taney,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

31.  Morse's  claim  for  "the  use  of  the 
motive  power  of  the  electric  or  galvanic 
current,  however  developed,  for  mark- 
ing or  printing  intelligible  characters, 
at  a  distance ;"  Held,  to  be  a  claim  for 
a  principle,  and  therefore  not  patenta- 
ble.   Ibid.,  120. 


32.  A  new  principle  or  id«'a,  until  it 
becomes  properly  and  practically  cloth, 
ed,  is  not    patentable,     McConulrk  y 
luti'hnin,  MS.  (App.  Cub.) — Moksku 
.].;  I).  C,  iHr.a. 

33.  Neither  jjrinciples,  nor  al)>fr;ut 
philosophical  ideas,  nor  the  natuial  fiiiir- 
tions  either  of  the  human  bo<ly,  ..r  (if  mat. 
ters  of  nature,  are  pati-ntable.  MurtDua 
Case,  8  Opin.,  272. — Cuhhing,  Atty. 
(ten,;   1850. 

.')4,  A  patent  cannot  be  sustained  for  ..j 
mere  principle ;  but  a  principle  niav  Im 
embodied  and  ajtplied,  so  as  to  allonl 
some  result  of  practical  utility  in  the 
arts  and  manufactures,  and  under  such 
circumstances  a  principle  may  ho  the 
subject  of  a  patent.  It  is,  howt'vcr,  tlio 
embodiment  and  the  application  of  the 
priiu'iple  which  constitutes  the  grant  of 
the  patent.  Wintermute  v,  ItaliitijUm 
MS, — Wii,soN,  J, ;  Ohio,  lHr)0. 

35.  The  principle  so  embodied  and 
applied,  and  the  principle  of  such  em- 
bodiment and  ajjplication,  arc  essen- 
tially ditferent :  the  former  hcinj,'  a 
truth  of  exact  science,  or  a  law  of 
natural  science,  or  a  rule  of  piactict" 
the  latter  a  practice  founded  upon  such 
truth,  law,  or  rule.     Ibid. 

36.  A  patentee  claimed  the  ai)|ilica- 
tion  of  the  exj)ansive  and  contractive 
power  of  a  metallic  rod  by  diilcrent  de- 
grees of  heat,  to  open  and  close  a  (l.iiiipcr 
which  governs  the  admission  of  air  into 
a  stove.  Ifeld,  that  it  was  a  valid  claiin, 
not  being  for  a  princijile,  and  tliut  tlic 
patent  was  good.  Silsby  v.  Fovte,  20 
IIow.,  385. — Nelson,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 
Griek,  Daniel,  JJ.,  dissenting,  is'iT. 

37.  The  true  doctrine  is,  that  there 
cannot  be  a  patent  for  a  princi])le,  for 
a  result,  or  the  function  of  a  machine: 
but  there  may  bo  a  patent  for  a  nKichine 
or  manufacture,  and  when  we  come  to 


:%« .  "v". 


)r  uli'ii,  tmtil  ii 
ractU'ivUy  rloth- 
McVttnn'tvk  v. 
UK.) — iloUSKLI., 

o«,  nor  abstnut 
the  n!itin:il  fiiiic- 
il»()(ly,.ii()t'iiiul- 
itiiblo.  Morton  i 
-CuHiuN*;,  Ally. 

l)c  Hustaint'il  tor  a 
jiviuc'iplt'  miiy  l)e 
I,  so  as  lo  atVnnl 
c-jil  utility  in  tlic 
,  a«<l  uikUt  siu'h 
ijiplo  niiiy  lu)  ilic 
It  is,  howi'VLT,  tlio 
aj)plic'iition  of  llic 
itutes  the  Lrriuil  of 
)iute  V.  JudiiiijloH, 
)hio,  lHr)0. 
8o  embotVu'il  and 
iciplo  of  such  cm- 
calion,    are  I'ssen- 

ibnner    bciiij,'  a 
nco,  or   a  law  of 

rule  of  pnictiLo; 
foumleil  upon  such 

tumeil  the  api^lica- 
e  and  contnidive 
■o<l  by  tlillV'ronl  tie- 
and  close  a  dainiHT 
[imission  of  air  inlo 
[t  was  a  valiil  claim, 
iciple,  and  that  tlui 
Hlsby  V.  Footc,  liO 
•,J.;  Sni).Ct,185:. 
dissentino;,  iSoV. 
;rine  is,  that  tlierc 
:or  a  principle,  for 
ion  of  a  nKii'liinc: 
.tent  for  a  machine 
when  we  come  to 


ritlOll  KNOWLKOGK,  Oil  INVKNTION. 


605 


BT  TUini>  rKIWUNtt;   WIIIOH  WILL  DUTKAT  A  PATIKT, 


test  the  question  of  infrin^eiuent,  tho 
question  «tf  priiiciph'  «'oiufs  up  in  this 
liu'ht,  Wiiat  is  the  i'  >de  of  operation 
of  the  inaehine  invented?  Shujir  v. 
]V,iht>sh'i/,  MS.— Gii.F.s  J.;  Md.,  1850. 

H8.  A  priiu'iple  is  not  p:itentable;  bnt 
if  one  iliseovers  a  principle,  and  a  mode 
of  operution,  lie  has  a  right  to  have  u 
latent  for  tho  mode  of  currying  the 
nrincipio  into  clfect ;  and  if  anybody 
takes  his  principle  and  his  mode  of  op- 
eration, suV>stantially,  thon^h  lie  varies 
the  tbrni,  he  is  an  infrinjjfer.     Ifuif. 

.19.  However  brilliant  tho  discovery 
of  a  new  jirinciidts  may  bo,  to  make  it 
iiHcfiil  it  must  be  applied  to  some  prac- 
tical purpose.  Short  of  this  no  patent 
can  he  granted.  Zc  A'o?/  v.  Tathuiii^ 
'!•!  How.,  137. — ^IcLkav,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
lHr)0. 

40.  Tho  principle  may  bo  tho  new 
and  valuable  discovery,  but  the  practi- 
cal i4)plication  of  it  to  some  Jiseful  pur- 
pose iit  tho  tost  of  its  value.    Ibid.y  137. 


PRINCIPLE  OP  A  MACHINE. 

See  Macuinks,  A. 


PRINTED  PUBLICATION. 

See  PuBuc  Wouk. 


PRIOR  KNOWLEDGE  AND   IN- 
VENTION. 

See  also,  as  bearing  on  tliis  title,  In- 
vention, B. ;  Invuntok,  A.,  B. ;  Pub- 
lic Work. 

1.  In  this  country,  if  it  appears  that 
the  plaintiif  was  not  the   original  in- 


ventor, in  reference  to  other  purls  of  tho 
worhl  as  wt'Il  as  America,  he  is  not  »'n- 
titled  lo  a  patent.  Atitn-,  in  Kngland, 
in  conseiiiience  of  the  statute  (»f  .lames 
I.,  which  speaks  of  new  inanufictures, 
witlihi  the  rcttlm,  Jitiitf/en  v.  J\tiit(iin\i, 
1  Wash.,  170. — Wasiiinoto.v,  J.;  Pa., 

1801. 

2.  In  an  action  for  a  violation  of  a 
pati'iit,  to  eiititlo  tho  plaintiif  to  re- 
cover, the  jury  must  ])e  satisfied  that, 
he  was  i)ie  original  inventor,  not  only 
in  relation  lo  the  United  States,  but  to 
other  parts  of  tho  world.  Even  if  there 
was  no  proof  that  the  plaintiif  knew 
that  the  discovery  had  been  bifbro 
made,  still  he  could  not  recover,  if  in 
truth  ho  was  not  the  original  inventor. 
Jhtwaun  V.  JAjllCii,  2  Wash.,  31 1. — 
WAsniNtiTo.v,  J.;  Pa.,  1808. 

3.  It  is  not  neci'ssaiy,  to  defeat  a 
patent,  that  a  machine  should  have  pre- 
viously existed  in  every  respect  similar: 
a  mere  change  of  former  projiortions 
will  not  entitle  a  party  to  a  patent. 
Woodcock  V.  Parker,  1   Gull.,  340. — 

Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

4.  The  title  of  a  patentee  in.iy  be  im- 
peached by  showing  th.at  his  invention 
had  been  known  and  used  before  in  any 
part  of  the  world,  although  lie  Avas  ig- 
norant, at  the  time  lie  received  his  pat- 
ent, that  the  invention  had  been  in  uso 
before  his  discovery.  Eoans  v.  Eaton, 
Vet.  C.  C,  342.— WASIIIN..TON,  J. ;  Pa., 
1810.     [Affirmed,  ;ms^  9.] 

5.  Any  patent  may  be  defeated,  by 
showing  that  the  thing  secured  by  tho 
patent  had  been  discovered  and  put  in 
:ictual  use  prior  to  the  discovery  of  the 
p.itentee,  however  limited  the  use  or  tho 
knowledge  of  the  prior  disiovery  may 
have  been.  Jicdford  v.  Hunt,  1  Mas., 
305.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

G.  If  the  first  inventor  reduced  bis 


..   lu, 


'i,,»  I 


'■    I-! 


'J 

A»^SM{ 

^u 

;''• 

^Wmg\ 

liii 

^-'^ 

n 

VlDftlti 

!! 

w 

■fe^S^k^ 

y 

-.-•-fiTS 

m 

800 


.J  i^j 


N. 


-lt^' 


nilOU  K\OWI,i:i)fJK,  OK  IWKNTIOX. 

or   Tlllltl)   I'CIIMINh;    WIIK  II    will.    UKri'AI-   A    PATKNT. 


tlu'firy  to  pniftlcc,  niid  put  IiIm  utiu^liiiio 
or  «)tli(.>i'  iiivontiori  into  usi>,  tlio  l:iw 
cotiM  novor  intctid  that  tlio  ^nuitor  or 
loNH  UHu  in  wliicli  it  nii^lit  be,  or  tlio 
iiioro  or  U'SH  wi'icly  the  kiiowlcilj^c  of 
itH  ovistciK'c  inij^lit  circulate,  mIkhiM  con- 
Ntitiitc  till'  criterion  l»y  wliicli  to  decide 
Upon  the  validity  of  any  Hul).se(|iieiit  pat- 
ent for  the  same  invention.     I/>i(f.,  UO.'i. 

7.  It  makes  no  ilifU-ronct!  as  to  the 
jmtentee's  ri;j;hts,  whellier  the  prior  ma- 
chiiK'  or  invention  has  fallen  into  disuHe 
or  not :  if  it  was  used  l)ef«)re  his  discov- 
ery III!  camiot  ohinin  a  patent  for  it. 
J'Jniha  v.  J/ittirA;  ;J  Wash.,  44:).— 
■\Vasiiinuton,  J. ;  I'a.,  1818. 

H.  And  it  is  in  material  whether  the 
jiatentee  had  noticof  a  prior  invention 
or  not.  If  it  was  in  nse  in  any  jtart  of 
the  world,  however  unlikely  or  impos- 
pihlo  that  the  fact  should  come  to  the 
knowled,!^e  of  the  patentee,  his  patent 
for  the  same  niaehinu  oaiuiot  bo  sup- 
ported.    11)1(1.,  44;!. 

9.  Under  i?  0  of  the  net  of  1793,  if 
the  thing  had  been  in  use  or  known  an- 
terior to  the  patentee's  supposed  discov- 
ery, his  patent  is  void.  Though  the  pat- 
entee had  no  knowledge  of  such  previ- 
ous use,  still  his  i)atent  is  void,  as  the 
law  supposes  ho  may  have  known  it. 
J^'mtns  w  Eaton,  3  Wheat.,  514. — Mau- 
siiAix,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 

10.  If  a  defendant  attempts  to  avoid 
a  patent,  by  showing  that  the  patentee 
was  not  the  original  inventor,  the  pat- 
ent will  be  considered  as  relating  back 
to  the  original  discovert/,  and  not  to  the 
time  of  ajiplicaticn  for  a  patent.  Dixon 
,'.  Moj/er,  4  Wash.,  72. — Washington, 
r.;  Ta.,  1821. 

1 1.  Under  the  act  of  1793,  the  inven- 
tion must  be  now  as  to  all  the  world, 
and  must  not  have  been  "known  or 
used  before  the  application"  cither  by 


tho  invi'ntor  or  others ;  nnd  miiit  bp 
useful.  The  time  of  the  tliscoverv  ro. 
ferred  to  in  \j^  0,  refers  to  the  date  df 
the  application,  and  doen  not  go  ]ku\ 
of  it.  Thompson  v.  IlitiijhU  I  U.  S.  I.hw 
.lour.,  T)?;!. — Van  Nkss,  .1.;  N.  V.,  Is.'j. 
I'J.  }5  1  of  tho  act  of  17!»3  is  lo  Ih- 
construed  with  J}  0,  and  means  that  tliu 
improvement  or  discovery  hIiouM  lie 
unknown  and  not  used  as  the  invon. 
lion  of  any  other  person  than  tlic  p.it. 
etitee,  before  the  application  for  a  |);it. 
ent.  Moni»  v.  IfuHtiiii/ton,  I  I'liln,., 
m:*'.'.— Tno.Mi'soN,  J.  ;  N.  v.,  lh'J4. 

13.  The  use  of  an  invention  l.y  an- 
other, while  the  inventor  is  practi^in.r 
and  experimenting  with  it  for  the  Huku 
of  perfecting  his  invention,  will  mil  in. 
validate  the  patent  afterward  griinhd 
the  inventor.     Ibid.,  354. 

14.  Under  the  act  of  1703  the  prior 
existence  of  .-m  article  the  same  in  piin. 
ciple  M'ith  an  article  jiatente<l,  wdiiM 
not  be  regarded  as  impeaching  tlie  v;i 
lidity  of  such  patent,  if  such  arlick'liiHl 
never  been  in  use  before  the  i)ateiiteu',s  in. 
vent  ion.  Petmuck  v.  Dialoy\(e,  4  Wasli,, 
543. — Wasiiinoton,  J.;  Pa.,  1825. 

15.  The  use  of  a  machine  even  to  a 
limited  extent — as  of  a  biscuit  inacliiiiu 
to  the  extent  of  perhaps  half  a  b;iriel 
of  flour — amounts  to  a  using  of  it  witli- 
in  the  true  meaning  of  §  0  of  the  pat  tut 
act  of  1793,  and  such  as  will  invalidate  a 
p.atent  granted  for  a  subsequent  inven- 
tion. Watson  V.  Bladen,  4  Wash.,  583. 
— Washington,  J.;  Pa.,  1820. 

10.  And  it  will  make  no  difTercnco 
that  such  uso  may  have  been  for  tho 
purpose  of  testing  its  practical  utility. 
Ibid.,  583. 

1 7.  The  testimony  of  a  witness  that 
he  had  seen,  before  plaintiff's  invention, 
articles  resembling  those  produced  by 
it,  but  of  which  ho  had  no  knowleclg« 


v:^. 


c^' 


of  a  witness  that 
plaintiff's  invention, 
[those  produced  by 

had  no  knowledg* 


I'KIOR  KXOWr.KDr.K,  OR  TNVKA'TIOV. 

iiy  Tiiiiii)  pkiihonh;  which  wii.i,  DrnuT  a  fAiKNT. 


ft07 


liow  tlu'y  wtTc  iniidc,  U  not  Niifllcli'nt 
cvidi'tK'i'  li*  invulidatc  plaiiilitW  iiatciit, 
on  iliu  ^i'ouiitl  tliiit  li(>  witH  not  tlit<  tii-Ht 
inventor,  or  that  tlic  NtiiMt'  tldn^  had 
lit'iii  in  iiHi!  l)i'lorc  hJM  invcnlioii,  nnh'xs 
tlio  jury  fan  safi'Iy  coiuliuh'  rinm  the 
a|i|ifarari(Hi  of  Hiich  iirtirU's,  that  tlioy 
wiTc  niadu  hy  u  niachinc  oiidtodyin^ 
t|ii>  |irin(>i|>l(>H  of  plaintiirs  patent. 
Ti-riiihnll  V.  Jilin/iH,  4  Wash.,  TO*}.— 
WAsiiiN<iTON',  J.;  I*a.,  IHVJV. 

IS.  'I'hi'  true  coimtriiction  of  the  net 
uf  1T()-'I  ("i  t'>:>t  to  invalidate  a  patent, 
till'  thitiLJ  patented,  wlii-re  a  prior  pat 
I'lit  in  relied  on,  must  ha\e  hcen  ns»'d 
iiiior  to  *lio  alh'j^tMl  t/iicuvcri/  of  the 
|i;iteiitPO,  anil  that  it  is  fiot  Nuflieiciit  to 
hlmw  tliat  it  wan  so  used  prior  to  the 
aii|iliiMtion.      //>/</.,  70H. 

lit.  Tlie  rule,  that  if  an  invention  has 
.lii't'U  in  use,  or  deseriln-d  in  a  jtuhlie 
work  Iiefi)ro  llu'  supposed  discovery,  the 
pHti'iit  is  void,  wiiether  the  patentee 
kin'W  of  such  previous  use  or  pnldica- 
tiou  or  not,  holds  if  the  machines  are 
tliu  s;uue  in  principle,  though  tliey  may 
(lifter  ill  proportions  or  form.  Uro  >/i/< 
v.  Jlii-kiidl,  ;»  McLean,  'JO;J. — iMcLic.w, 
J.;  Ohio,  184;i. 

20.  An  inventor  will  not  bo  deprived 
of  the  beuelils  of  his  invention  and  a 
rij,'lit  to  a  patent,  hy  a  use  of  his  inven- 
tion hefore  his  application  for  a  patent, 
without  his  con.scnt  and  against  his  will, 
tiinl  -.vithout  any  Itches  or  misconduct 
on  liis  part.  Pierson  v.  EtKjU  Screw 
Co.,  3  Story,  407.— Stouy,  J. ;  li.  I., 
1844. 

i!l.  If  a  patentee  is  not  the  first  or 
original  inventor,  in  reference  to  all  the 
world,  ho  is  not  entitled  to  a  i)atent, 
though  he  had  no  knowledge  of  any 
previous  use  or  description  of  the  in- 
vention. Street  v.  Silver,  Brightly,  08. 
-UoGEns,  J. ;  Pa.,  1840. 


•i'2.  The  provii*ioiiM  of  {<;{  7  aiwl  1.%  of 
the  act  of  iH.'itI,  introduced  an  impor- 
tant nioditieation  into  tlio  law  of  put- 
entH,  desi;.Mied  t«>  protect  the  American 
inventor  against  the  injustice  of  heiiig 
thrown  out  of  the  fruits  of  his  ing«'nit- 
ity  hy  till)  existence  of  a  secret  inven- 
tion or  discovery  iihroail — tliat  is,  a  dis. 
covery  not  patciitetl,  and  not  dest  ril»cd 
in  any  printed  pulilication.  Anon.,  ."^ 
Opin.,  '-'I.— Toi  (K.v,  Atty.  (ten.;   \H\H. 

'2'.\.  A  f»nniijt(ii:  hiventor  in  this  conn- 
try,  and  who  helieved  himsi'lf  to  he  tin' 
original  and  lirst  inventor,  nt  the  time  of 
his  ap|ilicatioii,  and  did  not  know  or  he- 
lieve  his  invention  had  hefore  heen  known 
or  used,  is  entitled  to  a  patent  for  his  in- 
vcntion,  though  the  sann;  invention  m:iy 
have  heen  kmiwn  ami  used  in  a  foreign 
country,  provided  it  had  not  heen  pat- 
ented or  descrihed  in  any  printed  puh- 
lication.     /f>i(f. 

24.  In  such  a  ease,  the  American  in- 
ventor is,  in  contemplation  of  law,  un- 
der the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, the  original  and  first  inventor. 
Tlie  fact  that  an  invention,  not  ])atented 
or  descrihed  in  any  printed  puhlication, 
has  been  before  known  and  used  in  any 
foreign  country,  is  inun.alerial,  except 
so  far  as  it  may  have  come  to  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  American  inventor,  and  con- 
flict with  the  oath  he  is  recpiired  to  take 
as  an  original  inventor.     Il/id. 

25.  If  the  apidicimt  is  .an  original  in- 
ventor, and  is  in  a  condition  to  take  tlio 
oath  re(piired,  the  ai^t  recpiircs  the  Com- 
missioner to  issue  the  patent,  and  the 
courts  to  declare  it  valid,  and  establishes 
the  American  right,  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  foreign  discovery,  which  has  not,  in 
either  of  the  modes  indicated  by  the 
act  of  Congress,  been  communicated  to 
the  public.     Ibid. 

26.  Where  a  prior  invention  is  set  up 


''"iM^) 


•-cC 


'"■rliN*^*»*lll'' 


\>JU>^. 


wWWWj 


M^ 


•^l<Wl.  {1 


is-  I. 


SN 


riUOIt  KNOWLKDOR,  OR  INVENTION'. 


pi« 


5H.  -IS 


lplii.1 


nr  Tiimu  ntmnnn;  which  will  rarnAT  a  i>at>»t. 


tn  (li'tt'iit  11  pntciit,  Nti(!h  iiivoiilioti  iniiht 
he  mIiowii  to  l)i>  tiMtro  tlimi  lui  idcti,  tmd 
Tiiii«t  liiivt*  Im*i'ii  rciliK'ctI  to  Motiio  priKv 
tirjil  iiKc.  An  nliorfivt'  »'\|u'iimriir  will 
Hot  lio  Niillii'icnt.  M<iny\.  Jiiifij>r,  I 
lM:»t«'lit:,    383.— Xki.ho!*,    J.;    N.    Y., 

'-'7.  WluTc  ri  prior  InviMition  wim 
cliiiiiK  <l  to  !)(>  Niil)<«(anti:tlly  lilvc  ii  sub- 
tXMpiciit  OHO,  //(/'/,  the  jury  I'oiiM  i;il<»> 
into  coriHJili'ration,  in  ilcli'i-miiiiii^  tliu 
question  ot"  identity,  tliaf  Kinh  prior  in- 
Vetitioti  was  known  to  persons  wlio  ex- 
perinieiited  to  prodiiee  tlie  sidisetpient 
one,  hut  failed  to  do  ho.     Ibid.,  3H(). 

'JH.  It  is  not  e!  MiLjh  to  defeat  a  patent 
nireaily  issiu'd,  tliat  anotlier  conceived 
•  th<'  idea  or  possibility  of  elfcctin^  what 
the  palenteu  nccoinpli-^hed.  I'ltrA'/iurHt 
y.  JihiHtnini,  1  Ulatchf,  40i. — Nki,hon, 
J.;  N.  v.,  iMt!). 

21).  To  constitute  a  prior  invention, 
the  party  alU'j^od  to  huvo  produced  it 
must  have  proceeded  ho  far  aH  to  Imve 
re<luced  liis  idea  to  practice,  and  em- 
bodied it  in  sonic  distinct  form.  Iblil., 
404. 

.'JO.  Crude  and  imperfect  experiments, 
ocpiivocal  in  their  results,  and  then  \(\\'- 
cn  up  for  years,  catinot  be  permitted  to 
prevail  au;ainst  an  orii^inal  inventor,  who 
lias  perfe(!ted  his  improvement  and  o))- 
tained  his  patent.     Ibid.,  494. 

;(1.  Where  a  dispute  arises  as  to  pri- 
ority of  invention,  a  patentee  is  allowed 
to  show  the  real  date  of  it,  and  to  have 
his  rights  as  fully  secured  as  if  lie  had 
taken  out  hia  patent.  Parker  v.  llulme, 
7  West.  Law  Jour.,  424. — Kank,  J.; 
Pa.,  1840. 

32.  It  is  not  enough  in  order  to  de- 
feat a  patentee's  right,  to  show  that  a 
m.-ichine  like  that  p.itented  had  been 
made,  but  it  must  also  be  shown  that 
it  was  tised  before  the   plaintiff's  in- 


vention. This  \h  the  lot  of  what  in  r«>. 
quired,  to  defeat  the  title  of  the  pati'ti- 
tu«*  of  an  improved  mnchine,    /bid,,  4■J,^, 

;j;».  In  inler  to  confer  any  exrlu^JM. 
right  on  the  patentee,  the  thing  patent- 
ed must  iiave  b«>en  original  with  the  in- 
vontor,  and  not  known  to  others.  'l'||,, 
only  exception  to  this  rule,  is  where  mi 
imlividiial  obtains  a  [latent,  believin^r 
the  invention  to  bo  original,  nnd  ii  j^ 
made  to  appear  it  had  been  hnotm  in  w 
/■(»>•»'////<  country,  but  not  patented  tlicn, 
nor  «lescrilie<l  in  any  printed  puMici- 
tion.  Piirker  v.  SHIih,  5  McLean,  (»|, 
— Mrl.KAN,  J.  ;  Ohio,  |H4I». 

34.  IVoof  of  a  previous  stnictiirc, 
bearing  some  resemblance  in  some  ic- 
Hpeets  to  the  plaiiitilV's  improvenientx, 
and  which  might  have  been  stiggestivu 
of  ideas,  or  led  to  experiments  result- 
ing ill  tlu'  discovery  and  completion  of" 
his  improvement,  will  not  invalidali' his 
patent,      /bid,,  H2. 

.'1.5.  The  prior  construction  anil  iiscnf 
a  thing,  in  one  instance  only,  for  priviito 
use,  and  which  had  never  been  br()iii,'lii 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  public,  and 
which  had  been  finally  forgotten  nr 
abandoned,  before  the  invention  of  the 
same  thing  by  another,  who  obtained  u 
patent  fur  it,  will  not  invalidate  smli 
patent.  Gaykr  v.  Wilder,  10  How., 
400,  408.— Taney,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1H50. 

30.  Where  a  person,  F.,  inventdl  an 
improvement  in  safes,  consisting  of  tlu' 
use  of  a  double  iron  chest,  the  space  lic- 
tween  which  was  filled  with  jtlastcr  of 
Paris,  for  which  improvement  letter* 
patent  were  secnred  in  1H4;1,  and  on  an 
action  for  an  infringement,  brought  by 
his  assignee,  G.,  it  was  proved  that  C, 
between  the  years  1829  and  1832,  had 
constructed  for  his  own  use  a  safe  8ul> 
stantially  the  same,  and  used  the  samo 


;v.% 


%■>., 


t  of  wilut  M  n«- 
If  of  tilt'  |>:»ti'ii- 

iiu'.  /A/</.,  4'i.^. 
T  niiy  i'x»'liii»lvo 
In-  tliiiij:  piUvnt- 
iiiiil  willi  tlif  in- 
to otluT'*.      Till' 

•ul»',  U  wIhti'  on 

[tfttl'llt,    lH'Ii4'Vil|i.' 

ij^inal,  luul  il  ii 
lu'cii  kninrii  in  ;i 
it  ]iiit»Mitod  tluTi, 
jirinti'il  piililiia- 
(,  ft   MfliCUii,  tH. 

L'viouH  Ktnu'turo, 
luu'o  in  soiiu'  ri'- 
V  improvi'iiu'iit'*, 

bcoii  HUiriU'^tivo 
pcrimoiitH  irsiill- 
lid  coiiipU'lidii  of 

not  iiiviilidati'  liis 


uction  mxl  uso  nf 
only,  tor  privnto 

vnr  1)0011  liroiiLjIil 
tho    pulilio,  iuul 

illv  I'liri^oitoii  <"' 
iiiviMition  ol'  the 
,  who  ol>t!iint''l  a 
t  invaiiiliito  such 
Viiihr,  10  How., 
)li.  J.;   Slip.  Ct., 

1,  F.,  invontod  an 
consist  in  jj;  ot'tlu' 
lu'st,  tho  spaoolic- 
1(1  with  jilastor  of 
]>rovenu'nt  lottcrs 
[n  lH4:i,  and  on  an 
lent,  brono;lit  liy 
is  provod  that  C, 
!29  and  1832,  li;vl 
r\\  use  a  safe  siil> 
id  used  the  saino 


rniou  k\()\vi.kim;k,  on  invkntiox. 


500 


■T  TIIIBO  raiMKHt  WHICH  Wll.l.  Wttkl  k  rATIXT. 


ittiill  )H38.  ivhvn  It  iMiMM'd  ont  (if  hit 
liutidi.  itnd  no  othor  trtict'  of  it  whm 
nhi'wii ;  Hiid  C  hiniMflf  almi  piirohitM«>d 
jinotlior  Mafu  for  hit  own  u^o,  iind  thoro 
wat  no  ovidono*'  that  K.  I'von  had  any 
liiioNslodK*'  of  ilif  invention  and  iiHe  liy 
('. ;  /A/'A  that  K.  wuh  to  he  eonMidered 
114  a  tirtt  and  original  inventor  with- 
in till'  meaning;  o\'  the  patent  taws  of 
the  i'nited  Staten,  notwilliMlandin!^  ihi' 
iirior  iii*e  hy  ('.,  F.  hein^T  in  reality  the 
timt  to  confer  on  the  piiMie  the  honelit  of 
the  invention,  the  safe  of  ('.  having;  pass- 
(>il  fruMi  his  memory  and  those  who  had 
Docn  il.  !>nd  havin;;  disappearod,  and  the 
knowledge  of  the  iinproveniont  heiii); 
iiK  ((iinpletoly  lost  as  if  it  had  never 
lu'on  tliseovert'd.     IhhL,  41)tl,  IDS. 

;t7.  lly  the  knowledj^e  and  use,  re- 
filled to  in  55  0  of  the  net  of  'sao,  is 
meant  knowledge  luid  use  uxiMin;;  in  u 
iiiiiniior  aeoessibltj  to  tiie  public.    J/>iii,, 

41)7. 

;i8.  Tho  flanu>  rule  liolds  also  in  re- 
Kpeot  to  the  lost  arts.  If  any  one  should 
discover  u  lost  art,  and  it  was  a  useful 
improvement,  ho  would  bo  entitled  to 
a  p{ifoiit,  though  ho  would  not  literally 
1)0  the  tirst  and  ori^rinal  invontor.  Itut 
ho  would  be  tho  first  to  confer  on  the 
puhlic  the  benefit  of  tho  invention.  He 
would  discover  what  is  unknown,  and 
coniniuiiicato  knowlodjje  which  the  piil)- 
lie  had  not  tho  means  f  obtaining  with- 
out his  invention.     If)id.,  407. 

39.  Tho  patentee  nuist  be  tho  origi- 
nal invontor  of  the  machine  orimprove- 
niont,  or  ho  can  receive  no  patent.  The 
original  inventor,  means  the  first  inven- 
tor, subject  only  to  the  provision  of  § 
16  of  the  act  of  1 830.  The  law  author- 
izes no  presumption  of  forgotfulncss. 
The  question  is,  w^as  C.'s  invention  prior 
to  F.'s.  It  is  of  no  importance  that  C's 
bvention  was  used  only  for  his  private 


ptirpoM*.  Tfie  invention  is  tho  ipiestion, 
and  not  the  manner  of  its  use.  If  F. 
was  not  the  original  and  ilmt  inventor, 
h<>  is  not  entitled  to  a  patent.  //><>/., 
4lM»  .'.o-j,  ftOd,  fto7.  —  .M.  I.i:.\v,  J.; 
I)ani';i„  J.,  Dissenting. 

40.  The  illustration  uf  n  hmt  nrt  ii 
not  apposite  to  (he  case.  Tliat  term  i* 
a)iplicable  to  certain  niomiiiieiits  of  an* 
titpiity  still  r«<niainiiig,  but  the  process 
of  whuHo  nccompiishnieiit  has  been  lost 
for  centuries.  If  a  means  of  producing 
theetVcct  w»' see  and  know  be  dis<'oV('red 
and  none  can  by  history  or  tradition  refer 
to  a  similar,  or  the  identical  process,  tho 
inventor  nuiy  claim  the  merit  of  origi- 
nality,  though  the  work  may  have  been 
prodiK'ed  possibly  by  the  same  nu'ans. 
Ifiid.,  r>OH. 

41.  To  defeat  a  patent  on  tho  ground 
of  prior  invention,  the  tpiestion  is  wheth- 
er anterior  lo  such  patent,  any  person 
had  discovered  the  application  of  tho 
priiH-iple  involved  ui  such  pat'-nt,  and 
applied  it  by  some  ap])aratiis  w  Inch  ojh 
erati'd  to  etrect  the  object  secured  by 
such  pati'iit.  /'hole  v.  St'Mti/,  'J  IJlatchf., 
I'Ot).— Nki,.s()X,  J.;  N.  v.,  IHjI. 

42.  In  order  to  overthrow  tho  claim 
of  a  patentee,  the  thing  set  up  in  do- 
fence,  teiuUng  to  disprove  the  novel- 
ty of  the  patentee's  invention,  must  bo 
of  practical  utility,  and  must  have  em- 
braced all  tho  elements  of  tho  paten 
tee's  combination.     If>id.,  274. 

4;}.  To  tho  general  rule  laid  down  in 
Uiuins  V.  JtJ<(to>i,  Pet.,  C.  C,  340,  that 
if  an  inventor  abandons  his  invention, 
no  other  j)erson  can  take  out  a  patent 
for  it,  there  are  exceptions,  as  in  tho  caso 
of  the  lost  arts,  where  tho  knowledge 
of  tho  invention  has  been  as  completely 
lost  as  if  it  had  never  been  discovered 
Jiich  V.  Lijyjnncott^  20  Jour.  Fr.  Inst. 
3d  Ser.,  15,— Guier,  J. ;  Pa.,  1863. 


k 


■*-w» 


'r'HMii 


ir^.^^;j-yj 


Wi''''«Mf%i«< 


*.     C 


«> 


-  wiM**—'^ 


000 


I'Ulull  KNOW  I.KIHIK.  OK  INVKNTIOX. 


•r  Tmw 


.5 


It  «! 


Plii 


%  ^^.. 


I  WHIM  WIU.  MVMT  A  rAHBrr. 


41.  Milt  ir  tlio  original  iiivfiitiuti  n>- 
niain(>i|  ill  rxiMti'iH'tt  iiikI  iim«*,  arid  Iiiih 
iiDt  Ih'i-ii  «>iitir«>ly  loMt  mill  rur^utti'ti, 
tlii>  (iiiiix>iiiiii  nf  tlio  uri^iiiiil  iii\«'iiti)r  to 
l)i'iti^  it  into  |)iil)li<'  iiM<  or  tiotiiM'  <(<>«'» 
not  ^ivt<  n  Nul)Mi'i|iiriit  iiiv«>titor  u  rixht 
lo  :i  |»nti'iit.     //</</.,  15. 

lA.  Ami  tliiiiijjli  llit>lii-Nt  iiivfiitor  may 
hnvc  iiliiiiiiloiini  iiN  !!<«(>,  uihI  Itct'ti  i^iio- 

ntllt  of  tlll>  I'XtcIlt  of  ItM  Vllllll>,  II  Hiilmr- 

<|iii'iit  iiivi'titor  of  tlu'  K.imi'  lliin-j;  woiilil 
not  III- ciititlctl  to  :i  piitctit  tliiTi-tiir,  pro- 
viilcil  tlii>  original  invention,  ami  lli<> 
iiiotle  of  itH  coimtriu'tioii,  \vt>ro  Htill  in 
the  int'iuoi-y  of  tliiMiriu'inal  inventor,  or 
in  llu'  knou  |i'i|ir,'  of  others,  licfore  tln-y 
Wert'  n-eatlt'il  \iy  tint  Hiibsefjiu'tit  invi'ii- 
lor.      //<///.,  Ifl. 

40.  If  till'  tirht  inventor  reilnci>i|  liis 
theory  to  |ir.'h'lice,  and  |iiit  his  inv«'ntion 
into  line,  the  law  never  would  intend  that 
the  jLTicateror  lesH  nse  in  which  it  inij.jht 
!»e,  or  the  more  or  len*  widely  tl;**  knowl- 
edj^e  of  its  j'xiHteiic  ,•  mlj^ht  <'irenl:it«', 
nlundd  eonstitnte  the  critt'rion  l)y  which 
to  decide  upon  the  validitv  of  anv  snlmc- 
qiient  patent  for  the  invention.  //>/</.,  I.'). 

47.  Thonyli  a  prior  inventor  has  pnie 
to  a  eertiiin  extent,  if  he  fall  HJiort  of 
making;  a  coin[)k'te  niaeiiine,  practically 
iis»'fnl,  those  ',v ho  come  after  him  may 
Hei'ur  to  themselves  the  advantaj^es  of 
liif'  '•'.•'  ntion.  The  first  inventor  j^ave 
iiotli'::jj  to  tlie  pnldic;  it  was  only  an 
i<lea,  m-ver  carried  out  in  n  machine 
that  could  nnticipato  one  siHise^picntly 
invented.  Jfnre  v.  I/tidencood,  MS. 
— Si'KA(ii!:,  .1.;  .Mass.,  1854. 

48.  It  is  not  the  law,  that  if  a  prior 
inventor  has  jjone  to  a  certain  extent, 
aIthon;^li  he  fall  short  of  makinjja  ooin- 
jtleto  machine,  practically  nsefnl,  those 
who  come  after  him  have  no  right  to  se- 
cure to  themselves  the  advantage  of  his 
invention.     Ibkl. 


40.  If  the  thin^  inveiiled  i»r  ili<«covi>r. 
ed  ha^  Ix'cii  dcHcrilted  in  nny  for(*i;;ii 
piililicntioii,  hefore  thi<  invention  nf  ili,. 
patentee,  it  will  he  liitiil  to  his  ri^lit, 
TIiIn  ^oes  upon  the  preMiimptlon,  if  oiirli 
foreign  piihlicatioii  liait  lieeti  made,  tlio 
patente«>  may  have  Mci|iiired  a  kiiowj- 
ed^  ■  of  it  ;  and  this  presiiniption  j^  nut 
reltiittcd  liy  proving;,  mo  far  as  a  iic'ii. 
live  can  lit*  proved,  tlial  the  invfiiinr 
had  no  kiMiwIedvfe  of  it.  Atlfii  v.  tfuh. 
frr,  0  .Mc|,.an,  :«i;i,  Jl4.— .McLkvn,  .1.; 
Ohio,  lH.^.'i. 

flO.  To  defeat  a  patent  on  the  groimtl 
of  prior  invention,  it  is  not  sntllciciit 
that  .'mother  person  has  concei>cd  tlir 
possiliility  of  eHeclin;^  what  the  puidi. 
tec  has  accomplished.  To  constiiiitc  n 
prior  invention,  the  party  alleged  to 
have  made  it  must  have  proc(>edci|  ko 
ttir  as  to  have  ei''itl«'d  hiniself  to  .-i  |i;i|. 
ent,  in  case  he  had  made  an  application. 
/A///.,  .'J'-'l. 

51.  A  prior  accidental  combinntioii 
or  invention,  simil;ir  in  character  to  tli:it 
which  the  plaintitfh:  s  patented,  hut  un- 
der circiimstanceH  Huch  tiiat  the  piihljc 
ohtained  no  knowledjje  of  the  invi'ii. 
tion,  will  not  defeat  a  patent.  limiHtm 
V.  Mnyor^  cO'".,  of  Xnc  Yurie,  ,MS.— 
ir.vi.i,,  J.;  N.  Y.,  iHftO. 

52.  As  to  tiie  (piestion  of  infiiiijft>- 
nient,  it  is  a  standin*;  principle  of  law, 
that  every  person  in  entitled  to  tlii'  I'|(t 
nse  of  whatever  was  known  aii'l  iiseil, 
prior  to  the  patent  which  atteni|'ts  to 
appropriate  it  as  u  new  disc(»very,  and 
it  is  unimportant  whether  the  cl.:ii!utPi 
ami  capacities  of  machinery  open  totrcii- 
eral  use  are  understood  or  not  liv  the 

• 

public  at  large,  or  had  been  used  by 
many;  it  is  suflicient  to  show  tli.it  the 
public  had  free  means  of  access  to  it, 
and  to  employ  it,  and  the  l.-uv  then  prt'- 
sumes  it  was  well  known  and  in  public 


vc.v 


c^- 


PIlTOIl  KVOWT.KDOK,  OR  INVKVTIOV. 


noi 


it;il    coiiibiiiatinn 


lion  <»f  infiinpo- 
iriiicipli'  «it'  l:iw, 
ititli'd  to  tilt'  fVci' 
ktiowii  iiml  UHt'il, 
liifli  iittcmi'tH  to 
w  discdv  iTV,  ami 
uT  till'  fl.:iniitoi 

llU'ry  OJUMI  tn}.'!'!!- 

1(1  or  not  l>y  the 
I  l»i>i'ii  used  by 
Ito  show  that  till' 
of  acci'ss  to  it, 
hie  liuv  then  pre- 
Iwn  and  in  public 


UV   TIIIM)   rKMMINIII    WIIK'M   Witt   l)Rni«T   A  I'ATMKT. 


„«..  Smith  V.  Iliijyint^  MS.— limn, 
J.;  N.V..  I«'17. 

All.  A  |)ri>vi«MiM  «lcH('ri|)tioii  of  H  thill); 
ilia  iwitt'iit  or  Work  U  like  iiolici',  and 

ol'tbc  KIlllll'   crt'l'ft    IIJ(!lill>«t    II   |lltt«'lllU(',   llX 

:( iiiililiii  >i«f  of  I  ho  ihiii);  ilwt'lt'.  Such 
priiir  ii<><>  iir  iiolicit  iiiiiMt,  howitvur,  huv<< 
iH'i'ii  pt'i<'>'  to  thi<  diiti>  id'  th«'  |itili'iiti'«>'H 
,|i«'tm'rv,  or  »t  h'i»'<t  iMd'ort'  lh<'  fliiiij; 
tit"  lii"<  appliiiiti'*"  •"•»•■  "  pikti'iil-      //'/</. 

jt.  It  Ih  to  hu  nHMiiiiiod,  thiil  pcrMoiiM 
itilaiiiiii^  piitont<4  hiivti  a('i|imiiitrd  thciii 
K(.|vi>N  with  till'  ttati'  of  till'  art  in  wliiidi 
ilii'V  arc  iiitcri'^tfd,  us  iii:kdt'  known  in 
\iooV<  or  \<)  initchiiM'M  iniilt  and  put  in 
u-i'i  and  I'vidi'ni'o  Ih  not  ailminHildt'  to 
provi'  tin'  I'ontrary;  nor  is  it  inatli'r  <d' 
liHiuirv  whi'thcr  ni.u'h.im's  drscrilu'd  in 
iiiiiiird  works  wore  i-vor  iirm'lically  put 
t.t  iho  or  not.     Ihid. 

5.V  Undor  S  ^^  '•»'  tho  net  of  IHMtj, 
piovidiii!.;  th:it  the  prior  kno\vli'<l;;i'  or 
MM' 111"  a  lliiiiL,'  in  a  I'ori'ij,'!!  ronnlry — it 
ii,it  appcariii;,'  thiit  tin-  saini- had  hcoir 
lutbri'  palt-nti'd  or  dcscrihi'd  in  a  prim- 
al |iiililii'ation — should  not  invalidati'  a 
I  iilciit  1,'ranti'd  hcrr,  the  patrnlci'  hclifv- 
iii;', at  tlii'tiiiii'of  luH  application,  that  he 
wiw  till'  firnt  disrovcre'r  or  inventor.  If 
llu'j,  y  liiid  that  the  patt'iiti'i',  when  he 
iiiiidi'  application  lor  a  patent,  believed 
liiiiisflf  to  he  the  first  inventor  of  tho 
lliiiii;  patented,  his  patent  will  not  he 
liivarKlated  hy  the  |>ri()r  exislenee  of  the 
tliiiii,'  abroad.  Vorhtixh  v.  Cook\  10 
Mn.  Law  Kep.,  004.— (Jiutih,  J. ;  MaHS., 
1857. 

.'id.  In  deterininiiij^  tho  question,  un- 
der JS  15  of  the  act  of  1h;«0,  whether  a 
|i;il(iiti'e  belii'ved  hiinsolf  to  be  tho  first 
invi'iiturof  the  thinj^  patented,  notwith- 
staiidiiiiif  tho  actual  existence  of  hiicIi 
tliiiii;  in  a  foreign  country,  wliich,  how- 
oviT,  bad  not  been  patented  or  describ- 
ed, the  defendant  may  give  evidence. 


that  the  patclili'f  klirw  of  the  (>viitten(*tt 
of  the  lliiti;;  abroad  ;  and  in  ron«iderin){ 
the  fact  whether  he  M/n'"/ himself  to^ 
Im*  the  lirsi  inventor,  it  in  niaierial  tn 
dft«-riniiie  whether  he  was  in  f.tct  thu 
ori;{iiial  inventor.     /A/</.,  (Wit. 

A7.  To  eonslilnte  a  prior  invention  or 
knowh>d;{e,  which  wilt  deprive  a  paten- 
lee  of  the  ri<;ht  (granted  to  him,  it  IM 
not  enough  that  the  person  o  ei  .oil 
the  idea  that  the  thing  could  Ih;  .I."!.; 
but  he  must  liavu  put  his  idea  into  pruo* 
lice.  /'op/H  itfumii  n  V.  X.  V.ff.  P.Conih 
('<!.,  t  lUutidif. — In'kkmoli.,  J.;  N.  Y., 
IH.">H. 

(iH,  To  defeat  a  patent  which  has  boon 
issued,  it  is  not  enough  that  sonie  ono, 
before  the  pateiif  eoiicoived  the  idea  of 
etVecting  what  the  patentee  a'-complish- 
ed.  To  eonstittitu  Much  n  it.'ior  inven- 
tion an  will  avoid  a  patent  that  has  been 
granted,  it  must  be  made  to  appear  that 
some  one,  before  the  patentee,  not  only 
conceived  the  idea  of  tloing  what  the 
patentee  has  done,  but  also  that  he  re- 
duced his  idea  to  practice,  and  embodi- 
ed il  in  some  useful  and  practical  form. 
The  idea  must  have  been  carried  into 
practical  operation.  /'Utifhor^n'  v.  AW>- 
ertnoHy  MS. — I.NnKusui.i.,  .^ ;  N.  V., 
1H50. 

50.  Kxperimeiits  made,  eipiivocal  in 
their  rcHults,  and  given  up  for  years, 
will  not  bo  permitted  to  prevail  ag.ninsi 
an  original  inventor  who  has  reiluccil 
his  invention  to  practice,  and  has  with- 
out fraud  <d>tained  a  patent.     I/nif. 

00.  The  decision  in  (^injl,r  v.  M'ililcr, 
10  How,,  41)0,  1850,  is  only  that  if  tho 
discov*  ry  of  the  tirst  invi-nlor  had  been 
so  far  l.'iid  asiilc,  tli;it  it  w.is  in  point  of 
fact  absolutely  and  irrevocably  forgot 
ton  by  him  and  by  the  world,  but  for  its 
ri  vail  to  his  memory  by  the  second  in- 
vention, then  tho  second  inventor  must 


1'tl 


>fW 


,r'i 


^Wih^VM' 


■m 


^(i|P!iu| 


602 


riaOK  KNOWLKIMIK,  OK  INVKNTIOX. 


BY  TlllllI)  I'KltflONN;   WHICH  WILL  PKKKAT  A  PATIHT. 


t 


US** 


n^ 


:Wl«' 


1»»>  licld  ciiii.illy  moritorious  as  the  »<iu> 
who  tliscovt'i'H  u  loii]^  loHt  art,  or  an  iin- 
pati'iitrd  aiitl  iin|)til)lislu>tl  I'oiviL;!)  iiivcii- 
tioii,  aixi  like  iiiin  oiititlctl  to  a  patoiit. 
Jiafx'ock  V.  Jhijcmr.,  MS. — (Api).  Cas.) 
— ^Mkkim.  K,  J.;  1).  C,  IH^O. 

0).  Tlu'  laiit;iia<^iM)f'  tlu'  lir.st  proviso 
of  ^  1')  of  till'  act  of  I  Slid,  (jualilios  tlu' 
laiigiiagt'  of  j5  U  of  tlu>  same  act,  ami 
(tliows  that  by  kiiowlcdi^c  and  use  the 
h'jjislatiiri'  meant  kiio\vIcil<j;c  aiul  use 
accessil»h>  to  the  puhhc.  Cti/ioon  v. 
Jihi<;,  MS.— t'i,iKKt>Ki>,  .1.  ;  Me.,  1850. 

(•2.  Wliere,  therefore,  a  i)ersoM  in- 
vented :\  mat  hine,  hut  did  not  make  it 
])ublic,  and  liad  used  it  tor  no  purpose 
except  simply  for  his  own  private  e.v- 
j»erimcnts,  and  it  had  been  broken  up, 
and  thi'  niaterials  used  for  other  pur- 
poses, and  its  essential  parts  had  been 
lost,  prior  to  the  invention  of  the  same 
tiling  by  another  person,  who  had  ob- 
tained a  patent  for  his  invention,  J/eld, 
that  such  prior  iiivention  .and  use  was 
no  obstacle  to  the  subse«pient  inventcr 
taking  out  a  p.atent,  and  would  not  in- 
validate his  ])atent.     Ifn'tf. 

U;t.  And  if  a  single  specimen  only  of 
such  inachine  was  m:ide,  whether  capa- 
ble of  tise,  or  whether  actually  used  or 
not  by  the  ))arty  making  it,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  testing  its  t)peration,  if  such  ma- 
ehiuo  was  kept  in  the  maker's  own  pos- 
session, from  the  knowledge  of  the  pub- 
lic, and  was  subsecpie.aly  broken  up, 
and  its  substantial  parts  lost,  so  that  the 
public  could  not  derive  the  knowledge 
of  it  from  the  machine  itself,  but  only 
from  tiie  memory  of  the  alleged  inven- 
tor, the  existence  of  such  prior  machine 
will  not  invalidate  the  patent  of  a  sub- 
sequent inventor,  though  such  prior  ma- 
chine may  liave  embodied  all  the  im- 
provements of  tiic  subsequent  one,  if 
the  subsequent  inventor  was  an  original 


inventor,    without    knowledge  of  the 
prior  one.     Ifn'd. 

U  t.  The  i>rior  use  of  an  inveiiti„i,  in 
Kngland,  from  1H.')5  to  IH.'ii),  1„„  „^^ 
with  the  consent  of  the  inventor,  is  n,, 
bar  to  his  receiving  a  patent  therefor, 
Fri/  <e Su'lri/,  J'Jwfxtrte,  MS.  (.\p|,.  ^\^^\ 
— MousKia,,  .1. ;  I).  C,  18")!). 

05.  A  prior  use  of  a  thing  in  a  fi)ivii,Mi 
country  will  not  invalidate  a  patent  at'. 
terward  t.aken  out  in  this  country,  whfiv 
the  inventor  supposed  himself  to  bo  tin. 
first  inventor,  unless  the  jn-ior  invention 
l.-.il  been  patented  or  described  iiisunie 
printed  jjublic  work.  Caiman  v.  Lksor 
MS. — IjKAViTr,  J. ;  Ohio,  18,')!>. 

00.  A  patent  will  not  be  avoided,  by 
the  mere  fact  that  the  invention  or  dis- 
covery  patented  lia<l  heeii  known  ninl 
used  in  a  foreign  country  before  tlie  dis- 
covery of  the  patenti'c,  ])rovi(l('(l  \\w 
])atente(',  at  the  time  of  his  n|iplic;tiiiiii 
for  a  patent  (act  of  18;}'.'.,  ^  lo),  helii'Vil 
himself  to  be  the  first  and  «)rigiii!il  in- 
ventor of  the  thing  ))atented.  Jliirtlml- 
onuir  v.  Siiwyn'y  jNIS. — IxdKitsiM.i.,  J.; 
X.  Y.,  1850. 

07.  No  description  in  any  ])riiiti',l 
publication,  of  the  thing  jiatented  will 
av«»id  a  patent,  unless  such  ])ul)Iii'atii>n 
was  prior  in  point  of  time  to  tin'  inveu- 
tioii  of  the  patent  I'c.  It  is  not  suflicicnt 
thiit  such  i)ublication  was  ])rior  to  the 
applicdfioii  of  the  patentee  for  liis  pat- 
ent.    Jf>i(l. 

08.  The  tinie  referred  to  in  §  15  of 
the  act  of  1830,  by  the  terms  "having 
been  before  known  and  used  in  any  for- 
eign country,"  or  "  had  been  j)atontoil 
or  described  in  any  printed  pul)li('atioii," 
is  the  time  when  the  original  discovm 
or  invention  of  a  patentee  M'as  niado, 
and  not  the  time  Avhen  lie  jax'soiiteJ  his 
aj)plication  for  a  patent.     Ibid. 

09.  It  is  not  proof  of  the  want  of 


iMi 


OwU'dgc   of  till' 

f  im  iiiviMition  in 
to  IsriO,  but  not 
10  invi'iitor,  is  no 
,  ])!U('iit  (lu'ivfor. 
p,MS.(Ai.i..(;!i8,) 
.,  1850. 

thinfif  in  11  forciijn 
lidatu  :i  jtattMit  at- 
liisoouiitn,  wlu'io 
1  himsL'lt'to  bo  till' 
ht)  prior  invoiUioii 
tlescribed  in  sonio 
'Jol  man  v.  Lksur, 
►bio,  185!). 
lot  l)i>  avoidi'il,  by 
lO  iiivnitinii  or  dis- 
bi'cn  known  :iiul 
iitry  b'.'foro  tlic  (lis- 
itro,  ])roviib'(l  tlu' 
•  ot"  liis  !i|>|iliciiruin 
H:J',",  ;<  !")),  bt'lii'voil 
st   ami  oriiiiiial  in- 
itfiitcd.     liitrthol 
S. — iNtiKUsoi.i,,  ,1.; 

n  in  any  jirinti'd 
\\\\\*  jiati'iitcil  will 
sucb  imblii'iitidn 
ime  to  till'  ///Wi- 
lt is  not  siiflli'it'iit 
was  jirior  to  the 
vtc'iitoo  lor  hisiwt- 

rrcd  to  in  §  15  of 
tbo  terms  "  li:iviii!i 
ml  nscd  in  any  tor- 
lad  been  patontiil 
iutcil  publication,' 
oriiiinal  discovcrv 
tentoc  was  niado, 
en  he  presented  his 
jnt.  Ibkl 
f  of  the  want  of 


PRIOR  USE. 


608 


IIY    INVKNTOK;   TU   rUUrEIT    KUIHT  TO   A    PATINT. 


oiiu'inality  or  novelty  in  an  invention 
f„r  wliii'li  an  American  citizen  has  ol»- 
laiui'tl  11  pi»l'''>t,  t'li't  it  may  have  been 
known  or  usoil  in  a  foreii^n  country, 
uiilrss  it  appeal's  that  tlTT^  invention  or 
improvement  was  patented  in  such  tor- 
lini country,  or  there  described  in  some 
iiiililif  work.  JihIkoii  v.  (\>i>t\  MS. — 
I.KAViTr,  J.;  Oliio,  iHiio. 

70.  I»ut  to  make  such  a  de'i'nce  avail- 
abli',  it  must  appear  that  the  improvo- 
nii-nt  which  has  been  known  in  a  ibr- 
lis^n  C(>untry  has  been  so  clearly  and 
intelligibly  described,  that  the  invention 
(oiild  be  niado  or  constructed  by  a  com- 
jH-lt'iit  mechanic.  A  mero  sn^j^estion 
or  iinperlect  description  t>t*an  invention 
would  not  be  suflicient  to  defeat  the 
AniiMican  patent.     IbUl. 

;i.  To  defeat  a  |)atont  by  reason  of 
prior  use  or  knowledge,  s»n'h  juior  nse 
or  knowledt^o  nmst  be  shown  to  have 
Dltii  anterior  not  merely  to  the  date  of 
the  imtent,  but  to  the  time  Avhen  the 
inveution  was  actually  made.     Ifnd, 

72.  Kvidenco  camiot  bo  received  «»f 
actual  use  aiul  knowleduce  of  an  inven- 
tion ill  a  foreign  country,  prior  to  the 
time  of  the  invention  here,  in  order  ^o 
defeat  tho  American  patent,  but  the 
defendants  must  bo  confined  to  the  de- 
seriptiou  of  tho  invention  as  found  in 
luinted  publications  or  patents;  (hey 
eannot  go  beyond  Huch  publication  or 
patents,  because  no  prior  use  abroad, 
unless  the  invention  lias  been  described 
inapriuieil  publication  or  has  been  pat- 
ented, will  atVect  tho  validity  of  the 
I  patent  in  this  coimtry.     Ibid. 

1'i,  It  is  not  necessary  to  show  that 
a  prior  invention  had  ever  been  put  in 
use;  it  is  enough  to  bar  a  rijjfht  to  a 
patent  to  show  that  the  thing  had  been 
described.  Seek)/,  Ex  parte,  318.  ( Apj). 
Cas.)— DuNi,oi>,  J.;  1).  C,  1800. 


74.  If  an  invention  is  completed,  it  i^ 
wholly  immaterial  as  to  the  qui  stion  of 
priority  of  invention,  how  limited  was 
the  use  or  knowledge  (>fllic  prior  dis. 
covery.  iS(iirtci'a»it  v.  Grcvnouijh,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— Mkuku'K,  ,I.  ;  I).  ('.,  IHOt). 

75.  To  constitute*  a  prior  inv«'ntion, 
which  will  avoid  a  patent,  it  is  necessa- 
ry that  there  should  havt'  been  not  only 
an  idea  of  the  machine,  but  it  sliouM 
have  been  embodied  in  a  working  nn\- 
chine.  JMere  experiments,  which  were 
unsatisfactDry  and  h:ive  been  abandon- 
imI,  are  not  enough.  Winans  v.  IhtH' 
forth,  .MS.— Nklsox,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1800. 


ruiou  USE. 

See  also  AlJANDONMKNT,   li.   1. 

1.  If  an  inventor  had  gratuitously  im- 
parted, or  negligently  sulVered  his  inven- 
tion to  become  public  before  his  appli- 
cation, he  is  not  entitleil  to  a  j>atent 
therefor.  77iovijtson  v.  J/ai<//it,  t  V. 
S.  Jiaw  Jour.,  575. — Van  Nkss,  J.;  N. 
Y.,  1822. 

2.  The  meaning  of  the  words  "  not 
known  or  nsed,"  in  ^  1  of  tlie  act  of 
1703,  is  that  tho  invention  for  which  a 
patenL  is  songht  nmst  not  have  been 
knov  n  or  used  ht/  ot/urs  before  the  aj)- 
plication.  If  it  were  necessary  for  the 
inventor  to  employ  others  to  assist  him 
in  the  original  strnctm-e  or  nse  bv  him- 
self,  or  if,  before  his  application,  his  in- 
vention should  be  pirated  by  another,  or 
used  without  his  consent,  such  knowl- 
edge or  nse  will  n«)t  invalidate  the  pat- 
ent. Pctniock  V.  Dialogue,  2  Pet.,  18, 
19.— Stouv,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1829. 

3.  But  although  he  is  the  lirst  as  well 
as  the  true  inventor,  yet  if  ho  puts  hia 


Tsc:" 


;S^A— < 


■'*"»?    I 


(-.0-4 


PKIOU  USE. 


1!Y   INVK.VTdU;    TO    FOHFKIT   llIOIIT   TO   A   I'ATENT. 


^tfJ^-l 


"***'W, 


invention  inlo  jjublic  use,  or  sells  it  lur 
j)ul)lic  use  before  ho  makes  an  appliea- 
tioii  for  a  patent,  sueh  use  can  bo  sot  uj» 
as  a  bar  to  his  patent  iintlor  g  0  of  the 
act  of  17!»;}.     Ifwf.,  23. 

4.  The  true  eonstriiction  of  tho  pat- 
ent act  of  1793,  is  that  tho  first  inven- 
tor cannot  accpiire  a  good  title  to  a  pat- 
ent, if  he  suU'ers  the  thing  invented  to 
go  into  public  use,  or  to  be  publicly  sold 
for  use  before  he  nuikes  application 
for  a  patent.  Ilis  voluntary  act  or  ac- 
quiescence in  the  public  sale  and  use, 
creates  a  disability  to  comply  Avith  tho 
terms  and  conditions  on  which  alone  a 
jiatent  can  issue  to  him.     Ibid.,  23,  24. 

5.  TIk^  previous  use,  to  avoid  a  pat- 
ent, must  not  be  a  private  or  surrepti- 
tious use,  in  fraud  of  the  patentee,  but 
a  public  use  by  his  consent,  by  a  sale 
by  hiuiself,  or  by  others  with  his  acqiu- 
escence,  by  which  he  abandons  liis  right, 
or  disables  himself  from  complying  with 
the  law.  Whitney  v.  Emmett,  IJald., 
300,  310.— IJaldwix,  J.;  Ta.,  1831. 

(j.  r»ut  indess  the  invention  has  been 
more  or  less  used  by  others,  or  pub- 
licly communicated  by  the  ])atentee,  liis 
patent  will  be  sustained.     Ibid.,  310. 

V.  The  time  during  which  the  thing 
patented  liad  been  known  and  used,  is 
not  material,  the  criterion  is  its  public, 
not  its  private  or  surreptitious  use,  the 
use  with  the  consent  of  the  inventor, 
express  or  implied,  from  circumstances. 
Ibid.,  310. 

8.  The  patentee  may  make  experi- 
ments with  his  invention,  or  disclose  it 
to  those  he  may  Avish  to  consult,  or  em- 
ploy others  to  assist  him  in  making  and 
using  it,  or  may  exjilain  it  to  those  using 
it,  so  as  to  give  notice  of  an  infringe- 
ment, without  impairing  his  patent,  un- 
less he  is  guilty  of  negligence  in  jirocur- 
ing  his  patent.    Ibid.,  310,  311. 


0.  The  prior  knowledge  aiid  use  spo 
ken  of  in  tho  act  of  1703,  has  refeieiice 
to  tho  public  only,  but  there  may  ]„. 
cases  in  which  a  knowledge  o|'  dn.  i,,. 
vcntion  nuiy  bo  surreptitiously  ubtained 
and  conwnunicated  to  the  public,  that 
do  not  affect  tho  right  of  tlic  inventor 
Under  sucli  circumstances,  no  presiiini). 
tion  can  arise  in  favor  of  an  ahaiidon- 
ment  of  the  right  to  the  public  by  (Jm 
inventor,  though  an  ac(piiescence  on  his 
part  will  lay  the  foundation  fur  Huch  a 
l)resumptiou.  IShaw  v.  Cooptr,  7  I'et. 
319. — MoLkax,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1833. 

10.  Uiider  g§  3  and  0  of  the  act  of 
1793.  and  g§  0  and  15  of  the  act  of 
iH3>  .1  -1  public  uso  or  sale  of  an  invcii. 
lion,  in  order  to  deprive  the  inventor 
of  his  right  to  a  patent,  must  be  a  public 
uso  or  sale  by  others  with  his  knowl- 
edge and  "consent,  before  his  apiilicatioii 
for  a  jiatont.  lii/an  v.  (Jooilicin,  3 
Sumn.,  518. — Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  1839. 

11.  If  the  use  or  sale  is  without  such 
knowledge  cr  consent,  or  if  the  use  k 
merely  experimental,  to  ascertain  its 
value,  or  utility,  or  the  success  of  the  in- 
vention, by  putting  it  in  practice,  that 
is  not  such  a  use  as  will  deprive  the 
inventor  of  1  '•  title.     Ibid.,  518. 

12.  Such  "<  •  r  ale  must  also  be  be- 
fore applit  ill  ■  A  sale  or  use  with  his 
knowledge  anu  .nsent,  intermediate 
between  his  application  for  a  patent  and 
the  grant  thereof,  has  no  sucii  effect, 
Ibid.,  519. 

13.  The  use  of  an  invention  before 
application  for  a  patent,  to  be  suflicient 
to  defeat  a  patent,  under  §  15  of  the  act 
of  183G,  must  be  a  public  use  of  the  in- 
vention sul>stantially  as  patented— niili 
the  consent  of  the  inventor — and  :  ;iist 
be  cither  generally  allowed  or  acqui- 
esced in,  or  at  least  be  unlimited  in 
time,  or  extent,  or  object.     Wyelhi 


rUIOR  USE. 


COS 


IIY    INVKNTDIl;    TO   FOUIi'KlT   KIOIIT  TO  A   PATKST. 


Stoiu;  1  ^tory,  281  — SroKY,  J. ;  Mass., 

IStO. 

14.  A  inoro  occasional  use  by  the  in- 
ventor, in  trying  experiments,  or  a  tem- 
porary nsti  by  a  lew  jjersoiis,  as  an  act 
of  personal  aecotnmodation  or  kindness 
for  .1  sliort  and  limited  period,  will  not 
take  aw:>y  =*  I'igl't  to  a  patent.     Jl)id., 

281. 

15.  On  the  other  liand,  a  user  with- 
out tlif  inventor's  consent,  and  adverse 
to  his  patent,  is  a  ele.ar  violation  of  his 
lifrlits,  and  cannot  deprive  him  of  his 
patent.     If'lif;  -'HI- 

'0.  Tlie  circumstances  ought  to  be 
very  clear  and  cogent,  which  Avill  justify 
a  eonrt  in  adopting  a  conclusion  so  sid)- 
versivc  of  i)rivate  right.s — that  a  user 
of  an  invention  before  application  for  a 
patent,  destroys  the  right  to  a  patent 
—when  the  party  has  subsequently  tak- 
en cat  a  patent.     Ibid.,  281. 

17.  §  7  of  the  act  of  1839  allows  the 
use  of  an  invention,  even  by  leave  of 
the  inventor,  for  two  years  before  ap- 
plication, without  invalidating  his  right 
to  a  patent ;  a  fortiori,  the  use  by  a 
third  i)erson,  or  a  subsequent  inventor, 
after  the  first  invention  and  before  the 
issuing  of  a  patent  to  the  first  inventor, 
without  his  consent,  is  no  bar  to  the  is- 
suing of  a  patent  to  the  first  inventor. 
nUdreth  v.  Heath,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
Cbascu,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1841. 

18.  The  use  of  an  invention  by  the 
patentee  himself,  before  his  application 
for  a  patent,  will  not  deprive  him  of  his 
right  to  a  patent.  Reed  v.  Gutter,  1 
Story,  597.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1841. 

19.  It  would  be  a  fair  construction  of 
§  15  of  the  act  of  1836,  that  if  an  in- 
ventor  allow  another,  without  objection, 
lo  use  his  invention  for  a  time,  before 
making  an  application  for  a  patent,  but 
afterward   obtain  a  patent,  that   such 


public  use  wouhl  make  the  siibscinieut- 
ly  obtained  jiatciit  void,  lint  if  such  use 
is  reganled  as  luidcr  an  assunu'(l  license, 
the  ])atcnt  might  still  be  regarded  valid. 
Mt'Chinj  V.  Kimjxhtnd,  1  How.,  208. 
— r>Ai.i>wiN,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  184:t. 

20.  §  7  of  the  act  of  1830,  allowing 
the  use  and  sale  of  an  invention,  for  two 
years  before  the  application  for  a  pat- 
ent, is  in  the  nat»n-o  of  a  statute  of  lim- 
itations; and  the  defendant  selling  •  pa 
sale  more  tluui  two  years  before,  mast 
establish  the  fact  of  such  a  sale,  in  a 
manner  that  will  justify  a  jury  in  taking 
away  the  property  of  the  i)laiMtiir.  Ho- 
x'c.y  V.  Ifewy,  3  West.  Law  Jour.,  155. 
— Woonnunv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

21.  The  prior  use  or  ssde  of  an  inven- 
tion, referred  to  in  §  7  of  the  act  of 
18o9,  has  exclusive  reference  to  an  orig- 
inal ii])plication  for  a  patent,  and  not  to 
a  renewal  or  reissue  of  it.     Stimpson  v. 

West  Chest.  R.  11.,  4  How.,  403.— Mo 
Leax,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

22.  It  is  clear  that  under  the  act  of 
1830,  and  the  act  of  1839,  a  use,  in  or- 
der to  defeat  a  prior  invention,  must  be 
public,  and  with  the  consent  of  the  in- 
ventor, and  continue  two  ye.ars.  Allen 
V.  Blunt,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  143.— Sto- 
ry, J.;  M.ass.,  1846. 

23.  Neither  a  stipulation  for  the 
s.ale  of  an  invention  before  it  is  com- 
pleted, nc  A  sale  of  such  invention  du- 
ring the  application  for  a  patent,  is  such 
a  use  as  will  defeat  a  p.atent.  Spark- 
many.IIiggins,  1  Blatchf.,  209. — Beits, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1846. 

24.  An  inventor  may  forfeit  his  right 
to  a  patent,  if  he  constructs  and  vends 
his  invention  to  others  for  use,  or  uses 
it  publicly  at  any  time  prior  to  two  years 
before  he  makes  application  for  a  pat- 
ent. That  is,  he  is  not  allowed  to  de- 
rive any  benefit  from  the  sale  or  use  of 


■4^'  —  C5K' 


000 


PRIOR  USK. 


BV  INVENTOR;   TO   FORnOT  RIUUT  10  A  PATENT. 


^ 

»j^; 


1  i  f'-T  I 


tP'^ 


IiIh  in:ic]iiiiu  witliout  foill-itinjif  liis  rifjflit, 
except  witliin  two  years  prior  to  the 
time  of  iiis  application.  J'itfs  v.  J/all, 
2  IJiatchf.,  235.— NKI-8UX,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1851. 

25.  Such  use  however  nm«t  ho  hy  the 
hiveiitor  hiiiiHelt'pti'i.licIy,  in  the  ordina- 
ry way  of  a  public  use  of  the  machine, 
and  not  by  way  of  experiment,  and  with 
a  view  to  further  iinj)rovementw,  or  of 
ascertaining   its   defects.      Il*id.,    235, 

2ao. 

2G.  This  ground  of  forfeiture  is  not 
favored  in  hiw ;  the  evidence  must  be 
cpiite  clear  that  the  use  was  not  by  way 
of  experiment,  or  for  the  purpose  of  per- 
fecting a  machine,  in  order  to  justily 
the  conclusion  that  the  patentee  had  for- 
feited liis  riglit  to  tho  improvement. 
Ibid.,  237. 

27.  Under  the  act  of  1839,  an  inven- 
tor may  use  his  improvement,  by  mak- 
ing and  using  his  machines,  and  by 
vending  and  t.aking  pay  for  them,  for 
two  years  previous  to  his  appUcation  for 
a  patent,  without  forfeiting  the  benelits 
conferred  upon  him  by  his  patent.  But 
if  an  huentor  either  sells  a  machine  or 
uses  one,  or  puts  one  into  public  use, 
at  any  time  more  than  two  years  before 
his  application,  it  works  a  forfeiture  of 
his  right  to  a  patent.  JlcCormlck  v. 
tSet/moyr,  2  Blatchf.,  254. — Nelson,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  June,  1851. 

28.  How  far  tho  use  of  an  invention 
for  a  tiiue,  so  long  as  it  could  be  kept 
a  secret,  and  securing  a  patent  only 
when  there  was  danger  of  discovery, 
would  invalidate  a  patent  granted  ;  que- 
ry. Goodyear  v.  Day,  MS.— Grier, 
J.;  N.  J.,  1852. 

29.  The  use  of  an  invention  which 
will  operate  as  a  forfeiture,  must  be  the 
use  of  the  perfected  invention — the  in- 
vention complete.      If  the  use  be  ex- 


perimental, to  ascoi'tain  the  value,  ortJK; 
utility,  or  the  success,  of  the  thitijf  in. 
vented,  by  putting  it  into  pructiou  Ijv 
trial,  such  use  will  not  deprive  tlm  m. 
entco  of  his  right  to  tho  product  of  lii, 
genius.  Winona  v.  iV.  Y.  <£•  //«,..  j^ 
7i.,  31  Jour.  Fr.  Inst.,  3d  Scr.,  [\22.~. 
Nki.son,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1855. 

30.  An  absolute  sale  by  an  invt'iitor 
of  his  invention  to  another,  is  o(|iuvakiit 
to  a  public  use  of  his  invention  with  his 
consent,  and  the  inventor  cannot,  liy  a 
rejiurchase  of  his  uivention,  resume 
any  rights  he  may  havo  lost  by  such  a 
sale.  JIu/it  V.  JTuwe,  IMS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— MousKix,  J.;  D.  C,  1855. 

31.  Unless  the  use  of  an  invention  ex- 
ceeds two  years  before  an  ai)}ilit'atioii 
for  a  i)atent,  there  is  no  abandonment. 
Ileinrich  v.  Luther,  C  McLean,  347.— 
McLeax,  J.;  Ohio,  1855. 

32.  The  sale  of  an  invention  for  more 
than  two  years  before  an  applicutionfor 
a  patent,  bars  the  applicant  under  §  1 
of  the  act  of  1839,  of  his  riglit  to  a  pat- 
ent. Mugg  V.  Haines,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— MousELL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1855. 

33.  IJoth  before  and  since  the  act  of 
1839,  an  inventor  might  exercise  and 
put  in  use  his  invention,  or  his  claim  tu 
an  inchoate  right  to  an  invention,  which 
was  capable  of  being  perfected  to  an 
exclusive  right,  by  obtaining  letters  pat- 
ent. Sargent  v.  Seagrave,  2  Curt.,  555, 
—Curtis,  J.;  R.  I.,  1855. 

34.  Before  the  act  of  1839,  he  coulil, 
by  way  of  experiment,  bring  the  knowl- 
edge of  his  invention  before  the  piihlic, 
at  the  same  time  making  known  that 
he  was  about  to  apply  for  a  patent. 
Since  the  act  of  1839,  ho  may  sell  any 
number  of  his  machines  to  the  public, 
during  any  period  less  than  two  years, 
accompanied  by  a  claim  to  the  inchoate 
right  sufficient  to  show  an  intention  not 


;*<is^ 


V,w, 


^^'.^^ 


in  iho  viiluc,  nrtlio 
•4,  of  the  thinj,'  in. 
t  into  i)r:u'tice  liy 
)t  clt'privi'  till!  |iai. 
the  prodiii't  of  his 
N.  y.  ct  JIar.  n. 
St.,  3(1  Ser.,  321— 
1855. 

jalu  by  an  inventor 
lother,  is  oiinivakut 
H  invention  with  his 
r-cntor  cunnot,  liy  a 
invention,  il'suhio 
lavo  lost  Ity  such  a 
ce,  »IS.  (App.  Cas.) 
C,  1855. 

e  of  an  invention  ex- 
!foro  an  aiiiiliciiiion 
is  no  abaiuloninout, 
',  0  McLean,  34T.— 
,  1855. 

in  invention  for  more 
jre  an  application  for 
applicant  inuler  §  1 
of  his  right  to  a  pat- 
es, MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
C,  1855. 

land  since  the  att  of 
might  exercise  and 
ition,  or  his  claim  to 
an  hivention,  which 
tng  perfected  to  an 
lobtaining  letters  pat- 
iagrave,  2  Curt.,  555. 
I,  1855. 

■t  of  1839,  he  could, 
mt,  bring  the  knowl- 
•n  before  the  puljlic, 
[making  known  that 
[apply  for  a  patent. 
39,  he  may  sell  any 
ihines  to  the  public, 
lless  than  two  years, 
■laiui  to  the  inchoate 
iiow  an  intention  not 


PKIOU  USK. 


007 


UY   UNVESTOU;   TO  rOKtUT   IliailT  TO   A   J'ATKXT. 


to  uhandon  it  to  the  public.     If/id., 

555. 

35.  No  knowledge  or  uhc  of  an  in- 
vention, by  any  one,  will  deprive  the 
liist  and  original  invej^tor  thereof  of  the 
exclusive  right  to  make  and  use  the 
giiine,  tniless  such  knowledge  and  use 
was  for  njoro  than  two  years  prior  to 
tlu'  application  for  a  patent.  JSic/dia  v. 
Mitchell,  3  Blatchf.,  560, — Ikokrsoll, 
J.;  N.Y.,  1857. 

36.  As  to  the  U80  of  an  invcntioi  i  un- 
der §  V  of  the  act  of  1839,  for  more 
lli.nn  two  years  before  the  api»lication 
for  the  patent,  where  there  has  been 
niorctliim  one  ai)plication,  the  two  years 
must  date  from  the  time  of  the  tiling  of 
the  first  application,  at  least  if  sui'h  first 
application  has  not  been  withdrawn. 
Udl  v.  Dunids,  MS.  —  Leaviit,  J.; 
Ohio,  1858. 

37.  Where  an  application  w^s  made 
in  January,  1839,  to  which  objection 
was  made,  and  afterward  an  amended 
specification  was  filed,  upon  which  a  pat- 
ent was  issued  in  Mareh,  1840,  Jleld, 
that  the  two  years  dated  from  the  first 
filing.    Ibid. 

38.  Where  a  party  filed  a  caveat  in 
1847,niade  his  application  in  1 851,  which 
was  rejected,  and  withdrew  his  appli- 
cation in  1852,  and  in  1857  made  a  new 
application  for  a  patent,  for  the  same 
invention ;  but  it  appeared  that  he  had 
heen  manufacturing  and  selling  his  in- 
vention for  more  than  two  years  before 
his  last  application,  Jleld,  that  he  had 
abandoned  his  invention,  and  coidd  not 
receive  a  patent.  Moiory  v.  Jiarbcr, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — MoRSKLL,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1858. 

39.  §  7  of  the  act  of  1839,  gives  to 
inventors  the  privilege  of  a  prior  use  for 
two  years ;  but  it  thereby  limits  such 
use  to  two  years,  and  precludes  a  pub- 


lie  use  for  a  longer  period.     Shrevve 
L'nitid  *S'/(/<,«,  3IS. — LoKiNti,  J.;    C> 
Claims,  1H59. 

40.  Under  the  act  of  1839,  the  right 
to  a  patent  is  forfeited  only  where  the 
invention  has  been  in  use  more  than  two 
years  bcibre  the  apjillcation,  and  not 
before  the  granting  of  his  |»atent.  ^Id- 
atna \.  Junes, MS. — OmKit, J.;  I'a., lb.'»it. 

41.  If  a  party  allow  his  invention  to 
go  int  t  public  use,  or  sell  it,  for  more 
than  t\vo  years  betore  hu  makes  appli- 
cation for  a  patent,  he  is  not  entitled  to 
receive  a  jtatent.  Cow/x:rthieaite  v.  Gill, 
MS.  (.\i»p.  Cas.) — MoKSKi.L,  J. ;  1).  C, 
1859, 

42.  The  putting  on  sale — otit  of  the 
possession  or  control  of  the  inventor — 
without  limit  or  restraint  as  to  public  or 
private  use,  an  invention  more  than  two 
years  before  application  for  a  patent, 
though  some  of  the  articles  may  have 
been  sold  on  condition,  with  the  right 
to  return  them ;  Held,  such  a  sale  as  bars 
the  inventor  under  g  7  of  the  act  of 
1837,  to  a  right  to  a  patent.  iSceley  v. 
Jhan,  3IS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moksell,  J. ; 
D.  C,  1861. 

43.  Under  the  act  of  1836,  the  use 
of  an  invention,  by  a  single  person,  or  a 
sale  of  the  thing  invented  to  a  single 
person,  might  amount  to  such  a  public 
use,  with  the  consent  or  allowance  of 
the  patentee,  as  would  forfeit  his  right 
to  a  patent.  §  7  of  the  act  of  1839,  pro- 
vided a  remedy  for  cases  where  the  con- 
duct of  the  party  did  not  show  an  act- 
ual abandonment.  Sanders  v.  Tjoyan, 
3  Wall.,  Jr.— Gkiek,  J.;  Pa.,  18G1. 

44.  The  use  of  sevenal  machines  in 
public,  for  more  than  two  years  i»rior  to 
applying  for  a  patent,  although  slightly 
varying  in  form  and  arrangement,  yet 
substantially  the  same  as  afterward 
patented,  cannot  be  alleged  to  be  ex- 


^  i' 


..L 


•s»^L 


m\ 

ill 


'immf>l 


,,.     V  JI«K>  ^''•^'  '^fc"- 

^"•>^li4iid' 


-'  w..,  ■■•*ii^>, 


mat 


^^ 


J  I 


'  ;• 


te^N) 


008 


k.    J 


l^ajf 


WHAT  MKAMT  OY. 


rriiMc  rsK.— iMiiMc  woimc. 

WHAT  ih;  how  Piiovau. 


]>('flmtiil:il,  so  as  to  Jivoitl  llic  Ic^mI  ('((H- 
Hi'i|iu'ii('('s  «>r  Hiu'h  prior  usi'.     Ihiil. 

•tr>.    'I'llC    oltviollH    (lonsllMH'lioll    of}}   7 

of  till'  pali'iil  act  of  1H.I1),  is  that  ii  pur- 
t'hast',  Hall' or  prior  uso,  witliiii  two  yi'ars 
bt'foro  applying  for  a  palciii,  shall  not 
invaliilatt',  unless  it  aiiioiiiits  to  an  abau- 
(lunmuiit  to  Iho  public.     IhUl. 


I'KOFKKT. 

St'O   ri.KADINO,  C. 


PITIILIC  VSK. 

1.  Public  use  is  opposed  to  private 
use.  If  a  man  has  an  invention  and 
liacs  it  privately,  and  nobody  knt>ws  of 
it,  then  the  use  of  it  cannot  debar  an- 
other person  from  an  invention  or  i)atent 

of  it.  A(((onn  v.  J'Jdiranh,  JNIS. 

J.;  :Mass.,  1848. 

2.  A  public  use  need  not  bo  a  general 
use  by  the  coinnnmity.  It  must  be 
used,  however,  and  used  openly,  so  that 
the  structure  and  7noihis  operandi  are 
apparent.     Ihid. 

3.  A  public  use,  as  meant  by  the  stat- 
ute, is  a  use  in  public — it  need  not  be 
generally  adopted  by  the  i)ublic.  Pub- 
lic is  not  ecpiivalent  to  general,  but  dis- 
tinguislied  from  secret  use — used  in  a 
jmblic  maimer.  Hunt  v.  ITowe,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — ]MoRSEM.,  J. ;  1).  C,  185.5. 

4.  An  absolute  sale  by  an  inventor  of 
his  invention  to  another,  is  equivalent  to 
a  public  use  of  his  invention  with  his 
consent,  .ind  the  inventor  caimot,  by  a 
repurchase  of  his  invention,  resume  any 
rights  he  may  have  lost  by  such  a  sale. 
Tbid. 

5.  The  public  xise  referred  to  in  §  7 


of  the  act  of  IHMO,  means  public  as  di,, 
jMised  to^ccrt'^ause  in publirnud  not  hu 
t  he  public.  /•JUifhorjx'  v.  Jiobcr/.inn^  JIs 
(Aj.p.  CaH.)— MoilSKix,  J.;  I).  C,  1858. 


prin.ic  woHK,  on  pkintid 

PUHLICATION. 

Seo  also  Puiou  Knowikdhk  and 
Invkntiox, 

1.  A  report  of  a  company  desciiliini^a 
thing  patented  cannot  be  read  in  (.\i. 
deuce,  under  the  provisions  of  tlu>  |i:it. 
ent  law,  §  0  of  the  act  of  I7!i:i,  as  it 
is  a  private  not  a  public  work.  I'm- 
noek  «C'  Selli.ra  v.  JJitdoi/uc,  4  Wa.sh. 
545. — WASiiiNdTON,  J.;  Pa.,  Ih-J,"). 

2.  Where  the  defence  that  a  niacliitii' 
claimed  to  be  essentially  similar  to  tlmt 
of  the  plaintiif  is  set  up,  and  the  proof 
relied  on  is  a  description  of  such  ma- 
chine contained  in  a  written  publication, 
such  description  must  be  sutlicicntlv 
full  and  precise  to  enable  a  niucliaiiic  to 
construct  it,  and  must  be  in  all  niali'iinl 
respects  like  that  covered  by  or  di^. 
scribed  in  the  jjlaintilFs  patent.  Par/iXr 
V.  iKtiles^  5  jNfcLean,  CI,  62.— 3IcLka.\, 
J.;  Ohio,  1840. 

3.  If  the  thing  invented  or  discov- 
ered has  been  described  in  any  foreign 
publication  before  the  invention  of  tiio 
l)atentee,  it  will  be  fatal  to  liis  rigiit. 
This  goes  upon  the  i)resumption,  if  such 
fonign  publication  has  been  made,  the 
patentee  may  have  accpiircd  a  knowl- 
edge of  it.  And  this  presumption  is 
not  rebutted  by  proving,  so  far  as  :i 
negative  can  be  proved,  that  tlie  in- 
ventor had  no  knowledge  of  it.  Alkn 
V.  Hunter,  0  McLean,  314. — McLean, 
J. ;  Ohio,  1855. 

4.  A  public  work  or  printed  publir?- 


.^.  .•••> 


rriM.lC  WOUK.  -n'HMCATION  OK  IJOOK. 


000 


ruovu). 


WHAT  W;   HOW  PROVKP. 


WHAT  la;  Rrrarr  or. 


;;:.)i 


uis  ptihlic  n*  ()|). 

)>ul>rH"A\\A  not  hif 
V.  AV'A«v7,'(u;/,MS. 

,,.).;  1).C.,1M8. 


Oil    rUINTKl) 

vriox. 

Knowi.kdok  and 


iHany  tli'8(Mil)in!»  n 
)t  \w  ri'iid  ill  I'vi- 
visions  of  till'  |i:it- 
act  of  17it:i,  an  '.t 
111  die  work.     1\h. 
Idlo'/uc,  4  Wash., 
J.;  Til.,  1825. 
iii'c  that  !i  macliini" 
ally  similar  to  tlint 
»i|),  tviitl  till,'  jiniot' 
iptioii  of  8udi  iim- 
ivriltcn  jmblicatidii, 
ust   1)0   Hiitlicifiitly 
liililo  a  murlianic  to 
*t  be  ill  all  iiiati'n;il 
3ovL'rt'il  liy  or  dc. 
iFs  jiatoiit.  Pitrktr 
01,  O'i.— McLkax, 

ivciitcil  or  iliscov- 
icd  ill  any  fori'iijn 

10  invention  of  the 
fatal  to  his  rigiit. 

)rcsuinptioii,  if  such 

las  been  nuulo,  the 
acquired  a  kiunvl- 
lis  presniiiption  is 
•oving,  so  far  as  ;i 
■oved,  that  t'.ie  in- 
ledge  of  it.  AUai 
an,  314.— McLean, 

:  or  printed  publir?- 


tiiHi  iimv  be  |)i'«>v<'<l,  as  to  its  conleiitii, 
nnil  the  fact  of  piiMiciition,  by  the  pro- 
(liiclioii  of  the  book,  or  by  p;ii(»l  lesli- 
iiioiiy.     /f>i<f.,  :n4. 

5.  A  hook  iiitrodiicetl  in  eviilencu  nil- 
iltT  }{  !•'>  of  the  act  of  iHittI,  to  |iro\e 
that  the  invention  of  the  ptiiintitV  had 
liccii  described,  before  the  discovery 
thereof  by  the  pati'iitce,  is  in)t  evidi'iice 
of  aiiv  other  facts  or  matter  contained  in 
it,  hi'voiid  the  description  of  the  iiiveii- 
tidii  ri'fcrrcd  to.  Sii/inoia'  v.  MfCur- 
iiiir/c,  ll>  How.,  J07. — Xklson,  ,1.;  Sup. 
ft.,  IS.'iO. 

tl.  A  patent  will  not  bo  .-vvoided,  by 
till' mere  fact  th.at  tlie  invention  or  dis- 
covery patented  had  been  known  and 
used  in  a  foreign  country,  before  the 
discovery  of  the  |)atentee,  provided  the 
patentee  at  the  time  of  liis  application 
lor  a  patent  (act  of  I8:(((,  ^  l.'>)  believed 
iiiinself  to  be  tlio  first  and  original  in- 
ventor of  the  thing  patented,  linrthol- 
omcw  V.  Smoi/rr,  MS. — lN»;Kit.soi,i,,  J. ; 
X.  Y.,  inr.o. 

7.  The  description  of  an  invontion  in 
any  public  work,  to  invalidate  a  patent, 
,1'oiild  he,  to  Home  degree,  in  th«  nature 
ofu  specification,  so  far  as  to  enable  a  me- 
chanic skilled  ill  the  art  to  conatriu^t  the 
machino ;  they  should  not  be  vague  ref- 
cronces  to  or  suggestions  of  the  thing 
(Icscrihod.  Colernun  v.  Liesiyr^  IMS. — 
LKAVirr,  J.;  Ohio,  185J). 

8.  To  render  admissible  in  ovidenco 
under  §  15  of  the  act  of  18.^0  a  printed 
publication,  it  is  not  necessary  to  make 
proof  of  the  date  of  its  publication.  A 
book  purporting  on  its  title-jjage  to  be 
published  in  "London  m  1840,"  was 
admitted  without  other  proof  of  pub- 
lication being  required.  Jtulson  v. 
Cope,  MS.— Leavitt,  J. ;  Ohio,  1800. 

9.  A  book  of  plates,  unacconiiianied 

hv  any  descriptiou  whatever,  cannot  b»^ 
30 


reeeiv«»d  In  evidi'iice  under  JJ  l.'t  of  the 
!ict  of  I  Mild.  S,in/>1<,  that  it  is  not  a 
"printed  publication."     //*/</. 

10.  I'lider  the  laws  coiicerning  pat- 
ents for  inventions,  a  previous  descrip- 
tion of  the  alleged  invention  in  :i  "puli- 
lic  work,"  .fiiich  means  ji  printed  book, 
<tefeats  a  patent.  Ibit  such  a  descrip- 
tion in  an  iiiiftrintn/  book  has  no  such 
ellect.  Ixiuit'  V.  W/iratlii/,  {)  Aliier. 
Law  Keg.,  0').  —  CAhWAi.i.Abnu,  J.; 
.'a.,  1800. 


ITP.MCATION  OF   liOOK  OK 
MANUSCKII-r. 

1.  A  sah>  of  a  book  imports  ])nblicn- 
tion.  It  is  to  bo  presumed  that  the 
purchaser  exercised  his  right  to  know 
the  contents  of  tin*  book,  and  make 
them  known  to  others,  or  that  an  actual 
publication  followed  the  sale.  ./lii/,rr  v. 
7}n/lor,  2  lilatehf.,  85.— Hkhs,  J. ;  N. 
Y.,    1848. 

2.  AVlierc  copies  of  a  bf>ok  were  sold 
prior  to  the  dejx)sit  of  tlio  tith'-page  in 
till!  clerk's  oflice,  ///</,  that  such  sale 
was  evidence  of  the  itnblication  of  the 
book  at  the  time  of  s.'ile.     If>i(l.,  85. 

3.  And  where  a  printed  copy  of  a 
book,  then  complete,  was  deposited  in 
the  clerk's  oflico  at  the  same  time  the 
title-page  was  deposited  there,  Jfild, 
that  this  fact  warranted  the  inference 
of  actual  publication  before  the  deposit 
of  the  title-page.    Ihid,  85. 

4.  The  first  publication  of  a  work, 
without  having  secured  a  coj>yright,  i? 
a  dedication  of  it  to  the  public ;  that 
having  been  done,  any  one  may  repub 
lish  it.  Bartktt  v.  Crittendm,  5  Mc 
Lean,  37.— McLkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

5.  An  acquiescence  in  the  publicatioi 


-^-^ZL 


.■^H 


"'i.?.*'' 


I, 


■''■■^mi^W4s^^\ 


^'i 


Wi  „. 


610 


rrnijcATiox  or  hook.-fm'im'osk. 


!WM' 


WHAT  M;   imOT  or;   WIIKTIIKR  i'ATKNTABLI. 


of  .1  luiuiiisoript,  or  in  thv  ri'imblicafion 
of  II  |)i'iiit«><l  hook,  aiitliori/.cs  a  |iri>siiiii|)- 
tioii  ot*  usHigniui'iit  or  iiharnlontnunt. 
Ibid.,  il. 

0.  All  nittlinr  inny  licfiiHo  the  piilili- 
rntioii  of  Iiin  iiuiniiscript.  Kiit  iiiiIohm 
A  copyriylit  is  si'ciin'd  tin-  first  piiMica- 
tioii  of  it  will  aitainloii  it  to  tlu>  public. 
/•«//*•  V.  Ihrhy.h  McLean,  332.— Mc- 
Lkan,  J.;  Ohio,  IH-^'j. 

V.  An  author  may  ho  said  to  1»e  th(! 
creator  or  inventor,  hoth  of  the  itleas 
contained  in  his  book,  and  tliu  eoinbiiia- 
lion  of  wortls  to  represent  tliein.  He- 
fore  puliiioation  lie  has  the  ex«-lusive 
possession  of  his  iiiveiitioii.  I^toire  v. 
Tlionuis,  'J  Ainer.  Law  Keg.,  2iJH. — 
(JuiKK,  J.,  I'a.,  1853. 

8.  IJut  Avlien  lio  has  ])iiblis)ied  his 
book,  ;iiid  given  liis  thoiiglits  to  the 
world,  he  eaii  have  no  longer  an  exclu- 
sive possession  of  them.  The  author's 
concept  ions  have  become  the  common 
]»roperty  of  the  public.     Ihhl.,  '2'_'H. 

9.  The  acting  or  representation  of  a 
play  is  not  a  publication  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  statute.  Jiobcrts  v.  Mi/era, 
13  Mo.  Law  Rep.,  308. — Si'KAguk,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1800. 

10.  Li  the  absence  of  any  legislation 
for  the  special  protection  of  dramatic 
literary  property,  an  authorized  public 
circulation  of  a  printed  copy  of  a  drama, 
for  which  there  is  no  legisl.-itive  copy- 
right, is  a  pul)lication  which  legalizes  a 
subsequent  theatrical  representation  by 
anybody  from   such  copy.     Keene    v. 

W/teafh'i/,   9  Amer.  Tiaw  Reg.,   44. — 
Cadwam.apeu,  J. ;  Pa.,  1860. 

11.  The  intended  meaning  of  the 
word  publ{catlo?i,  in  the  acts  respecting 
copyrights,  is  publication  in  print. 
Ibid.,  44,  45,  05. 

12.  A  publication  of  a  composition 
ies  an  act  which  renders  its  contents,  in 


any  mode  or  degree,  an  addition  to  the 
store  of  human  knowledge.      //(/</,,  ;; 

13.  All  iini/uid(/ii</  publication  ilcl. 
icates  it  to  the  puldic.      fbuf.,  7s. 

II.  A  //////7»'r/ publication  of  it  is  j,, 
act  which  coinmunicaten  a  kiiowIiMlir. 
of  the  contents  to  a  at'lert  j',,t<,  iiimi: 
conditions  expressly  or  impliedly  im. 
eluding  its  rightful  ulterior  cniiiiiiiinj. 
cation,  except  in  "-cstricted  privaii.  in- 
tercoui'se.      //>/</.,  80. 

15.  Any  publication  which  is  imt  n- 
stricted,  both  as  to  persons  ainl  imr. 
pose,  i»  ffe/ieral.  When  the  word  j,iil>. 
lit'itfion  is  used  without  any  exiirc^s 
(pialification,  a  jexirnl  publit-ation  U 
meant,      /bid.,  80,  90. 

10.  A  publication  is  not  directly  iitUct- 
ed  by  printing,  but  follows  it.    //>/</.,  sj. 

17.  The  s.ile  of  a  single  copy  (nilv,  of 
a  first  edition  of  a  book,  is  a  general 
publication.  Hut  in  such  a  case,  il'  its 
literary  jjroprietor  has  possession  of  all 
the  otlu'r  copies,  and  of  the  niiinuscriiit 
from  which  they  were  printed,  luid  wish. 
ing  to  suppress  the  publication,  ]m\i 
back  the  copy  sold  before  it  has  boon 
read,  he  must  stand  on  the  same  footiii!; 
as  if  he  had  never  j)arted  with  it.  That 
before  he  got  it  back  the  purcli.iscr  iiiiiv 
have  read  it,  can  make  no  rational  dif- 
ference, unless  the  impression  on  tlio 
hatter's  memory  may  enable  him  to 
make  ulterior  publication.     Ibid,,  9'1. 


PURPOSE. 

See  also  Effect  ;  New  Ai'i'licatiox. 

1.  Intent  is  no  ground  of  a  patent. 
Kemper,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.  C'as.)— 
Crancii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1841. 

2.  If  the  thing  done  be  not  neiv,  Ihc 


an  ik(l<liti<iii  to  tliu 

(/  |)iil)licatiiiti  (ti>i|. 
•.  fhi,/.,  7s. 
trtciitioM  of  it  is  an 
•att's  a  knowii'di;.: 
ft  aelect  J)w,  u|iuii 
'  or  iiiiplit'illy  [in. 
iiltorior  (■nininiiiii. 
stricti'tl  ])nvuli'  in. 
D. 

oil  wliicli  1»  not  re- 
rt  jMTsons  and  pur. 
riicii  till'  wonl  jiiiL 
itiiout  any  cxiuim 
ir'd  j»ihlic((tkih  is 
1)0. 

is  not  «liroctlyiiHVct- 
ollo\v«  it.    I/iiil.,yi. 
sin<^lo  I'ojiy  only,  of 
,  book,  is  a  m'licnl 
n  sncli  a  cast',  il'  its 
las  posst'ssion  ot"  all 
(1  of  the  nianiiscriiit 
re  print ctl,  tind  wish. 
e    pnldication,  Imvs 
before  it  Ims  lurn 
on  tlie  same  footing 
)arto(l  with  it.  Tliat 
tho  purchasiT  in;\y 
ake  no  rational  dif- 
impression  on  the 
nay   en.ablc  him  to 
cation.     Ibid.,  91. 


New  ArrucATioN-, 

ground  of  a  patent. 
]\IS.  (App.  Cas.)- 
K  C,  1841. 
one  be  not  new,  the 


UKISSITK  OF  PATENT,  A. 


on 


WIIBN;    RT   WHOM;    rOR  WHAT. 


intt'iit  witli  whii'h  the  act  ii»  done,  ean- 
,,ot  entitle  it  to  t\  patent.      //>/»/. 

.1.  A  purpcme  Ih  not  putenlalde;  lint 
the  niaehinery  only,  if  now,  by  \vlii<  li  it 
in  to  lio  aecoinplislieil.  In  oilier  words, 
the  lliiiiK  il'^tilf  which  is  patenteil,  must 
b«  new,  antl  not  tho  nieru  application 
„t'  it  to  :i  new  purpose  or  object,    /tiini 


is  not  to  be  itcrfornied— If  their  pur- 
lHt»f  is  ilKfereiit,  and  iheru  \*  nn  iib'nti- 
ty  of  olyeet  or  effeet,  they  are  not  iib-n- 
licjil.  Hiinnj,  F.x  jKirt>\  MS.  (.\pp. 
('as.)-.Muiisi;i,i,,  .1.;   I).  (!.,  IH.'.K. 

It.  The  object  and  pnrjioso  of  two  in- 
ventioUH  may  be  referred  to  and  taken 
into   consideration    in   determiniie'    tliu 


V.  Siiuillwooil,   '1   Story,  41 1, -Siouv,  j  ipiestion    of    identity    between    them. 


J.;  Mass.,  IH4:«. 

4.  The  application  of  u  known  thinj; 
10  II  new  purpose,  as  the  use  of  rivets 
to  fiisten  parts  of  a  shoe,  instead  of  sew- 
in",  tliouy;li  siicli  particular  parts  of  the 
i-lioe  liad  never  before  lieen  ho  fastened, 
is  not  the  subject  of  a  pjitent.  Ifiiz<trd 
V.  ^V<ry/,   MS.    (.\pp.    Cas.) — C'u.VNrn, 

C1....I.;  I),  t'.,  l«K. 

.■>.  The  mere  applieatioti  of  an  ohl  nin- 
ehinc  to  a  new  purpose,  is  not  patent- 
able. 'I'likr  V.  7>«'>v//,  1  Code  Kep.,  :)(). 
-MiC.v'i.Kii,  J.;  La.,  1H4H. 

(j,  A  new  application  of  a  known 
liiinciplc  to  a  new  and  UHcful  purpose, 
hy  new  mechanieal  contrivances  and  ap- 
paratus, as  the  application  of  tlu;  princi- 
ple of  the  expansive  and  eontraclin*; 
piiwer  of  a  metallic  rod,  by  dillerent 
degrees  of  heat,  to  reijulato  the  action 
of  the  damper  of  and  the  heat  of  a  com- 
mon stove,  is  the  subject  of  a  patent. 
Yooti  V.  »S<7%,  1  IJlatchf.,  404.— Nkl- 
soN',J.;  N.  Y.,  1849. 

7.  The  application  of  a  thing  .already 
known,  to  a  new  and  useful  pm-pose, 
may  be  the  subject  of  u  patent  provided 
the  new  use  is  not  analogous  to  the  old, 
and  requires  tho  exercise  of  the  inven- 
tive faenlties.  Whmns  v.  Sc/wner.  <{; 
Tmj  Ji.  li.,  2  Blatchf.,  29:J.— Con'k- 
Lixci,  J.;  X.  Y.,  1851. 

8.  Although  two  machines  may  bo 
(•iniilar  in  appearance  and  arrangement, 
if  the  conditions  under  which  they  are 
toad  arc  not  alike — if  the  same  service 


Where  (heir  object  and  purpose  are  en- 
tirely ditVereiit,  and  material  advantages 
result  trom  om>  inv«'ntion,  it  will  lie  pat- 
entable, though  it  may  have  suine  re- 
Si'iiiblanccs  to  the  other.  Jiitrntoir,  /vie 
jhtrfi'y  .MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mouhki.i.,  .1.; 
I).  C,  iHdo. 

10.  The  pm'poso  or  object  had  hi  view 
bv  an  invention,  m:iv  be  considered  in 
dcteiinining  the  (pieslion  whether  it  i.-i 
identical  with  another  invention.  Iloyf, 
Ex.  piii't>\  .MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mokhkm., 
J.;  I).  C,  1800. 

11.  'I'lie  mere  use  of  a  mechanical 
struetui  ,  before  applied  to  a  partitMilar 
purpose  (as  a  valve  used  on  railw.-iy  lo- 
comotives), for  a.  dift'crent  imipose,  is 
not  patentable  ;  but  if  the  valve  be  so 
changed  as  to  bo  applicable  to  all  en- 
gines, and  jiroducing  a  new  ami  useful 
result ,  it  is  a  patentable  subject.  Jiidson 
v.  Jfoore,  MS. — Leaviit,  J. ;  Ohio, 
1800. 


REISSUE  OF  PATENT. 

A.      "WlIEM  MAT  BE  HAD;    BY  WHOM;    FOIl 

WHAT CI  2 

D.    Action  of  Commissioser  ix  Ca.ses  op  017 

C   To  UE  FOU  SAME  I.VVESTIO.V  AS  THE 

Original C13 

D.    Vauditv  and  Force  of,  and  Rights 

CONFERRED  BY C23 


'III' 

ii 


^'M 


r  .   ' 


;''*%^ 


y^ 


019 


TlF.TSSrK  OF  PATKNT,  A. 


I 


when;  iit  WHOM;  ron  what 


'■*■■'  -»,; 


I].     KrrRfT  or,  on  ANaiuNKieii,  and  Otii- 

KM,  AND  TIIKIII    UlOIITI   tINDKR 035 

A,     WiiKN  MAY  itK  had;    iiy  whom; 

K«Ul   WHAT. 


Hue  also  Kkihhuk,  U. 

1.  A  tlffcctivo  patt'iit  Timy  l»o  »iirroii- 
(Icrcd  aixl  a  iu>\v  pati'iit  takt'ii  tor  tlic 
utic\|iiri'<l  jiait  of  till-  ()ii}^iiial  torni — for 
a  term  Ichh  thnn  fourt«'i'ti  yi-arn.  Tin- 
rt'Ht fiction  of  fiiiU'  in  on  \\w  ninjrlnnun 
only,  not  on  tlic  mi'iiini'iin.  Sultii'n/t'n 
Cdsr.  Opin, ;  (Jilpin'H  ImI.,  1841,  l(5H. — 
WiKT,  Atty.  (icn.;   I81«. 

2.  KviMi  under  llio  patent  lawn  of 
ITOM,  /r<lif,  that  there  was  no  lyootl  rea- 
Kon  why  on  an  rx  parte  application  a 
jmtcnt  could  not  be  HinTendeted  and 
earu'elled  of  record  in  the  di'partinent 
of  Htate,  if  no  niiscoiiduel  be  inipiitabh> 
to  the  ]>atentee  in  takinj^  it  out:  but 
the  second  patent  shouhl  only  be  for 
the  unexpired  balaiuu'  of  the  fourteen 
years.  Jfinris  v.  Ilnntimjtuny  1  Paine, 
3'>r),  ;t:>(l.— TnoMi'soN,  J.;   X.  Y.,  IH24. 

!J.  Previous  to  the  act  of  18;it5,  a  pat- 
entee liad  tho  right  to  surrender  his 
patent  and  tako  out  a  now  one,  and  on 
a  trial  tho  now  patent  was  to  be  con- 
sid«'red  in  the  same  light  as  if  no  other 
liad  been  issued.  Grant  v.  Maaon,  1 
Law  tfc  Int.  Rev.,  22. — Thompson,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1828. 

4.  A  patent  may  bo  surronderod  and 
a  new  ono  taken,  inchiding  an  addi- 
tional improvement,  and  bearing  the 
sanao  dato  with  the  original  patent. 
Anon.,  2  Opin.,  456. — Taney,  Atty. 
Gen.,  1831. 

5.  Under  the  patent  act  of  1703,  the 
Secretary  of  State  had  power  to  receive 
a  surrender  of  a  patent,  cancel  the  rec- 


'  the  ujiexpired  portion  of  the  term,  w||,,n 
the  defect  in  the  Hpecillcatiun  aru>(i.  iV,,,,, 
miittaki*,  without  fraud  or  mUnini|i„.| 
of  tin*  pat«'nttte.     Hr<int  v.  /iiii/,„<,„<l 

0    Pet.,    '.'42.— MaUMHALI,,  Ch.  .1.;    Sii|, 

Ct.,  Ih:i2. 

tt.  Its  emanation,  tliough  not  fiMini|i.,| 
on  the  wordM  of  the  law,  is  iridisi,,.,,,. 
Illy  necessary  to  the  faithful   execiifinn 
of  the  promise   made   by   the  jfimrn 
niont  to  reward  the  inventor.    74;,/ 
'J42. 

7.  The  lu)lder  of  a  defect ivo  pntcni 
may  surreiid«'r  it  to  the  depart tinnt  nf 
state  and  obtain  a  new  one.  Tlic  n.n 
patent  has  relation  to  the  orij,nn;il  inni, 
Action,  antl  the  application  nuiy  Im>  con. 
sidcred  as  appended  to  the  ori^fiiinl  nr,. 
plication.  >'</utw  \.  (^oojter,  7  I'd.,  :;i( 
Jlft. — ]M<Lkan,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  lH3;i. 

8.  In  regard  to  tho  right  of  a  patentee 
to  Mirretub'r  a  <lefeetive  patent  ami  tiiki' 
out  a  lew  one,  there  is  no  dilJrrciiccln'. 
tween  a  citizen  and  alien.     I/ui/.,  ;)14, 

9.  An  aasigneo  of  a  patent  cannot 
make  a  surrender  of  the  patent  and  ol). 
tain  a  reissue  wlthoiit  the  cooperation 
of  tho  original  patentee.  The  assignee 
cannot  swear  to  tho  invention,  as  s\wn. 
tied  in  tho  new  specification:  no  one 
but  the  inventor  himself  can  niako  tlio 
oath  required.  Ooid'Uin/'s  Case,  2 
Opin.,  572. — Tankv,  Atty.  Gen.;  Ifi.'t3. 

10.  Unless  there  be  some  error  in  the 
specification  arising  from  iriadvortcnev, 
.accident,  or  mistake,  and  without  an;- 
fraudulent  or  deceptive  intention,  a  pat- 
entee c.mnot  surrender  a  patent  which 
includes  several  distinct  iniprovcniiiits 
and  take  out  several  new  ones.  Aiwn.,^ 
Opin.,  104.— BuTt.Kit,  Atty.  Gen.;  ]m. 

11.  An  effort  on  the  part  of  an  in- 
ventor to  include  several  distinct  im- 
provements in  his  first  patent,  and  then 


ord  thereof,  and  issue  a  new  patent  for  I  to  surrender  it  and  t.ike  out  sever.il  new 


.c^i 


HKISSIK  OF  PATENT,  A. 


eis 


uftho  torm,  when 
if:itiiin  iirosi-  riniii 
nl  or  iniHciiihlui't 
lint  V.  /i'li/mnii'l, 
ALL,  Cli.  J.;  Sm». 

loll^jll  t»'tt   tnuiiili.,! 

Iiiw,  is  iii<li-|it'ii>';i. 

rilitlll'lll    CXl'Clllinii 

VI  by  thi>  fiovini- 
.  inventor.     Hi'ul., 

n  (li'f»'Ctivi«  jiatt'iit 
llu>  (IfpurliiHiit  "t" 

H'W  OXW.      'I'llf  MiW 

i»  llic  ori<.;in;il  tiiiis 
iciitioii  in;iy  lie  cdii. 
I  to  the  ori<;iii!il  \\\i- 
Coi>pet\  7  1VI.,:!1I, 
Slip.  Ct.,  1H3;I. 
I!  ri^hl  ofii|i;iti'iitiT 
tivi'  pjitont  ami  take 
J  is  no  dirtVrciict' 111'- 
iilli-n.     //uW..  :iU. 
)f  !v  piiti'iit  cannot 
f  tlio  psitcnt  and  ol). 
i\it  tlie  oooiiiTatimi 
Intt'C.     TIic  assjiincc 
invention,  as  spcci- 
|)ci'ilication:  no  one 
nsolf  can  make  tlio 
'<)iil<l!n(/'s    Ciise,  '.' 
-,  Atty.Gen.;  WX 
|bc  some  error  in  iho 
from  inailvertcnoy, 
;c,  and  Avithont  any 
[tive  intention,  a  pat- 
dor  a  i)atent  which 
Ltinct  iniprovenii'iits 
new  ones.  Anon.,'^ 
:R,Atty.Gen.;18nO. 
tlte  part  of  an  in- 
Iscveral  distinct  ini- 
rst  patent,  and  tlion 
;ake  out  several  now 


wiikn;  NY  WHOM;  roM  what. 


„iiis  no  iw  to  pny  but  one  ft»o  on  tlie 

purriiider,  and  llu-n-hy  dcrraiid  llu^  rt'V- 
ciiiic,  u'tnild  bi<  Hiieii  a  fnmdulent  do* 
liuMi  a<«  to  1)0  within  the  hiw  and  dentroy 
the  rijl'it  to  Hurreniler.      I  hid.,  Itll. 

I'j.  There  \*  nothing  in  the  proviMiuiiN 
„f  jl  1,1  (if  the  act  of  lw;i(J,  and  |}  h  of  tlie 
uct«)f  lH'i7«  ii*  to  the  reiNHiiu  of  a  patent, 
which  reqnirert  the  patentee  to  elaini  all 
thmu'Hinthe  reiieweii  patent  which  w»'re 
(liuincd  a.s  \\\*  original  invention,  or  part 
(if  his  invention,  in  hirt  orij^inal  patent. 
('(inur  V.  Jirnlnti'ic  ^fllnnJ',  Cit,^  '2 
Story,  4;il).— Sroiiv,  J.;  MaHs,,  IHHI. 

i;i.  A  Mpeeilication  may  be  detective 
;,iiil  uiiinaintainai>le  nnder  the  patent 
act,  as  well  by  an  exeesH  of  elaiiu  as  by 
;i  (ji'lcct  in  the  mode  of  Htatin^  it. 
Ihiil.,  4:10. 

14.  Ihit  the  inventor  in  always  at  lib- 
crlv,iii  li  renewed  patent,  to  on>it  a  part 
lit' liis  ori<;inal  invention  if  lie  deems  it 
( \|(cdiciit,  and  to  retain  that  part  only 
nt'liisorii^inal  invention  whieli  he  deems 
it  tit  to  retain.     //>/</.,  430. 

15.  A  Hpeeitlcation  may  be  defeellvo, 
not  only  in  oniittinjjf  to  ;;ive  a  full  <U'- 
scri[ilion  of  the  mode  of  constrnetinfj  a 
iiiuclmie,  hut  also  in  omitting  to  describe 
fully  in  the  claim  the  nature  and  extent 
and  character  of  the  hivention.  This 
latter  is  the  common  defect  for  which 
most  renewed  patents  aro  granted. 
Ml.,  440. 

10.  Under  the  acts  of  18.12  and  1R30, 
no  prior  use  df  an  invention  under  a  de- 
tective jiatent  can  take  away  the  right 
to  surrender  such  patent  and  take  out  a 
new  and  amended  or)e,  or  authorize  a 
use  under  the  reiu'wed  patent.  Sthnp- 
fm\.WesL  It.  Road,  4  Mow,  402.— 
McLe.vn,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1845. 

17.  A  specification  may  l)c  insufficient 
uidefectivo  under  §  13  of  the  .ictof  1836, 
JO  as  to  allow  a  reissue,  cither  by  a  mis- 


(i»ko  of  Inw,  ««  to  w!iat  \n  required  to  l)o 
stated  therein  in  respect  to  the  claim  of 
the  inventor,  or  Ity  a  mistake  of  fiu't,  in 
omitting  thinu's  which  are  indis|K'nsablo 
to  the  coiiiplcleiH'ss  and  exactness  of  iho 
description  i'  the  invention,  or  of  tlu 
mode  of  const  ruetini;,  or  nuiking,  or 
using  the  same.  A  Urn  .-.  liliitdy  3 
Story,  714.— Srouv,  .1.;  Mass.,  |h|,'). 

IH.  The  Commissioner  of  I'atents  can 
lawfully  receive  a  surn-nder  of  h  iter-* 
patent  for  a  «U'fective  specification,  and 
reis^iH'  letters  on  an  amended  specifica- 
tion, alter  the  expiration  of  the  ori^^iiial 
patent,  and  <Iiiring  the  exislenci>  of  an 
extemled  term,  and  at  any  time  during 
snch  term.  W'ilnon  \.  /inHsiuii,  \  I  low., 
«HH.— Nklhon,  .r.;  Snp.  Ct.,  IHI.'i. 

ID.  The  mode  of  issning  one  set  of 
new  letters  patent,  for  two  or  nu»re  dif- 
ferent terms  bt-fore  existing,  is  t)f  doubt- 
ful legality.  The  better  mode  would  bo 
to  renew  each  separately,  or  renew  only 
the  old  letters  and  tlu-ir  specification, 
and  let  the  others  bo  cured  or  aided  by 
relation  back  to  the  original  one.  Wood- 
worth  v.  lf<dU  I  Wood.  &.  Min.,  202.— 
WooDnuKY,  .1. ;  Mass.,  1H40. 

20.  If  the  Hpeeitication  \a  so  uncer- 
tain, as  to  whether  a  particular  thing  is 
chiinied  as  a  part  of  a  new  condiination, 
or  as  a  new  invention,  as  to  be  unintel- 
ligible, it  is  void,  but  it  may  be  surren- 
dered and  amende<l.  Jfovey  v.  Stevens, 
1  Wood.  &  Min.,  302. — Wooduuky,  J. ; 
M:iss.,  1840. 

21.  The  power  to  surrender  a  p.atcnt 
and  take  a  renewal  thereof  is  vested  ex- 
clusively by  §  13  of  the  act  of  1836  in 
the  patentee,  Ins  executors  or  adminis- 
trators, their  assignees,  and  the  grantees 
of  an  exclusive  right  for  a  specified  part 
of  the  United  States  ;  and  there  is  noth- 
ing in  the  act  restricting  such  right  be- 
cause of  special  or  limited  grants  or  U- 


♦^Tj 


■Iw-    v..  !.• 


*m^ 


'♦*'! 


ta^Wi 


wtmmt 


iHiWIdij 


ou 


IlKISsrK  or  PATKNT,  A. 


con«n"«  pr«'vi«m»t!y  rimdo.  Smith  v.  .Vtr- 
W*",  I  Wont.  F.aw  .lidir.,  ft  I,  52.— Kank, 
J,;  I'll.,  iHto. 

U'i.  Oil  tlio  Miii-ri>tii|t>r  niiit  r«*iNNUi>  un- 
der ^  la  of  iIk-  iii't  of  |h:|i(,  of  11  |iiit«'iit 
which  hii«t  ht'iii  <<\triiih-<l,  '•  (hi-  roNidiU' 
of  th«'  |MTioiI  th*'ii  iiiii>\|iir«-il  for  which 
the  orit;iiial  puU'iit  wan  ({niiitcd,"  in  the 
if'.iiliM'  of  tho  tWfiity.om<  yiMirw.  The 
i<xtt>iiih'i|  imfcril  of  twcrity-oiic  years  i", 
lliHiu'h  caxi',  to  \n>  rcjxanh'il  a^  tlii>  "orig- 
itial  patent"  within  thi>  tneaniii^  of  g  |:i. 
()lU>Hi,n  V.  IIiiirlH,  I  lUatchf.,  ItllK— 
Nkihun,  .r.;  N.  v.,  IHKI. 

'J.'l.  The  Hiirn'iiih'r  and  ri'iMs\n'  of  a 
pah-nt,  extt'tided  hy  act  of  ('onj^reN.n  t(» 
twt'tity-t'ij^ht  yearn,  atU-r  it  had  hcoii 
previously  extended  unih'r  {|  IH  of  the 
mt  of  |M:ti(  to  twenty-one  years,  stands 
on  tile  same  footing;,  as  if  such  surrender 
and  reissue  weri'  made  in  iho  ciwe  o'' 
tlie  patent  for  twenty-one  years,  or 
cxtt-nch'd  inith-r  g  IS.  There  is  no  dit- 
ference  in  principli".     //.•*</.,  KM),  170. 

24.  Where  ii  patent,  which  had  iicen 
once  extenth'd  nncler  g  18  of  the  act  of 
18M0,  w'.'vs  afterward  exteinU'd  hy  act 
of  ('on]Lfress,  and  the  patent  was  issued, 
in  form,  for  the  whole  term  of  twenly- 
cij?ht  years  from  the  <hvto  of  the  orij^inal 
patent,  Jldd,  tliat  it  waH  not  invalid, 
l>ut  that  in  leLfal  effect,  it  was  ii  patent 
ft)r  the  residue  only  of  tlie  period  miex- 
pired  at  tho  time  it  was  issued.  Ibid,, 
170. 

2">.  Tf  .1  patent  which  lias  been  twice 
cxten(h;d  is  surrendered  for  a  defective 
Hpecification,  and  few  letters  taken  with 
an  amended  si)Ccification,  they  may  be 
taken  for  tho  whole  twenty-eight  years. 
Woodieorth  v.  J^dioards,  ^  Wood.  & 
Mill.,  120. — WooDiiLKY, J.;  Mass.,  1847. 

20.  Though  the  old  specification  had 
been  adjudged  good,  yet  if  defective  so 
as  to  be  open  to  litigation,  and  thus 


HnmAwhnt  ••ln«»jM»ratlvi','*  the  Ctmutii,. 
Nioner  may  renew  it,  and  the  reiitu:)! 
will  he  of  all  for  the  twenty-eight  mh. 
and  the  granting  of  the  reiMHiied  pati<iit 
will  \h<  primit  J'xt'if.  proof  that  the  matt; 
of  things  JiiNtitled  the  reissue,  and  tli  it 
the  speeilhation  relates  to  the  miiiit;  jiui. 
ent.     /A/./.,  ^127-1 20. 

27.  There  may  he  more  than  orn'mir- 
render  and  reissue  of  th«'  same  putim 
There  is  nothing  in  the  patent  aiii,  m 
in  their  policy,  that  limits  the  cornriicin 
of  erroi'H  to  Hueh  as  may  have  heeri  tin 
flrnt  discovered.  Mrm'hv.  /iV<.'/»  rw,  Ms, 
— (iKii'.ie,  Kank,  J.r.;  I'a.,  Ih5|. 

28.  \  reissue  is  grantetl  In  coiisidcru 
tion  of  some  more  full  or  aecuratu  ili^ 
closure,  than  that  which  had  heen  niiili 
in  the  original  specilication,  or  sonu'  it- 
nunciation   of    an   apparently    seciireil 

gilt,  and  it  is  for  the  piihlic  intorcHt 
t  the  Htirreiider  and  roissiio  slimiM 
he  allowed  to  follow  ea«'h  other  as  efton 
as  the  patentee  is  content  to  he  tiion 
specific,  or  more  modest  in  his  claims, 
Ifnd. 

20.  The  surrender  and  tho  rcissiio, 
no  matter  how  often  they  recur,  arc  re- 
ciprocal— each  in  consitleratioii  of  the 
other — antl  form  together  hut  a  niiij;lu 
.act.  If  a  reissue  is  invalid  for  w.'int  nf 
authority  to  m.ako  it,  tho  siirrciKk'r  i. 
iiictrectivo  for  want  of  authority  to  ac- 
cept it.     Ibid. 

30.  Tho  fact  that  things  described  in 
an  original  jiatent  had  been  in  piililir 
use,  in  the  interval  between  the  mw 
of  the  original  and  tho  reissue,  does  not 
prevent  an  inventor  of  the  right  to  re- 
sume them  in  a  reissue.  Gooifi/turw 
Day,  MS.— Grier,  J.;  N.  .T.,  18,r.'. 

31.  The  mistake  of  claiming  too  little, 
in  tho  original  jiatent,  has  an  equal 
claim  to  correction  with  that  of  claim- 
ing too  much.    Ibid. 


UKI.SSl'K  •)K  PATKNT,  A. 


615 


WHMI  RV  WUOHl  nW  VMAT. 


Si.  If  nil  ori^liinl  ptttcnt  IiuIikIi*  two  H?.  Tli«<  roIk  ri^ht  to  Hurri'inlir  utKltr 

invi'iiiioii"!  i>'i'l  i'"^  viil'hiity  on  llittt  iii'-  {}   l:i  of  tlti>  it<-l  of  |n:I(1,  i*  )j;i\i>ii:   I. 

coiiiit  i^  iliiiil)t«Ml,  u  Hi'iKiriittt  rviiuwul  U  To  tlio  |iitl«<nt«'i-,  i''  lie  \n  iillvt',  iiiul  huH 

jiiitt  uikI  propor.     /ftitl.  tiiit<l«t  tio  uMMi^nnu'iit  of  tin*  ori|{liiul  piU* 

3.1.  {|  i:i  of  (ho  uct  of  |n:io  coiitfin- i  i>iit :    'i.  To  tli«'  rxfctitorM  iukI  tdlinin- 

tiliU«"«  iwt  rliiMM«'>*  «it' j'liM'n,  ill  which  rv-  iHlratorM  of   ihi«  patt>iitt'«t  afivr  U\h  «le« 

\%»iH'*  iii.'iy  li«)  (jrntntt'il.     KiiHt,  wht-rt*  ti  (m<iim<  ,  wht-ti  lhi<r«<  han  Iicimi  no  hucIi  ii»> 

iKilfiit  «hatl  \>v  inofunifit'tf  mu[  iio'iiliil  Hi^nincnt ;    ;t.    To  th<>   iiMiii<.:iif(*,   when 

111  ri'UMon  of  n  (hii't'clivu  or  inNtiflicioiit  thrru  hint  lif«tn  an  iiNiti^nnifnt  i>f  tin* 

(|i'!<t'i'i|*tion    or    Mpccillcation  :    St>«'oii<l,  ori^^inal  patent.     Thi<  ri^lit.  to  NnrriMnlor 

»lii<ri'  lliat  ol»jt'«'tion  aiii^iH,  l»y  rniHoii  iM  ^ivt'ii  to  no  om>  rUf.      I'nttn'w  I/nl- 

of  thf  paliiitt't'   cliiiminj^   in    his  own  /<//<«/,  MS. — iNtJKiiHoi.i.,  J. ;  Nkia  )N,  J., 

MM'citii-utioii,  aH  hi^  own  invention,  nioru  ooncnrriii);;  Ct.,  I  MAS. 

tliiiii   hi>  hail  or  r^tiall  havit  u  ri;;ht  to  3N.  W!iort>,  howover,  tli(<rt<  hiiH  hoon 

(•l;un»  a-*  new.     JftUl. — Dukkiison,  J.;  an  iiNHifrnnieiit   of  nn  ninliviMeil  part  of 

N.  J.,  IHS'i.  tliu    whole    ori;;inal    patent,  in    Hiieh   ti 


.11.  Ah  to  the  firnt  eaue,  allhoiiKh  the 
ili'<.i'i'i|>lion  oi'  Hpecilieation  \w  elear  uinl 


eiiMi*    the  tiHiti^nee  of  hiicIi  a  part  ami 
the  patentee  l)i>(M>ine  joint  tiwnorMofihe 


(ii4tiii('t  to  tlescrilM>  Nonie  iniproveineiil    pitteiit,  and  hIioiiM  join  in  the  ^iirreiiiler, 
(II' invention,  yet  '    ii  does  not  tlenerilte   ami  if  they  do  not,  it  will   lie   invalid, 


the  purl itiilai"  in  ■  iition  inteiidi-d  to  lie 
ilcm-iiiit'd,  it  in  inopenitivu  and  invalid, 
lu'ciinlin^  tu  tho  Honsu  of  the  law,  and 
will  justify   u   surrender  and    rt'i»HUo. 

;)5.  Tho  riglit  to  Hiirrcnder  an  old 
|iftteiit,  ami  recoivo  another  in  itH  placo, 
was  <,'ivon  for  tlio  pnrpoHc;  of  »iialilinj{ 
tlu'  patentee  to  j^ive  a  more  perfect  du- 
wripiiitii  of  hin  invunlion,  when  any 
mistake  or  ovcrsiRlit  w'UH  conunitted  in 
his  first.  O'liiellyv.Jforse,  15  How., 
11:'.— Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  lH5a. 

.It;.  Whether  the  defect  bo  in  tho 
Fpocitii-ation  or  claim,  under  g  13  of  tho 
act  of  IHUO,  tho  patentee  may  Hurrondcr 
his  putciit,  and  by  an  amended  speeifi- 
liiticm  or  claim,  euro  tho  defect.  When 
tilt'  specification  or  claim  are  so  vague 
as  to  bo  inoperative  and  invalid,  an 
amt'iulinent  may  give  it  validity,  and 
protect  he  right.s  of  the  patentee 
agaiiii;:  suliseciuont  infringementH.  Jiat' 
tin\.  Taggert,  17  How.,  83. — McLean, 
J.;  Sup.  <Jt.,  1854. 


iinleMH  the  part  owner  not  joining  hIuUI 
ratify  it.     //>/«/. 

3i».  Hut  a  lii-enspo,  or  one  who  has 
had  transferred  to  him  a  less  or  differ* 
out  interest  than  either  the  interest  in 
the  whole  pjiteiit,  or  an  undivided  [virt 
of  such  interest,  or  an  exclusive  Hecti«m- 
al  interest,  has  mi  legal  right  asiiH'  'gneo 
to  surrender,  and  iv  surrender  without 
his  concurrence  is  valid.     Jlnd. 

40.  Under  JJ  13  of  the  act  of  1836, 
as  to  reiHsuo,  the  Commissioner  has  no 
pt)wer  to  grant  a  reissue  to  alter  tho 
date  of  a  previously  granted  antedated 
patent.  Cu«hman,  W.  M.  C,  Ex  partCy 
MS.  (App.  Cas.)— Dl'nlop,  J. ;  I).  C, 
1858. 

41.  The  right  to  amend  or  correct  tho 
defects,  either  in  the  description  of  tho 
Hehedule,  or  in  the  m.'ittor  of  tho  stira- 
mary  of  the  claim,  by  a  surrender  of  an 
old  patent,  in  order  to  a  reissue,  has  its 
existence  upon  the  broad  principles  of 
reason  and  justice,  coeval  with  the  au- 
thority to  grant  tho  protective,  cxclu- 


<=^c 


(» 


w-^i 


616 


inassi'K  OF  PATKNT,  A. 


WIIFN;   DT   WHOM;    rOB  WHAT, 


'f'5# 


.I'^k^' 


:Ste- 


Bive  rijjlit  itsi'lf.  /i(ill,  I'kt  jHirte,  3rs. 
(Ajip.  Cas.)  —  MoKsuM,,  J.;  ]).  C, 
1800. 

42.  Tlie  ri'.nl  queslioii  is  botweon  tlu> 
inventor  iiiul  tin-  publur— with  tlio  liiuita- 
tion  ort'xcfption  of  IrauilantldiTi'ptiDii 
toward  tlu"  public — ami  as  to  the  fair  a  id 
o<initabU'  limits  oCtlic  oriyiiial  invention, 
cmliraciiii;  all  combinations,  new  and 
valualdo,  with  their  1  unctions,  so  as  in 
the  best  and  most  etU'ctual  maimer  to 
guard  and  jtrotect  this  riyht  from  inv:i- 
bion  by  pretended  inventors  and  pirates, 
and  from  the  etfect  of  subtle,  refined  dis- 
tinction;.    If>/J. 

AS.  If  to  <Io  tliis,  it  shoidd  become 
necessary  to  dividi>  and  sidxlivide  the 
invention,  t!ie  reason  is  very  suthcieiit 
and  within  the  provision  of  the  law  al- 
lowing tho  reissue  of  separate  patenvs. 

44.  It  is  not  necessary  to  justify  i. 
reisJue,  that  there  should  have  been  any 
adjudication  ujion  the  paient:  the  oath 
of  the  party  as  to  the  existence  of  the 
facts  required  for  a  reissue  is  enough. 
Ibid. 

45.  The  statutes  as  to  reissues  are  not 
to  be  considered  as  restraining,  but  as 
confirmatory  of  the  princi|)les  laid  down 
by  the  Supreme  Court  in  Jiattinw  Tag- 
gcrt,  17  How.,  83.     Ibid. 

46.  Upon  a  reissue  ."  party  may  claim 
that  which  in  his  original  application  he 
had  disclaimed,  provided  the  error  arose 
from  inadvertency,  accident,  or  mistake. 
Ilayden,  Ex  partCy  MS.  (Ap[).  Cas.) — 
Merrick,  J. ;  D.  C,  1800. 

47.  A  statement  in  an  original  patent 
that  a  part  is  old,  or  a  disclaimer  of  a 
part,  does  not  necessarily  prevent  such 
part  being  claimed  in  a  reissued  patent, 
though  it  seems  it  would  have  that  ef- 
fect if  made  advisedly,  and  not  bj  in- 
advertence, accident,  or  mistake.  Laid- 


ley  V.  James,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)-J{E,t. 
ni(  K,  J.;  1).  C,  1800. 

48.   ^  13  of  the  act  of  ISHO,  gives  f„ 
the  patentee  a  right  to  correct  his  do- 
seription  or  specification,  when  its  im- 
perfection has  arisen  from  inadvcrtcncv 
accident,  or  mistake.    'Mojfitt  \,  Han 
MS. — LioAvrrr,    J.;  Ohio,  IHOO. 

4!).  liut  the  only  condition  on  wliidi 
th's  can  be  done  is,  that  the  original 
patent  is  i/i  opera  tire  or  invalid  by  ri'a- 
son  of  a  failure  to  comply  with  the  iv- 
(piirements  of  the  statute.  The  pro. 
ceeding  is  therefore  equivalent  to  a 
I  distinct  admission,  made  in  the  most 
solei  I  form,  that  the  patent  has  no 
validity  in  the  sense  of  eiititliiii;  a  pat- 
entee to  an  action  for  its  infringement 
Jhid. 

50.  \(\  ajiplication  for  a  reissue  in;;v 
be  made  by  the  assignee  of  iui  ori<,'in;!i 
inventor.  Selden,  Assignee  ]\IS.  (App. 
Cas.) — ^foRSKLL,  J.;  I).  C,  1801. 

51.  Ui)on  an  ai)plication  for  a  reissue 
under  §  5  of  the  act  of  1837,  asking  fur 
s'everal  reissued  patents,  each  division 
or  separate  patent  asked  for,  is  not  such 
a  separate  case  as  to  require  the  pay- 
ment of  ^25,00  on  an  appeal  to  tlio 
judges ;  but  one  appeal  carries  up  tho 
lohole  case,  not  a  i)art ;  and  notwith- 
standing that  separate  reissued  jiateiils 
may  be  granted.     Ibid. 

52.  Under  §  13  of  tho  act  of  18.10, 
but  one  reissued  patent  was  allowable, 
but  the  party  obtaining  such  reissue 
had  the  right  of  division  of  the  subject, 
in  liis  specification,  that  he  now  has. 
Ibid. 

53.  The  disclaimer  of  part  of  an  in- 
vention, provided  such  disclaimer  arose 
from  inadvertency,  accident,  or  mistake, 
will  not  prevent  the  patentee  from  em- 
bracing the  part  so  disclaimed  in  a  reis- 
sue of  his  patent.    Ilayden,  Ex  parte, 


*%>^V,.. 


tho  act  of  1830, 
It  "Nvas  allowublo, 
ing  sucli  reissue 
on  of  the  subject, 
hat  lie  now  has. 

of  part  of  an  in- 
1  (lisclaiiner  arose 
klent,  or  mistake, 
)atentee  from  ein- 
cluinied  in  a  reis- 
ayden^  Ex  portc, 


llEI^SUE  OF  PA'PKNT,  H. 


617 


I'OWKIW  or  COMMIHStONRR  IS   CAHRS  Or. 


jIS.  (App.  CuH.) — Mkkkkk,  J.;  D.  C 

18(10. 


in  t'acli    c.'isc,   wlictlier   tlin   orror   lias 
arisi'n   from  iiimlvertoncy    acrideiit,  or 


54.  Iiia<lvorfont'c  ami  error  may  oc-  mistak*',  or  with  a  (U\'i  plivo  or  Iraudii-' 
cur,  as  well  in  a  tliselaimer  as  in  ii  t-hiiin,   lent  intention.    Alien  v.  Jilinit,  3  Story, 
(1  whenever  i,neh  a  mistake  oeeiirs,  it 


.in 


in:i 


ay  ht'  <Mn'e(l  by  a  reissne.     Poppen- 


liciiscii  \.  Fidke^  MS.— Inokksoi.i,,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  I  HOI. 


744. — Stokv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

2.  Prima  J'ai'ir,  it  nnist  he  presinnetl 
that  the  amended  patent  lias  been  prop- 
erly ami  riglit fully  granted  by  him.     P. 


55.  A  patent  obtained  by  an  alii-n,  m.ny  Im"-  doiil»ted  whether  his  deeision 
upon  an  outh,  ignorantly  or  n>advert-,is  re-examinahlo  elsewliere  unless  ini- 
oiitiy  made,  that  lie  is  a  citr.eii  of  the   peaehed  on  aeeonnt  of  frau<l  or  eoimi- 

vanee  In'tween  him  and  the  patentee, 
or  miless  his  oxeess  of  authority  is  man- 
ifest upon  the  very  face  of  tho  papers. 
//>id.,  744. 

;j.  The  Commissioner  is  presumed,  in 
issjiing  new  letters  i»atent,  to  have  dis- 
eharged  his  duty  faithfully  and  cor- 
rectly. Alien  V.  /Hunt,  2  Wood.  & 
'Shu.,  1 .18. — WooDUi' UY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1 840. 

4.  The  issuing  of  new  letters  patent 
by  the  Connnissioner  of  Patents,  with 
an  amended  specification,  is  to  be  pre- 
sumed to'  have  been  done  correctly,  on 
account  of  mistake  or  inadvertence  in 
the  description  or  specification  for  tho 
same  invention.     Ibid.,  139. 

5.  lint  snch  inference  or  presumption 
in  respect  to  identity  is  open  to  be  con- 
tradicted by  ))ro))er  evidence,  which 
should  be  submitted  to  the  jnry.  Ibid., 
139. 

0.  The  action  of  the  Commi.^sioncr  of 
Patotits  in  the  reissue  of  letters  patent, 
is  not  re-examinable  elsewhere,  nnless 
a  clear  case  of  frand  is  made  out.  JMi/ 
V.  Goodyear,  MS. — Guikk,  J. ;  N.  J., 
1850. 

7.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents  to  see  that  a  reissued  patent 
does  not  cover  more  than  the  original 
one.  And  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  it 
does  not  nntil  the  contrary  appears. 
O'Jieilli/  V.  Morse,  15  How.,  112.— Ta- 
ney, Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 


United  States,  is  void  and  not  voidabh 
ouh-.  The  true  representation  of  citizen- 
ship, is  ^  condition  precedent  to  tho  is- 
sue of  the  ]>atent.  Mini'n  Asttif/nee, 
v.  Addfns,  3  Wall.,  Jr.— GitiKK,  J. ;  Pa., 

1801. 

50.  Such  a  mistake  does  not  fall  with- 
in such  "  defective  or  insuflicicnt  de- 
scription or  specificatiini''  as  will  allow 
tho  Connnissioner,  mider  ^  13  of  the 
patent  act  of  .Tnly  4t)i,  1830,  to  receive 
!i  surrender  of  the  old  patent  and  grant 
II  reissiio.     Ibid. 

r)7.  Neither  has  that  officer  any  such 
iiilicrent  or  judicial  power  as  will,  inde- 
pontlently  of  tho  act,  enable  him  to 
<fr!uit  a  reissno  in  correction  of  tho  ap- 
pliciint's  mistake.     Ibid. 

B.     AcTIOX     OP     CoMSIISSIONEll     IX 

Casks  op. 

1.  Tu  the  case  of  tho  surrender  of  a 
patent  for  a  defective  or  insnfficient  spe- 
citication,  under  the-  provisions  of  §  13 
of  the  act  of  1830,  the  Commissioner  of 
Patents  is  to  decide  whether  the  inven- 
tion claimed  in  the  original  patent  and 
that  claimed  in  the  amended  one  are 
substantially  the  same.  He  is  to  inquire 
and  ascertain  whether  the  specification 
is  definite  or  insnfficient  in  point  of  law 
or  fact,  and  whether  tho  inventor  has 
claimed  n^ore  than  he  has  invented,  and 


*'4m(L>fii 


618 


IJKISsrK  OP  PATENT,  C. 


TO    IIK    KOIl   HAHK    INVKN TION    AS  TIIR  ORIOINAL. 


>;^. 


8.  TIh'  proccodings  before  the  Com- 
missioiuT  ui'  I'litcMts,  in  tho  surrt'iidcr 
and  reissue  of  u  patent,  are  not  open  for 
consideration  except  on  the  f^romid  of 
frand.  Jiuffi'n  v.  Taijuert,  17  II<nv.,  84. 
— MiLkan,  J.;  Snp.  Cl.,  1H54. 

0.  Tlie  power  and  duty  of  j^rantinj;  a 
new  patent  for  the  orij^inal  invention, 
upon  a  hiwfid  surrender  of  the  old  pat- 
ent, is  eonlidt'd  to  the  Cointnissioner  of 
Patents,  llis  deeision  is  not  re-exatn- 
inahle  by  tlie  oo^.rts  indess  it  is  appa- 
rent upon  tlio  faee  of  tlie  patent  that 
the  C'ouiniissioner  has  exceeded  his  au- 
thority, or  indess  there  is  a  clear  repu;^- 
naiiey  between  the  old  and  the  new 
patent,  or  unless  the  new  one  has  l)een 
obtained  1»y  collusion  between  theCoin- 
niissioncr  and  the  patentee.  J^nltcr  v. 
J/olktilt/,  ]MS.— I.NUKKSOM.,  J. ;  Of.,  1 858. 

10.  Under  §  8  of  the  act  of  1837,  on 
an  a])j)lication  for  a  reissue  the  question 
of  joint  or  sole  invention  is  open,  as  .-dso 
]>riority  of  invention,  laches,  or  any  oth- 
er legal  cause  which,  on  an  original  ap- 
plication, would  lead  the  Conunissioner 
to  refuse  a  ])atent.  Wiltton  v.  SuKjcr^ 
^IS.  (App.  Cas.).— DuNi.oi',  J. ;  d!  C, 
1800. 

C      To    BE    FOE    SAME    T.VVKNTIOX   AS 
THE   OiUUIXAL. 

1.  Evidence  is  admissible  to  show 
that  there  are  material  differences  be- 
tween an  original  and  a  reissued  patent, 
and  to  ex])lain  these  differences.  Phil. 
cO  Tre».  11. 11.  Co.  V.  Stimpson,\AVvi., 
462.— Stoiiy,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1840. 

2.  The  question  whether  the  origmal 
patent  and  the  reissued  one  are  or  are 
not  identical,  for  the  satne  invention,  is 
one  which  belongs  to  the  province  of 
a  jury  to  decide,  and  with  which  the 
court  will  not  meddle.   Carver  v.  Brain- 


tree  Maiiuf.  Co.y  2  Story,  441,  442.— 
Stokv,  J. ;   Mass.,  184.'K 

.n.  Whether  a  reissued  patent  is  huI,. 
stantinlly  for  a  different  invention  tVom 
the  first  patent  is  a  (pieslion  of  fact  fur 
a  jury:  but  as  by  g  1.1  of  the  act  of 
18;J0  the  Commissioner  of  Patents  is 
authorized  to  issue  a  renewed  patent 
the  in<piiry  afterward  in  regju'd  to  tin- 
siirrender  is  limited  to  the  fairru'ss  of 
the  trans.'iction — to  the  (piestion  of  fraud 
in  the  surreiider.  Slinipson  v.  lll-.^^ 
rhestcr  It.  R.,  4  TFow.,  404.— ^rcLicAx, 
.1. ,  Sup.  Ct.,  184.'.. 

4.  If  an  amended  specification  do. 
scribes  a  different  i»nprovenient  from 
that  wliich  Avas  embraced  in  the  or\c- 
inal  i»atent,  the  new  patent  will  not 
thereby  be  invalidated.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  an  injunction,  if  no  more,  tlie 
invention  nuist  be  taken  to  be  the  same 
in  both  jiatents,  after  the  Comniissionir 
of  I'atents  has  so  decided  by  grantiiu' 
a  new  patent.  Smith  v.  Memr,  4  West. 
Law  Jour.,  56. — Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  18 to. 

5.  A  reissued  patent  is  presumed  to 
be  for  the  same  invention  as  that  in- 
cluded in  the  original  jmtent.  But  siuli 
inference  or  presumption  in  respect  to 
identity  is  open  to  be  contradicted  by 
proper  evidence,  wliich  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  a  jury.  Allen  v.  Itbtiif,  2 
Wood.  &  Min.,  130. — Woodbury,  J.; 
Mass.,  1846. 

6.  A  patentee  can  legally  take  out  .i  \ 
reissued  i)atent  for  more  than  is  de- 
scribed in  the  surrendered  jjatent,  if  it 
does  not  exceed  the  actual  discovery 
when  the  first  patent  was  taken  out. 
Tcitham  V.  Loxcher.,  Mir.  Pat.  Off.,  14G 
— Nelsox,  Betts,  J  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1847. 

7.  A  reissued  patent,  granted  upon 
the  surrender  of  a  former  patent,  can 
only  be  for  the  same  invention  claiiml 
in  the  original  patent.     Jiattin  v.  Tag- 


IIEISSIIK  OV  PATKXT,  C. 


610 


oiy,  4n,  442.— 
1. 

oJ  pali'iit  is  Hill), 
t  invention  tVciiii 
•stion  of  fact  for 
i;i  of  tlio  act  of 
i?r  of  I'afonts  is 
ronowoil  jiati'iit, 
in  rt'j^ard  to  thy 
r>  the  fuinu'ss  of 
(jnostion  of  fraud 
hnpaon  v.  M'lsi- 
,  404.— McLeax, 

specification  do- 
iprovonient  from 
iced   in  the  orii^- 
patent  Avill  not 
il.     For  tlio  pur- 
,  if  no  more,  the 
en  to  l»o  thesumc 
the  Coniniissionor 
?'n\eii  by  jjraiitiiit; 
Mercrr,  4  West. 
K,  J.;  ]*a.,  iHlij. 
It  is  presnniod  to 
3ntion  .IS  that  in- 
])atent.    But  such 
tion  in  respect  to 
contratlictoJ  by 
1  should  he  sub- 
llen  V.  lilutit,  2 
— WoonnuKY,  J.; 

ejT.iUy  take  out  a  \ 
novo  than  is  dc- 
.M-ed  ])atent,  if  it 
actual  discovery 
t  was  taken  out. 
lir.  Tat.  Off.,  14G 

;  N.  Y.,  1847. 
nt,  granted  upon 
jrmer  patent,  can 
invention  claimed 
Battin  v.  Tiig- 


TO   IIH   FOR  HAUU    INViCNTIO.V    AS  THE  ORIOINAI.. 


qert,  2  Wall.,  Jr.,  102. — Kanu,  J. ;  Pa., 

18j1. 

8.  Where,  therefore,  a  patentee  in 
his  patent  <^raiited  in  184!1,  specified  his 
invention  to  be  for  tlu>  niiuiTUM-  in  vvliich 
lie  had  arr^mjMl  ami  vtunhiiied  rertalii 
vdi'tK,  hut  did  not  specify  th;it  he  had 
inrenti'd  ftny  of  8U<'h  parts,  thouj^h  in 
f.jct  such  was  tlie  e;is»',  and  al\er\vard, 
in  IS4!),  surrendered  Ins  patent  and 
took  out  !i  new  one,  in  which  he 
tdaiiiied  u  i)articular  part,  Jfilif,  that 
the  purt  claimed  in  the  reissued  ))at- 
pnt,  haviiiiX  been  in  use  for  si.v  years 
hcfore  it  was  claimed,  had  become  pid»- 
lic,  and  could  not  Ir*  reclainu'd  by  the 
reissued  i>atent  of  1849.  Iil>id.,  102. 
[Reversed,  ;>o,«»<  15.] 

9.  5$  13  of  the  act  of  IH.SO,  allowin<jt 
the  patentee  to  make  his  specificatit)n 
jnoie  accurate,  and  §  7  of  tlu;  act  of 
1837,  providinjjf  lor  restrictinj^  a  claim 
too  hro:id,  do  not  apply  to  and  help 
sueli  a  case.     Ibid.,  102. 

,  10.  It  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  law 
that  the  patentee,  in  his  reissue,  must 
describe  and  cl  im  just  what  was  de- 
scribed and  claimed  in  his  original  pat- 
ent. His  new  specification  must  bo  of 
the  same  invention,  and  his  claim  can- 
not embrace  a  different  subject  matter 
from  that  which  he  sought  to  patent 
originally ;  but  unless  the  correction 
contemplated  by  the  statute  is  narrowed 
down  to  a  mere  disclaimer,  the  corrected 
specification  must  bo  broader  than  the 
original  one.  French  v.  RogerSy  MS.— 
Geiek,  Kaxe,  J  J. ;  Pa.,  1851, 

11.  An  .ajjplicant  for  the  reissuing  of 
a  patent  is  not  boimd  to  describe  or 
claim  .ill  that  he  described  or  claimed 
in  his  original  p.atent ;  but  he  may  not 
describe  or  claim  any  new  or  other  im- 
provement. Goodyear  v.  Day,  IMS. — 
DiCKEKsox,  J.;  N.  J.,  1852. 


12.  It  is  to  1h>  presiuned  thui  the  re- 
issued patent  does  not  cover  more*  than 
the  origin.-d  one.  G'/ici/fy  v.  Mori*i\  15 
How.,  112.— Tank Y,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
lH.-).3. 

l.'K  Variations  from  the  description 
given  in  the  former  specificMtion  do  not 
necessarily  imply  that  it  is  for  a  difierent 
discovery,  as  the  right  to  surrender  is 
given  for  the  i)urpose  of  enabling  the 
patentee  to  give  a  more  perfect  descrip- 
tion (»f  his  invention,  wlivn  any  mistake 
or  oversight  was  commif'tt'd  in  the  first. 
It  necessarily  varies  from  it.  Tbid.,  112 

14.  The  reissuecl  ]>atijnt  must  be  foi 
the  same  invention  substantiallv,  thoujrh 
it  be  described  in  terms  more  precise 
and  accurate  thiui  in  the  former  patent, 
liut  a  new  ami  diU'eriiit  invention  c.in- 
not  be  claime<l.  Jia'tin  v.  I'tf/ycrt,  17 
How.,  8.'$.— McLkax,  .T.  ;  Sup.  Ct.,  18;;4. 

15.  By  the  defects  provided  for  in 
the  statute,  nothing  passes  to  the  pub- 
lic from  the  speci'dcations  .ind  claims 
Avithin  the  scope  of  the  patentee's  in- 
vention. The  desriibing  a  part  of  a  ma- 
chine in  the  first  patent,  but  without 
making  any  claim  to  it,  does  not  de- 
prive the  inventor  of  a  right  to  a  patent 
for  such  i)art.     Ibid.,  84. 

10.  The  jury  are  to  judge  whether 
the  renewed  patent  is  for  the  same  in- 
vention as  the  original  one.    Ibid.,  85. 

17.  Whether  a  reissued  patent  is  for 
the  same  invention  as  the  origin.al  one 
is  a  question  of  fact  for  a  jury.  Ileil- 
ner  v.  Battiii,  27  Penn.,  521,  524.— 
WooDWAUT),  .T.  ;  Pa.,  1856. 

1 8.  Though  an  action  is  founded  on 
a  reissued  jtatent,  the  rights  of  the 
plaintiff  must  rest  upon  the  discovery 
described  in  the  original  p.atent.  What- 
ever may  be  the  language  of  the  reis- 
sued patent,  it  imparts  no  right  not 
contained    in    the    first    grant.     The 


'^iJUi^ 


fill. 


%' 


r'> 


'"'■"iW»''i  *'»^' 


,«/wiiB/Wi»*^' 


■^^f  If' 


u 


620 


KKISSFK  OF  PATENT,  C. 


TO  BB  rOR  8\U8   IK^KNTION   AS  THE  OUIOINAL. 


fill 
P 


tlJr 


priviU'go  the  law  gives  by  means  of 
tlic  reissue  is  to  roctily  any  errorB  or 
tli'ficii'iu'ii's  ill  tlio  first  spocificatioii. 
/Smith  V.  Iliyijina,  IMS. — JJkits,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1857. 

19.  Tlic  legal  presumption  is,  from 
the  action  of  the  Patent  Otlice,  that  a 
reissued  jjatent  is  for  the  same  inven- 
tion as  the  original  jtatent.  Hi(8se)f 
V.  MrCo)'mick\  MS. — McLkan,  J.;  111., 
lH.-)9. 

20.  With  respect  to  reissues,  §  1 3  of 
the  act  of  1  S'M  ami  g  5  of  the  act  of 
1837  are  to  be  taken  together  in  con- 
stniction,  ami  the  most  just  and  equita- 
ble extent  to  which  the  terms  of  the  law 
in  its  true  spirit  will  admit  of  ought  to 
be  adopted.  J3((ll,E,r parte,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— MoKSKi.r,  J. ;  I).  C,  1800. 

21.  If  the  patent  is  defective  or  in- 
sufKcient,  either  in  the  specification  or 
claim,  the  patentee  has  a  riglit,  if  he 
desires  it,  in  the  absence  of  fraud  and 
deception,  on  complying  with  the  other 
requisites,  to  have  a  reissue  of  jiat- 
ents  for  each  distinct  and  separate  part, 
cttectually  to  cure  the  defect  in  the 
mode  of  stating  it.     Ibid. 

22.  And  he  has  a  right  to  restrict  or 
enlarge  his  claim  so  .as  to  give  it  op- 
eration and  to  effectuate  liis  invention. 
Ibid. 

23.  The  patentee,  in  his  reissue,  is 
entitled  to  every  advantage  within  the 
full  scope  of  his  invention.     Ibid. 

24.  And  on  an  application  for  a  reis- 
sue, a  new  function  developed  by  the 
combination  of  different  elements  of  the 
invention,  will  not  be  considered  new 
matter.     Ibid. 

25.  Upon  an  application  for  a  reissue, 
the  original  model  may  be  referred  to 
as  evidence  of  the  extent  of  the  true  in- 
vention, and  the  patentee  is  not  neces- 
sarily confined  to  the  original  record, 


i.  t'.,  the  patent  and  specification,  of  hjs 
first  patent,  as  would  seem  to  have  been 
the  ])raetice  of  (he  Patent  Ofilce,  uiidt'i 
its  rule  44.     Ibid. 

20.  If  there  is  a  defect  in  the  orig- 
in<d  2^<iti:nt  and  its  specification,  as  to 
the  nature  and  extent  of  the  iiiveiifioii 
the  applicant  may  g'»  outside  of  tliesu 
and  resort  to  the  next  highest  evidence 
— the  model— to  show  the  defects  com. 
plained  of.     Ibid. 

27.  A  reissue  is  prohibited,  both  bv 
the  law  and  the  rules  of  the  Patent  Otliw, 
for  any  thing  save  the  same  inveiiticm 
which  was  described  or  shown  in  tlio 
original  patent — that  is,  described  in 
the  specification  or  shown  in  the  hkmIi.] 
or  drawing.  Dietz,  Ex  parte,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— MousKM.,  J. ;  1).  C,  18G0. 

28.  What  the  legislature  designtMl 
to  secure  to  patentees  by  §  13  of  the 
act  of  1830,  was  to  enable  them  to  cvn 
honest  inistakes,  and  to  get  suhstioitiul- 
hj  protection  for  the  same  inroition 
they  had  made  and  intended  to  l>e  pat- 
ented when  the  original  ])ateiit  was 
granted.  The  only  limitation  in  llio 
statute  is,  that  the  invention  should  be 
the  same.  Dyson,  Ex  parte,  ]MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Duxi.op,  J. ;  D.  C,  1800. 

29.  The  legislature  has  not  said  by 
what  proof  the  applicant  shall  show 
th.at  his  invention,  claimed  on  reissue,  is 
the  same  invention  made  and  inteiultd 
to  be  patented  on  his  original  a])plica- 
tion.  He  is  not  limited  by  the  statute 
to  prove  it  by  the  specification,  models, 
or  drawings ;  any  legal  proof  to  show 
it  to  be  the  same  invention,  whether 
found  in  the  record  or  aliunde,  ought  to 
be  received  and  weighed  by  the  Patent 
Office.     Ibid. 

30.  No  authority  is  given  to  the  Pat- 
ent Office  to  limit  the  range  of  the  ap- 
plicant's proof,  if  it  is  such  as  upon  the 


UKISSUK  OF  PATENT,  C. 


021 


TO  UK   roil  flAMt!   INVKHTION   AS  TUB  ORIGINAL. 


given  to  the  Pat- 
range  of  the  ap- 
such  as  upon  the 


law  of  ovidonco   is   Ijolil   Hiifticiont   to 
prdvc  t'-M-in  before  other  lej.»al  trihunalw. 

Jbid. 

;il.  An  original  ai)|)lii'ant  has  no  right, 
by  law,  to  an  aineiulniu'iit  of  his  speci- 
iiciition,  except  by  §  T  of  the  act  of 
18:t0,  to  eonforni  his  Kpeeifu-ation  to 
tiic  alterations  suggested  by  the  C'oin- 
iiiissinniT.  But  an  ainendinent  in  the 
case  of  a  reissue  is  ditt'erent ;  it  is  not 
oigriU'Ci  but  oi right.     Ibid. 

3*2.  §1-'^  does  not  point  to  the  model 
and  drawings  as  the  koU  means  of  proof, 
or  to  any  means  of  proof;  the  whole 
mutter  of  proof  is  left  at  large.  It  re- 
quires thiit  the  invention  sought  to  be 
introduced  in  the  amended  specification, 
should  be  the  aame  invention  originally 
iutendeil  to  be  patented,  and  is  silent  as 
to  hoic  that  is  to  be  ascertained.    Ibid. 

33.  The  applicant  is  to  prove  the  in- 
vention sought  to  be  covered  by  liis  re- 
issue, to  be  the  same  intended  to  be 
originally  patented,  but  the  quo  modo 
of  proof  is  not  defined,  and  of  course 
it  is  open  to  the  patentee  to  oft'er  any 
sufficient  legal  proof,  record  or  other- 
wise.   Ibid. 

34.  The  gist  of  the  applicant's  inven- 
tion was  to  give  a  differential  motion  or 
variable  speed  to  the  stripper  so  called, 
by  which  at  one  time,  the  stripper,  by 
having  a  motion  faster  than  the  main 
cylinder,  cleaned  the  main  cylinder  of 
the  cotton  imbedded  in  it,  in  the  pro- 
cess of  carding,  and  then  when  the 
stripper  was  filled  with  the  cotton,  its 
movement  Avas  rendered  slower  than 
that  of  the  main  cylinder,  by  Avhich 
such  main  cylinder  became  the  stripper 
of  the  stripper,  and  these  changes  were 
made  without  stopping  the  machine; 
but  the  original  specification  described 
ouly  the/as^  movement  of  the  stripper, 
aud  not  the  slow  motion ;  Ileld,  on  an 


application  for  a  reissue,  that  the  appli- 
cant could  go  outside  of  his  original 
specification  and  the  <lr'iwiiigs  and  mod- 
el of  his  patent,  and  show  Ity  other 
pro(»f  that  his  invention,  at  the  time  of 
the  original  patt'ut,  was  such  as  he 
sought  to  protect  by  his  reissue,  and 
that  he  could  cover  in  his  reissue  what 
was  his  original  invention.     Ibid. 

35.  Rule  45  of  the  Patent  Oflico  as  to 
reissues,  is  general  in  its  terms,  and 
properly  so.  It  does  not  jirofess  to  bo 
without  an  exception.  It  states  what 
may  be  the  subject  of  a  reissue,  not  what 
shall  not  be.  It  does  not  prescribe  that 
the  mode  mentioned  therein  shall  be  the 
sole  and  only  mode  of  showing  the  in- 
vention to  be  the  same  invention.   Ibid. 

ao.  The  presumption  arising  from  the 
matured  specification  of  a  })atent  is  that 
the  ])atentee  has  described  his  inven- 
tion in  clear  and  unequivocal  language, 
though  such  presumption  may  be  over- 
come by  evidence  in  favor  of  the  par- 
ty, upon  the  allegation  of  mistake  or 
inadvertence,  upon  a  claim  for  a  reissue. 
Collins  V.  White,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — 
Mkrrick,  J.;  D.  C,  1300. 

37.  A  patentee  on  an  application  for 
a  reissue,  may  claim  all  those  devices 
which  were  clearly  exhibited  in  his  orig- 
inal specification,  drawings,  and  model, 
and  which  he  might  have  legally  claim- 
ed at  the  time  of  taking  out  his  orig- 
nal  patent.  Wilso7i,  Assignee  of  Aiken 
db  Fdthousen,  v.  Singer,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— DuNLOP,  J.;  D.  C,  1800. 

38.  There  can  be  embraced  in  a  re- 
issue, only  what  was  invented  before 
or  at  the  time  of  the  grant  of  the  orig- 
inal patent;  what  was  then  invented 
and  omitted  to  be  put  in  the  original 
patent  by  accident  or  mistake,  and  with- 
out any  fraudulent  or  deceptive  inten- 
tion, aud  only  such  invention  is,  by  law, 


-■-\J^,^ 


*'"*■  ■.;, 


^U    ji 


?ti" 


:',;sii 


i  ■{>■■( 


622 


KKISSUE  OF  PATENT,  D. 


AumoniTY  or,  and  hiohts  ooNriRHio  bt. 


tlio  Mulijcct  of  !i  reissue.  J)y»ini  v. 
(iinnhril  lO  Itntyte,  MS.  (App.  Cus.) — 
IJi.M.or,  J.;  D.'C,  IHOl. 

;M).  Tilt!  i'iisos  of  Jiitttin  V.  T'lt/i/ert, 
17  llnw.,  H5  (1854),  iuid  Carver  v. 
lirtitntrce  Mann/.  Co.,  2  Story,  441 
(|h4:<),  do  not  siistiiiii  the  position  tliat 
tlie  (pii'stion  wlictlicr  n  rcissiUMl  patt'iit 
is  for  tlie  saini'  invention  as  the  original 
l)atcnt,  i.s  one  of  liict,  which  can  ofili/ 
be  determined  by  a  jury.  The  power 
of  a  eourt  of  ecpiity  to  pass  npon  sneli 
faet  is  not  touched  by  tlieni.  I*oppcii- 
heuaen  v.  Falke^  MS. — Siiipman',  J. ;  N. 
Y.,  IHOI. 

40.  If,  however,  siicli  question  is  in- 
volved in  considerable  doubt,  that  nn<^ht 
be  a  reason  wl.y  it  should  bo  sent  to  a 
jury.     Ihid. 

41.  Though  the  decision  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  that  the  reissued 
])atent  is  for  the  same  invention  as  the 
original,  is,  as  a  general  rule,  at  least 
prima  facie  evidence  of  its  truth,  it  is 
not  conclusive  when  doubts  are  raised 
in  the  minds  of  the  court  by  an  examin- 
ation of  the  instruments  themselves. 
Ibid. 

D,    Validity  and    Force    of,  and 
Rights  confekkkd  by. 

See  also  Reissue,  B. 

1.  Whether  a  reissued  patent  confers 
any  right  is  a  question  for  judicial  deci- 
sion. 'ino)i.,  2  Opin.,  450. — Taney, 
Atty.  Gen.;  1831. 

2.  In  the  case  of  a  surrender  of  a  pat- 
ent for  a  defect  arising  from  inadvert- 
ence and  mistake,  and  a  reissue,  the  new 
patent  and  the  proceedings  on  which 
its  issues  have  relation  to  the  original 
transaction.  The  time  of  the  privilege 
still  runs  from  tlie  date  of  the  original 
patent.     The  application  may  be  con- 


sidered as  appended  to  the  original  !i|). 
plication.  The  second  [latent  caiitiot  in 
any  respect  be  considered  as  indciiciiil- 
ent  of  the  first.  (Jrant  v.  liayitminl^  o 
Pet.,  244. — AIausiiali-,  Ch.  J.  j  Sup.  C'l., 
18:12. 

3.  A  reissuetl  patent  granted  upon 
the  surrender  of  the  Hrst  one  is  only  ;i 
continuation  of  the  original  patttit. 
A)iivH\.  Iluwanl,  1  Sunin.,488. — Stouv 
.1.;  Mass.,  I8;j.3. 

4.  A  reissued  j)atent  has  relation  to 
the  original  transaction  of  the  issuing;  of 
the  tirst  patent ;  and  being  only  a  cdti. 
tinuation  of  the  first  one,  tiie  rights  of 
the  ttatentee  are  to  be  ascertained  liv 
tin'  law  tinder  whidi  the  original  Mp|ili. 
catiftn  was  made.  Sh(tw  v  (Joopi)",  7 
Pet.,  315. — IVIcLean,  J. ;  Sup.  (!t.,  1833. 

5.  Under  §  1 3  of  the  act  of  1 8;iO,  a 
second  patent  witli  corrected  specifiia- 
tions  has  relation  back  to  the  emanation 
of  the  first  patent,  as  fully  for  every  le- 
gal purpose,  as  to  causes  subsecpicntly 
accruing,  as  if  the  second  patent  had 
been  issued  at  the  date  of  the  first  one. 
Stanley  v.  W/njiple,  2  McLean,  a7.— 
McLkax,  .T.  ;  Ohio,  1839. 

0.  The  second  patent  legalizes  the 
rights  of  the  patentee  from  the  date  of 
the  first  patent.     Ibid.,  38. 

1.  If  a  patent  which  was  invalid  by 
reason  of  a  defective  specification,  is 
surrendered,  .and  a  new  one  taken  out, 
the  second  patent  relates  back  to  the 
date  of  the  original  patent.  ^S)ni(h  v. 
Pearce,  2  McLean,  170. — McLeax,  J.; 
Ohio,  1840. 

8.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  reissued 
patent  should  contain  any  recitals  that 
the  prerequisites  to  the  grant  of  it— as 
that  it  was  reissued  for  errors  arising 
not  from  inadvertency,  accident,  or  mis- 
take— have  been  duly  complied  with, 
for  the  law  makes  the  presumption  that 


^^. 


UKISSUE  OF  PATKNT,  I). 


023 


Al'TKORITT  or,    ANH   RKIIITH  CONrKRKKI)   IIT. 


llicy  liuvt!  biH'ii.  /'A/7.  <£•  7'r«.  Ji.  li. 
V.  .Stinijmin,  14  I'et.,  458. — Stouv,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1810. 

9,  Tlui  prt'.siiinptioii  of  li^lit  in  n  jcit- 
I'ntoe,  bociiuso  of  thii  iu^inii'sci'iico  of 
tlu>  |iubliu  ill  luN  claim,  is  not  ('li.'m<;(Ml 
in  coiisiMiucnce  of  th«  ori);iii:il  i>att'iit 
lu'iii^  suriTiidiMXHl  on  acooiiiit  of  its  iii- 
foriii:ility.  Tlio  orijjfiiial  patent  was  not 
voiil,  but  was  efficacious  to  preserve  tlie 
ri"iit  of  the  i»atentee,  wliich  would 
have  IttH'ii  lost  liatl  the  invention  been 
used  witliout  a  patent.  Orr  v.  Jhidi/er, 
"i  Law  Kep.,  408. — SiMiAdi  K,  J. ;  Mass., 
1844. 

10.  The  grant  of  an  amended  p.'ileni 
by  the  Comniissu)ner  of  I'atents,  is  con- 
clusive as  to  the  existence  of  all  the  facts 
necessary  for  a  reissue,  unless  it  is  ap- 
iiaront  on  the  face  of  the  patent  itself, 
without  any  auxiliary  evidence,  that  he 
was  guilty  of  a  clear  excess  of  authority, 
or  that  the  patent  was  procured  by 
fraud  between  him  and  the  patentee. 
Allen  V.  Blunt,  3  Story,  745. — Stouv, 
J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

11.  The  decision  of  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents,  in  accepting  the  surrender 
of  an  old  and  granting  a  new  patent,  is 
not  rc-examinable  elsewhere,  unless  it  is 
apparent  from  the  face  of  the  i)atent, 
that  ho  has  exceeded  his  authority,  or 
there  is  a  clear  repugnancy  between  the 
old  or  new  patent,  or  the  new  one  has 
been  obtained  by  collusion  between  the 
Commissioner  and  the  patentee.  Wood- 
worth  V.  Stone,  3  Story,  753,  754. — 
Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

12.  No  prior  use  of  a  defective  patent 
can  authorize  the  use  of  the  invention 
after  the  emanation  of  a  renewed  pat- 
ent. Any  person  using  an  invention 
protected  by  a  renewed  patent,  subse- 
quently to  the  date,  is  guilty  of  an  in- 
fringement, however  long  he  may  have 


used  the  same  atYer  the  date  of  the  de- 
fective and  surrendered  pati'Ut.  Sti/np- 
Hiin  V.  WtHt C/tiKter  Ji.  A'.,  4  I  low., 
4()'J,  4o:i.— M(  Lkan,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1815. 

13.  The  decision  of  the  officers  of  the 
government  in  gr.tnting  a  renewed  pat- 
ent, by  reason  (»f  a  defective  or  insuffi- 
cient hp  'citication,  ifec,  is  prhna  fiu'le. 
evidence  that  the  claim  for  a  renewal 
was  within  the  statute;  and  conclusive, 
except  as  to  fraud.  The  incpiiry  as  to 
the  surrender,  is  limited  to  tin;  fairness 
of  the  transaction.  Stinijison  v.  Went 
Ji.  Ji.,  4  How.,  404.— McLean,  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1845. 

14.  In  whatever  manner  the  ni'-tako 
or  inadvertence  may  have  occurred  is 
immaterial.  The  action  of  the  govern- 
ment in  renewing  the  patent  must  bo 
considered  as  closing  this  point,  and  as 
leaving  ojK'n  for  inquiry  the  <piestion  of 
fraud  only.     Ifnd.,  404. 

15.  A  reissued  patent,  with  an  amend- 
ed spe(!ification,  operates,  except  as  to 
suits  for  violations  commenced  beforo 
the  amendment,  from  the  conmience- 
nient  of  the  original  term.  Woodworth 
V.  JMl,  1  Wood.  «fc  Min.,  257.— Wood- 
nuKv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1840. 

10.  It  is  a  patent  for  the  s.ame  inven- 
tion. It  can  by  law  include  no  new  one, 
and  it  covers  only  the  same  term  of 
time  which  the  former  patent  did.  Ibid., 
257. 

17.  Recoveries  under  the  original  pat- 
ent are  evidence  after  the  new  letters 
and  new  specification,  to  strengthen  the 
title  of  the  patentee  so  as  to  obtain  an 
injunction,  thus  regarding  the  patent  as 
one  and  the  same.     Ibid.,  257. 

18.  A  renewal  of  a  patent  with  an 
amended  specification,  is  presumed  to 
have  been  made  legally,  that  is  to  cor- 
rect a  mistake,  or  inadvertence,  and  for 
the  same  invention  j  but  this  presurap- 


i 


'•""^1 


S^. 


IM 


pi  I 


'■•■*•'    *)*''  Kwa^ 


:«iM^i 


*«^W^|: 


Li 


l<i 


9U 


KKISSUK  OK  TATKNT,  I). 


AUTIIOKirr  <)»',    AND   UKIIITH  CONrKRMD  BT. 


tiiiii  may  ln>  ivhiittrd  l>y  cvhlfiic*'.  .1/- 
hn  V.  hioit,  •-'  Woo.l.  &  .Mill.,  l;Jl>.— 
AV<»t)i»iiruv,  J. ;  Mass.,  184(1. 

111.  Itiil  ulirllicr  tlu>  ilccisidii  of  the 
CttinmissioiH'r  is  c«)iifliisivi'  to  tlu'  «'.x- 
U'lit  l.'iitl  down  in  Allni  v.  Jilunt,  •'!  Sto- 
ry, 74.')  {nHte  10);  qiurif.     Ihid.^  \M). 

20.  Wlit'tlitM-  II  rt'issucil  [latent  may 
tniiti!  Hi'Vi'ial  lii't'oiv  cxistiim  ti'rnis — as 
ti'iins  of  fonrtcon  and  sevi-n,  ami  scvon 
years,  in  one  patont^  for  twonlyi'iijlit 
yi'ars;  t/mn/.  Womlworth  v.  Hull,  1 
Wood.  &  Alin.,  400. — Wooom  iiv,  J.  ; 
1840. 

'Jl.  If  sndi  a  renewal  is  void,  tlio  Hnr- 
I't'ndur  of  the  former  patents  is  likewise 
void,  l»nt  perhaps  recoveries  may  be 
had  on  the  original  patents,  as  if  never 
attempted  to  be  consolidated.  Ibid., 
400. 

22.  Sneh  a  consolidated  reissue  was 
upheld  by  the  Supreme  Court,  4  How- 
ard, U40,  M'ilson  V,  liosac((u,  but  no  ob- 
jection was  there  raised  to  Huch  a  pn-c- 
tice.     IhuL,  400. 

23.  If  a  renew.'U  is  not  valid,  the  sur- 
render which  led  to  it  will  also  be  in- 
valid, and  the  old  letters  ■will  be  con- 
sidered in  full  force,  and  violators  may 
be  jH'osecuted  under  such  old  jiatent, 
with  the  old  specification.  Woodworth 
v.  Edwards,  3  Wood.  &  Min.,  127. — 
WooDHURY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1847. 

24.  Whenever  the  power  of  reissue 
lias  been  fraudulently  or  corruptly 
abused,  the  renewal  Avill  be  avoided. 
Ibid.,  120. 

25.  Upon  the  surrender  and  reissue 
of  a  patent,  the  corrected  patent  is 
made  to  all  cases  of  infringement  sub- 
sequently accruing,  as  though  it  haii 
been  so  issued  originally,  and  even 
though  the  original  patent  was  invalid. 
Sloomcr  V.  StoUey,  5  McLean,  IGG. — 
McLeax,  J.;  Ohio,  1850. 


2(J.  In  ordinary  oaseH  «»f  reissue,  the 
C-ommissioner's  action  has  more  limn 
priiHii  J'lirie  influence  in  «leeidiiivf  the 
•  piestion  of  identity  of  in\eiilinii.  J']ni,/t 
V.  Ji(>i/eri,  MS. — Kank,  .1.;  I 'a,,  im:,| 

27.  A  reissued  patent  is  not  void,  lie. 
cause  the  things  claimed  in  tlie  otijiriniil 
had  been  in  public  use  in  the  iiit*'i-\;tl 
between  the  original  and  reissiieij  pat- 
ent. Such  a  publication  is  not  an  aliaii- 
donment  or  dedication.  (I'oix'ycurx, 
A///,  MS.— DicKKUsoN,  J. ;  N..I.,  iH,"):'. 

28.  The  fact  of  procuring  a  paicni 
for  a  new  and  iisefid  machine,  luiilertlu' 
ass\imption  of  n  reissue,  which  was  iidt 
useful  as  patented  in  the  surremlciitl 
patent,  for  want  of  some  parts,  used  in 
the  reissued  patent.  Mould  present  a 
question  of  fraud,  comniittecl  on  tin; 
public  by  the  patentee,  by  giving  his  re- 
issued  j)ati'nt  date  as  an  original  dismv- 
ery,  ma<le  at  the  time  of  thi'  originnl 
patent,  aiid  thereby  over-reaching  .simi- 
lar inventions  made  between  the  tiiiin 
of  the  original  patent  and  the  time  of 
the  reissued  patent.  lirooka  v.  7''/.v/c, 
15  How.,  220.— Catkox,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1853. 

20.  A  reissued  patent,  which  liiis  been 
obtained  upon  the  surrender  of  the 
former  patent,  under  §  13  of  the  act  of 
1 830,  is  not  a  new  patent,  nor  does  it 
confer  any  new  .and  distinct  right ;  and 
an  existing  contract  concerning  the  pat- 
ent, made  before  the  surrender,  apjilios 
equally  to  the  reissued  i)ateiit.  McJlttr- 
ney  v.  Goodyear,  11  Cash.,  571.— Mkh- 
RICK,  J. ;  Mjiss.,  1853. 

30.  There  is  a  marked  and  well  rec- 
ognized difTei'enco  between  a  roieircd 
and  arcisstied latent.  The  former  grants 
a  wholly  new  term,  the  latter  legalizes 
and  confers  the  right  during  the  con- 
tinuance of  the  original  term.  Ibid., 
671. 


^•CX: 


REISSUE  OF  TATKN'r,  E. 


020 


i  of  rc'iKMif,  flu- 
lias  iMon-  tlciii 
in  lU'i-iiliii!,'  till' 
ivt'iitmii.  J'Wtii'h 
,  J.;  I'ii.,  iH.-il. 
t  is  not  void,  Ik-* 
>(1  ill  tilt'  ()i'i;riiiiil 
in  till'  intt-n:il 
iikI  rcissnt-il  \k\[- 
III  is  not  an  ulcui- 
111.     iloix'yair  v. 
^,J.;  N.Jm  IHW. 
K-nrint?  ii  itat(-Mt 
liu-hiiit',  umli-rtlic 
II',  whifli  was  not 
tlio  Hurrt-nili'it il 
line  parts,  nst-d  in 
wtmld    int'sciit  a 
uiiiniitt«-il  on  \\w. 
I',  by  j^ivin^liiHrc- 
lui  oi'ij^inal  tliscov- 
111'  of  thi'  oripiiiil 
)vi'r-rt-ai-liing  Mini- 
bt'twi-i'ii  tlio  timo 
uii'l  tho  tinio  of 
lirooks  V.  Fhke^ 
HON,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 

nt,  ■wliii'liliiisbcoii 
surrender  of  the 
g  13  of  the  acti»f 
alent,  nor  ilocs  it 
islinct  rijrlit;  ami 
-Diu-erning  the  yW- 

surrender,  applies 
d  patent.  McBur- 
Cush.,  571.— Mek- 
5. 

rkcd  and  well  roc- 
letwcen  a  renemd 

The  former  grants 
:he  latter  legalizes 
It  during  the  con- 
final  terra.    Ihid., 


irrKiT  or,  a«  -to  AHHtoNrtH,  anu  tiiiih  niaiiTN  tNHKR. 


31.  A  roiitraet  eonceriiliij^  a  put  cut, 
niailc  lit-foro  itsHiiri'i-nder,  appru-s  i><pial- 
ly  to  the  reissued  patent.  A  reissued 
patent  is  not  a  new  patent.      Ihiit.y  571. 

:i'j.  In  ail  action  for  inlVingeineiit  on 
ji  rt-issiied  p!it(-nt,  jnoof  of  nsc  of  tlie 
lliiiig  patt-iite<l,  during  the  interval  he- 
twut-n  the  original  and  reissued  patents, 
will  not  defeat  the  action.  Itattlii  v. 
T(i(/(/'rf,  17  Ilow.,  «i. — McLk.vn,  ,1.; 
Sii|'..  CI.,  IH.')4. 

;i;t.  A  reissued  patent  is  considered 
a»  if  granted  .-it  the  date  of  the  original 
one.  It  i**  H"  defence  to  an  ai-tion  upon 
till'  I'lissiied  patent,  that  the  defendant's 
niaeliiiie  wiih  niiidu  and  put  up  during 
the  original  patent,  under  which  he  was 
not  liultle  to  an  action  for  an  infriiige- 
nu'iit.  Corr  v.  Jiirc,  ii  or  4  IJlatehf, 
-Uetts,  J.;  N.  v.,  1850. 

nt.  After  a  patent  has  been  surron- 
ik'iL-il,  an  action  cannot  bo  niaintaineil 
for  ilaiiiMges  fur  an  iiifringeiiient  oecur- 
rin"  under  the  oM  patent,  before  the 
iiuriTuder.  Mojfitt  v.  Oarr^  JNIS. — 
Leavot,  J.;  Ohio,  1800. 


E.  Effect  op,  as  to  Assicnkes  and 

OTHEKS;   AND  TIIGin   11IU1IT9    UNDKB. 

1.  A  patentee  cannot,  by  a  surrender 
of  his  patent,  aft'ect  the  rights  of  third 
persons  to  whom  he  had  previously,  by 
assignment,  passed  his  interest  in  the 
wliolo  or  a  part  of  the  patent,  without 
the  consent  of  such  assignee.  ^Vood- 
vorth  V.  Sto7iej  3  Story,  750. — Story, 
J.;  Mass.,  1845. 

2.  A  surrender  of  letters  patent  ren- 
ders void  all  assignments  under  such 
patent,  so  far  as  those  are  concerned 
uho  assent  to  such  surrender.  It  is  nec- 
essary that  a  prior  assignee  should  have 
•I  ucw  assignment,  before  he  can  maiu- 

40 


tniii  nn  action  for  nn  invasion  of  tho 
patent.  GiftHon  v.  Jiic/ninfn,  IiiiU-x 
I'at.  Di-c,  No.  370.— Nklso.n,  J.;  N. 
v.,  lH4ft. 

U.  AtiK-ndtiients  to  a  patent  made  on 
a  reissue  tln-n-ol,  will  inure  to  the  ben- 
efit of  the  assignees  and  graiiteen  nu- 
tter the  patent  as  it  stood  before  Hiich 
reissue.  Smith  v.  Jfn'i'ir,  \  West.  F^aw 
Jour.  5-J. —  Kank,  .1.;  I'a.,  IHIO. 

4.  Hut  such  giuiitees  may,  if  they 
prefer,  rest  their  claims  upon  the  Hpeci- 
ficatioii  as  it  stood  when  they  inirehased 
their  right.     I  hid.,  .'ij. 

5.  A  pateiit(-e  cannot,  by  a  surrender 
of  his  patent,  alVeet  injuriously  the  rights 
of  third  parties,  to  whom  he  has  already 
passeil  an  interest  in  his  p;itciit.  They 
will  share  with  him  the  bciielits  confer- 
red by  the  reissue.  Mi'Iiurncy  \,  (Jood- 
year,  11  C'lish.  671. — Mkijkk  k,  .1.; 
Mass.,  1H53. 

0.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  a  patentee, 
by  a  surrender  of  his  patent,  to  atreet 
the  rights  of  third  persons,  to  whom  ho 
had  j»reviously  passrvl  his  interest  in  the 
whole  or  a  part  of  the  patent,  without 
their  consent.  Such  consent  may  be 
manifested  by  joining  in  the  surrender, 
or  previously  authorizing  it,  or  subse- 
quently ratifying,  or  approving  it ;  and 
taking  advantage  and  benefit  of  it 
would  bo  a  ratification.  And  when  so 
consented  to,  tho  rights  of  the  jiarty 
consenting,  in  .and  to  the  old  patent,  are 
foix'ver  gone.  Potter  v.  Ilolldiid,  MS. 
— Ingkrsom,,  J.;  Kki-son,  J.,  concur- 
ring; Ct.,  1858. 

7.  Such  third  parties,  though  entitled 
to  the  same  right  in  the  reissued  p.atcnt, 
that  they  had  in  the  old,  are  not  how- 
ever compelled  to  take  under  the  reis- 
sued patent  and  give  up  the  right  had 
under  the  old  one,  but  may  hold  under 
the  old  patent,  ii'  they  choose  the  same 


Mi*^'-'^' 


620 


RK1»0KT8.-UI'-STUAINT  OF  TUADE. 


ixTiNT  or  oorTMOirr  w. 


WHAT  BMU)  Wt  to  n, 


riffliti   tUvy  iiAil  iM'l'oru  tliu  Hiin-i'iulvr. 
Jbiil. 

H.  There  mny  Ik»  oriit  cliiim  of  rinhl 
uiiiItT  <iti«*  or  l\\o  old  p.-tti'iit,  for  one 
Hcctioiiof  (Mtiiiiir}',  uiiiIh  (liiU'ri'rit  claiiii 
of  ri);tit  uiulcr  tin*  rciHHUU'l  ptUciit,  to 
tliu  Huiiio  iiivi'iitioii,  for  nnuttiur  Roctioii 
of  country.     //>«</. 


IIEPAIUS  OF  FA'l'KNTED   MA- 
(JIIINKS. 

SfO  I'ATKN'iKU  MaCIIIMCN,  A. 


UErOKTS 

1.  No  reporter  lias  or  enn  Imvo  nny 
copyrii^ht  in  tlic  written  opinions  of  the 
judges  of  !i  court;  nor  can  tlie  judges 
confer  on  any  reporter  any  8uel»  right. 

W/irotim  V.  7't'^tT.s,  8  IVt.,  COS.— Mo 
Lkan,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1h:U. 

2.  Though  there  eannot  bo  any  copy- 
right  in  the  opinions  of  the  court,  pub- 
lished under  authority  of  law,  a  report- 
er may  have  u  copyright  in  his  own 
marginal  notes,  and  in  the  arguments 
of  counsel,  a^  prepared  and  arranged 
by  hiiu.  (Jrai/  v.  Jii/ssiU,  1  Story,  21. 
— SxouY,  J.;  Mass.,  1830. 

3.  The  right  of  copyright  belongs  to 
tho  reporters  of  judicial  decisions,  in 
common  with  other  authors,  to  the  ex- 
tent of  their  authorship  in  the  composi- 
tion of  their  works.  Little  v.  Gould, 
2  IJlatchf.,  170.— CoNKLiNG,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1851. 

4.  But  tills  does  not  comprise  the 
written  opinions  of  the  judges,  because 
of  these  the  reporter  is  not  the  author, 
and  tho  judges  of  a  court  caunot  confer 


on  liiin  Any  «opyrig)ii  in  the  h riilrn opin. 
ioiiH  delivered  l»y  them.     /A/7.,  170. 

A.  Judicial  «lecir>ionH  ure  th(>  propvrty 
of  the  pultlic,  and  thereforo  ure  nut  lli.. 
Huiiject  of  ji  ,-opyrighl.  Little  v.  f/of//,/, 
2  Itlatcbf.,  302.— Nki-hon,  J.;  >f.  y' 
18A2. 


uks'ii;aint  of  tuade. 

1.  An  agreement  between  Iwoimrt- 
ners  in  the  manufacture  of  a  p;it('iit((| 
article,  that  one  would  tliscontinue  mikIi 
matiufacture,  is  not  void  as  bi-iiig  in  ro. 
Htraint  of  trade,  and  iigaiiist  the  pririci. 
ph-H  of  pul»li(!  I  )iicy,  but  is  siniplv  ;in 
ordinary  business  arrangement.  /'</,/[• 
fin)'«t  V.  A'iminia/i,  J  Mlatchf.,  4\)ri.-~ 
Nklson,  J.;   N.  v.,  iH-tO.    [AfliniRMl, 

pout  H.| 

2.  A  bond  given  to  a  patentee  by  one 
who  has  infringed  on  a  patent,  coiitlj. 
tioned  that  he  will  not,  during  the  ton- 
tinuiince  of  the  patent,  manufactiirc  or 
vend  tho  patented  article,  is  not  voidas 
being  in  restraint  of  trudo.  Jhimjs. 
Clirhtujh,  12  Law  Kep.,  307.— Joxes, 
Ch.  J.;  N.  Y.,  1H49. 

3.  All  agreement  stipulating,  lli;it  un- 
der certain  coiulitions,  one  parly  shall 
ceas(!  the  numufacturc  of  a  patented  ar- 
ticle, is  not  void  as  being  in  restraint  of 
trade;  such  clause  is  but  a  provision  tor 
the  prosecution  of  the  business  in  a  jiar- 
ticular  manner,  and  not  for  its  restniiiit. 
Kinsman  v.  Parkhurst,  19  How,,  293. 
— CuKTis,  J. :  Sup.  Ct.,  1855. 


RESULT. 

See  '*  Effect  ;"  PrnrosK. 


T  Tu  ItH. 


1.    ihiii,,  no. 

,  alt!  tlu'  ln»))K'rty 
t'foru  »ri>  not  tlm 
.  IAnU<\.  </<»«/./, 
i,HuN,  J.;  N.  Y,, 


)F  TUADK. 

in't  wooii  I  wo  jmrl- 
urc  of  II  |»!i1t'iiti(l 
Id  tlisr«tiitiMiit>HiU'h 
(»'ul  UH  W\\\^  in  ro. 
i\y!\Ui»l  tli«»  iiriiici. 
^',  but  is  siiiijily  :ii\ 
ranf^i'inoiit.  Vnd- 
1  Uliitflif.,  4ltr).- 
,  1849.     [Afliniu'.l, 

()  n  pfttontoeby  one 
111  ft  ]»iit<-'nt,  comli- 
nt,  duriiiir  llic  fon- 
lit,  iimmiliicturi'  or 
,rticl(',  is  iiol  voiiliis 
■  triido.  Bawj  v, 
li'l).,  aG7.— .loxKS, 

tipuliitlng,  that  nn- 
)nM,  tine  party  t*li!>ll 
irt!  of  a  pati'iUctl  ;ir- 
ln'iug  ill  rostvaiiit  of 
rt  but  a  provision  tor 
he  bnsiuoss  in  a  iiiii- 

uot  I'or  its  reslraiiit. 
lurat,  10  How.,  293. 

Ct.,  1855. 


iULT. 
,"  PcnrosE. 


REVIEWS.— UULK8  OF  TATKNT  OKFIOK. 


«J7 


Wlllty  rtMCT,   WHIN  MOt. 


ACTIIOHITT  or. 


UKVIK\V8. 

I.  A  rcvicwiT  nmy  fuirly  rlto  lar^fly 
fidtn  till'  iiri){iiiiil  work,  it'  Imm  «K>.ii^ii  bi> 
naily  mxl  truly  to  umu  (ho  pUHHuj^fM  for 
the  |iurpo'4<'  of  fair  and  ruaMiMiablit  criti- 
cimii.  H>il  it'  lu>  tlius<-ilrs  iIm>  inimt  iin- 
iiortniit  parts  ci'  tli«>  work,  with  a  view, 
ii(»t  to  critici/A',  but  to  ttupi-rwdo  thf 
UM'oflhi'  original  work,  an  I  NiiliMtitulf 
till'  review  for  it,  Mueh  a  use  will  be 
dfeiued,  ill  lnw',  a  piraey.  I'uinmi  v. 
.'/■»r«/i,  •-'  Story,  loO. — Sioky,  J. ;  MasM., 

1641. 

i,  Extraets,  repreHoiitinixorcinbody- 
iii;,'  llie  spirit  and  force  of  a  work,  may 
In-  taken  therefrom  to  a  reasonable  ox- 
liivt  hy  a  reviewer,  for  tli«  purpose  of 
sliowin^j  tliu  merit  or  di-rnerit  of  tlie 
work.  Hut  this  privilejjo  eaniiut  be  so 
oxiTcised  as  to  supersede  the  orij^inal 
book.  StiU'y  V.  Jf<il<'om/te,  4  McLean, 
301).— MfliKAN,  J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

;i.  Suflicirnt  may  be  taken  to  form  a 
(•oiTcft  idea  of  the  whole;  but  no  one 
is  allowid,  uiuler  the  pretence  of  (pio- 
tiiii,',  to  publish  t'ithi'r  the  whole  or  o 
|iriiiiiiial  part  of  an(»ther  maiTH  eompo- 
Mtioii.  A  review  niuHt  not,  therefore, 
serve  a'<  a  Hubstitute  for  the  book  ri - 
viiwt'il.     Ukl,  .109. 

4.  If  8o  much  is  extracted,  that  the 
article  pominunieate>.  the  same  knowl- 
i'ili;c  (lie  orij;iiial  work,  it  is  an  ac- 
tioiiiilile  violation  of  literary  property. 
//»<■(/.,  ;I09,  .310. 

■').  Tlio  abridgement  of  a  work,  for 
wliirli  a  copyright  has  been  secured,  and 
wliicli  lias  been  ])ublicly  circulatcMl,  is 
not  an  iiitVingement  of  the  statutory 
|irivil('gp;  but  such  :ui  abridLTcment 
ivould  violate  the  right  of  the  literary 
proprietor  of  a  book  of  which  the  cir- 
'.'ulation  had  beeu  private  only.  Kccite 


V.  \y/iftitlci/,  ti  .Vnier.   I^rtw  Itejj.,  8'i,- 
CAItWAI.I.AhiCIt,  J.  i   I'u.,  iHtiO. 


KlILKS  OF  I'ATKNT  OFFICE. 

1.  The  nih'H  of  t1i«  Patent  Office  at 
to  taking  evidence  in  contested  caso% 
made  by  the  ('omniisKioner  of  I'atentH, 
imiler  i;  12  of  the  act  of  1k:i(),  wliiiu 
they  re'iiaiii  uiiabrogalen'  are  as  bind* 
ingaMlhelaw  itself;  and  upon  the  Coiii- 
misxioner  himself,  as  upon  others.  Ar- 
mil'f  V.  /tig/inp,  MS.  (A pp.  CaH.)— 
('iiA\«ii,  Vh.  J.;  1).  C,  l»4l. 

2.  After  a  deposition  lias  Iteeii  (;iken, 
wliih-  the  rules  were  in  ftu'ce,  a  revoca- 
tion of  them  <'annot  atVcct  that  deposi- 
tion. A  revoc.'itioa  only  alVccts  Hubse- 
queiit  proceedini^s.     lf'i<f.,  27. 

:t.  The  rule  of  the  Tateiit  OlVice,  an 
to  taking  an<I  transmitting  testimony, 
and  providing  that  no  evidence,  unless 
taken  and  tiled  in  comiiliancu  with  such 
rules,  will  be  cniisiififttl  on  the  hear- 
ing of  the  case,  in  which  taken,  tloes 
not  prohibit  the  Commissioner  from 
lookhiij  into  the  deposition  informally 
triuisniittt'd,  or  reading  it,  and  ascer- 
taining  its  e»»nteiits,  but  only  jiniliibits 
him  from  consiiliring  it  as  e\  ideiice 
touching  the  matter  in  issue.  Smith  v, 
Flickoiifci',  MS.  (;\pp.  <'as.)— CuANcii, 
Ch    .1.:   I).  C,  ls4:t, 

4.  If  found  informal,  on  such  inspec- 
tion,  the  Commissioner  may,  if  he  see 
lit,  allow  further  time  to  correct  the  in- 
formality.    Ibid. 

.5.  The  object  of  notice,  required  by 
the  rules  of  the  Patent  Office,  in  the  ex- 
amination of  witnesses,  is  to  bring  the 
adverse  party  before  the  examining  of- 
licor,  to  give  him  an  opportunity  to  cross- 
examine.      But   if  the  adverse  party 


-f; 


c  - 


M'<« 


<Wii 


ii 


W^« 


''•Wfii>/Mi^' 


^^-^MV..' 


'■m^^-^-^ 


•911 


ttlbCUIvT  UHK  OF  INVKNTIOy. 


Oft 


•igS^ 


roini'ii,  unit  U  pri'Mt'iit,  nini  croiiN-<>xmii- 
iiicN,  iiotii'H  itiitl  pnuir  of  MTvli'o  of  it 
nrc  of  no  urcniinl,  tiihfm  V.  /'JtlithorjH', 
MS.  (Aj,|».  CunO-lH^Lof,  J.;  D.  C, 

I).  Tlio  rtiloM  mill  ro^ulntiimii  of  tlii' 
I'atiMit  Otflcc,  HM  to  Inking  tcMtiinotiy  in 
v:\nvn  of  inltffcrt'hrv,  iiri'  Mmlinu  upon 
the  |>tirti«"<,  nn<l  fitoli  in  «>ntitluil  to  lliv 
lii'iii'titH  of  tticiii,  mill  until  ahm^nluil, 
ui'L>  iiM  iiiniliii^  iipoti  the  Ci  MiniMMioiit>r 
liiiufii'lt',  iiH  if  cniiftt'il  I»y  tlip  Htiituti'  if- 
w'lf.  ()'//,irit  V.  //,iw,>i,  !\fS.  (App. 
t'un.)~MonMi.:i,i,  .1,;  I).  C,  iHrtO. 

7.  Tlip  niU'H  of  tlic  I'litont  t)fllc>i«,  nn 
to  tlit>  t.'ikin^  of  i|«>p(milioLiM,  ^iv(>  to 
ciliifr  of  tlu)  litigant  parli«'«,  tlif  liylit 
to  taku  ilipiisitioiiH,  irithout  trutnti/it, 
up  to  till'  (lay  of  lii'arin^  llxivl  hy  tln' 
I'ati-nt  Otlli't',  or  to  »  ilay  near  I'lioiij^li 
to  jfivo  tiini-  for  tlu'  trariMmissioii  of  the 
ovitli'Mfc  to  tlic  I'ati'tit  Ollii'o.  SptKr  v. 
Ahfxilf,  .MS.  (App.  CaH.) — DiNMU',  .1. ; 
D.  C,  lHr)i). 

8.  Tho  power  grantcil  to  the  I'at*  nt 
Oni.M',  imilcr  5^  VI  of  the  art  of  IH.'IK, 
to  inal<  "uU's  in  respect  to  the  takiny 
of  eviilence,  givoH  no  rijjjht  to  make  new 
rules  of  evidence,  or  to  maki-  new  rules 
of  law,  or  to  divert  vested  rij^hts,  by  its 
rules  of  praetiee.  Dijm7i,  A'x  fnirfe, 
ISIS.  (App.  Cas.)— DuNi.oi',  J. ;  D.  C, 
1800. 

0.  The  20th  rule  of  tho  Patent  OfTlee, 
j)rovidiiii^  that  amendments  of  the  mod- 
el, drawinj^s,  or  speeifieation,  nnist  re- 
late to  the  Kuhjeet  matter  orij^inally  cm- 
braced  in  at  least  one  of  them,  applies 
only  to  orhjinal  a])pIicatioiis,  and  not 
to  cases  of  reissue.  If  it  did,  it  would 
be  void.     Tbid. 

10.  The  ndcof  the  Patent  Office  con- 
fining reissues  to  the  invention  describ- 
ed or  shown  in  the  origin.al  patent  is, 
cautious  and  general  in  its  terras.     It 


doeM  not  profimn  to  hi*  without  nn  I't. 
oeptiori.  It  Ntnleit  what  nuiy  be  il,,, 
Nubjcot  of  a  reiMHue;  not,  Mhni  nIkiH 
not  be  ;  and  doe<«  not  prcMiM-ibe,  llmt  thr 
mode  mentioned  tlniein  Hhall  Im'  ili,. 
noIm  and  only  mode  of  Nhowin;/  tlii<  ji, 
viMition  to  be  the  Manie  invention.  //;,/ 
I  I.  The  prailiee  of  the  Patent  (»(li,, 
under  its  riili'K,  an  to  reisxuu,  of  ciinrnii,!., 
the  applicant  to  his  ori^iiud  patent  an, { 
speeifieation,  an  the  evideneu  of  «||„t 
was  lii-«  original  invention,  in  not  mr- 
net,  but  nlerenee  m.iy  aho  bi»  niiiili  in 
the  model  for  a  like  purpoi«>,  //,,// 
A'j!  juirtf^  .MS.  (App.  (.'aN.)~.M..iiM.i.|, 
.1.;   I).  (J.,  IHOO. 


SKCIJKT  USK  OF  INVKNTIOX, 

1.  If  an  inseiition  be  the  more  s|)(mii. 
latioii  of  a  philosopher  or  tnecliMiiiiiaii 
in  his  closet,  and  hu  taken  no  ntep  tu- 
ward  SI  curing  a  patont,  but  keeps  lii< 
iiiventi'iii  a  si-cret,  and  another  pfrsmi, 
Vr'ho  is  also  an  original  but  Huhsi'iincnt 
inventor  of  tho  samo  thing,  (»litaiii  a 
patent  for  n,  juid  l>ring  it  into  use,  tlie 
patentee  in  a  suit  at  law  will  he  m\- 
sitlered  the  fust  inventor,  llthlroilh 
V.  Jftutthy  MS.  (App.  Cas.).— Cranui, 
Ch.  J.;  I).  C,  1811. 

2.  How  far  the  use  by  tho  iliscovorcr 
of  his  invention  or  monopoly  so  I()Iii,'!h 
it  could  be  kept  a  secret,  and  sei-kiii;,' ;i 
patent  only  when  it  was  in  ilan^'cr  ot' 
discovery,  would  invaliilate  the  patont, 
qvcnj.  (tondycar  v.  Day,  MS.— Gni- 
EU,  J.;  N.  J.,  1852. 

3.  Tho  object  of  the  patent  laws  Ic- 
ing not  only  to  benefit  the  inventor  hut 
also  the  public  or  community  at  Liriro, 
by  the  use  of  the  invention  after  the  mo 


i»  wUh»ml  an  .  \. 
lull  iitiiy  !'•'  ili<- 
not,  y>\u\\  xliiiil 
l»n'tnTiln',  tliMi  till' 
•,.|n  nIiiiII  1"'  iIh' 
il'  nIiow'hi;,'  iIk-  in- 
>  liivi'lllloii.    /Am/, 

til.'  riiti'iii  oivi.i, 

'i)4<«U«,  offulirHlili.; 

>ri(^iiiiil  pikU'iit  mil 
cvi'W'tH'*'  of  what 
iitioii,  IM  not  cur- 
ay  ul^o  ^1*'  iiiiuli'  III 
•>  |»in'p'">»'.  /^'//, 
I.  Cat.)— Mi'i'^kii,, 


F  INVKNTION. 

Vh'  till'  inprt'  >i)i.'iMi. 
iliiT  or  iiu'cliMiiir'nm 

(J  tiikt'H  no  Kti'p  tih 
rut,  but  ki't'ps  liit 
il  another  iit'ismi, 
ml  but  Hul>st'(|miil 
tliinp,  <»l»t!ii"i  ^ 

rinjx  it  into  uho,  the 

It  law  will  Ih>  run- 
i-ntor.      llil'Irc'ilh 

..  Cas.).— <^KA^''"' 


m 


nut 


1V( 


by  the  (lisoovcrcr 
nonoi)oly  m)  ioiij,'!!^ 
crct,  ami  Hrokin;;  ;i 
it  was  ill  ilan^'t'i"  *'l' 
valitlatf  tlio  i>iitt'iit, 
V.  I>(»y,  MS.-Or,i- 

the  patent  hws  U- 
lefit  the  inventor  but 
community  at  liirc*', 
ivcntion  after  the  iiK> 


bECUET  UttE  OF  INVENT  ON. 


0:0 


IfVMJI  OK 


ii.iiKtly  liiw  turmihilril,  U  follown  tlitii 
All  inventor  wlio  iU'NiKiM'<lly  mnl  with 
tliii  viuw  of  apI'lyiiiK  it  inilclinitcly  ami 
iHilu«iv«'ly  for  liix  «»wi  prolU,  wllli- 
hoM*  liix  iiivt'ntioii  fnini  tlit*  piiltlit', 
coniin  not  witliin  llio  policy  or  obji>«'t»« 
of  tlio  fonnlitiilioii  or  a»ln  of  Conj^rt-on, 
ami  it  uot  I'MlilliHl  to  favor  if  dnrin;; 
Ktii'li  t'onocalMii-ftt  anutlM>r  poiHon  nIioiiM 
•iimI  out  anil  brin^  into  uhu  (Iiw  Manio  in- 
vention, lieiiiliill  V.  Winnor,  •i\  llow., 
;,oH.— Da^iki,,  J.;  Sup.  Ci.,  Ih:.h. 

4,  Ifan  inventor  kci'p  Iun  iiiNt-iiiion  a 
loiTL't  until  anollier  Iium  (liNeovcrcil  lli<> 
KUiie  tiling'.  an<l  lio  by  while  Nueh  other 
iiivi'iitor  makes  tipplitiition  for  it  patent, 
iiml  iiianufattureH  :in«l  HelU  tlio  artirle 
iiiM'iiteil,  ami  ne^^leetn  to  n'wi'  noti«'o  «>f 
hin  claim  or  uake  n»»;'"'"".ion  for  a  pat- 
ent, ^iucli  Ili'Mt  inventor  will  loso  IiIh 
ii.,'ht  to  a  i)atent.  Siiiutry  v.  Lnxthy 
MS.  (App.  Ca.x.)— MoUMici.i,,  J. ;   I).  C;., 

1830. 

5.  A  party  has  a  rij^ht  to  keep  his  in- 
cliiiiitc  rijjlit  to  an  invention  (concealed 
;iH  i(iii<(  a>*  he  pleases — init  when  he  tlc- 
Mivs  to  pcrlect  his  rij^ht  to  a  patent,  h«' 
mast  proccetl  with  vi;,'ilanc(>.  Klli- 
th„rih'  v.  liuf'i  rtHon,  MS.  (.\pp.  Cas.) 
-MortsKi.i.,  J.;  I).  C,  IH.5H. 

G,  The  statutory  bar,  ^  7  of  tho  act 
(if  18:10,  imposed  upon  tho  inventor  who 
silU  his  invention  for  more  than  two 
\i;iiM  before  his  application  f()r  a  pat- 
iiit,  would  seem  by  analogy  properly 
;i|i|ilicable  to  the  inventor  who  nerretcH. 
Sjioir  v.  Stuart,  MS.  (Aj)]).  Cas.) — 
DlM.op,  J. ;  I).  C,  1H50. 

7.  The  policy  of  tho  patent  laws  favors 
ililincnce  and  condemns  neglect.  It  is 
the  duty  of  an  inventor  without  delay 
V)  patent  his  perfected  invention.  Ho 
Lx«i  no  right  to  use  it  himself,  or  permit 
others  to  use  it,  for  .any  h'lirrth  of  time, 
aiul  then  expect  a  monopoly  from  the 


public.  M,irvy  V.  Ti-ntt.r,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)    "I)lni.o|.,  J.;  D.  C.,  IHOO. 

H.  There  can  be  no  doiibt  that  where 
Ik  party  has  made  an  invention  and 
bnried  the  xn nt  in  hii«  own  bostnn,  he 
may,  nl\i>r  the  la|mu  of  years,  c«>mi'  for" 
ward  and,  on  ntakin^  tho  Nccret  known 
by  an  application  for  a  patent,  obtain  a 
moiiopnly.  Itifij  V.  77iiiitlit,  .MS.  (.\pp, 
Cas.)— Mkkhk  K,  J.;  I).  C.,  IHiio, 

0.  Ibit  if  in  till)  mean  time  another 
has  made  the  Hanie  invention,  mid  has 
ol>tained  a  patent,  and  the  pnlitic  hai 
thereby  become  possessed  of  till)  dls- 
covury,  when  the  tlrst  inventor  applieM 
he  will  be  met  with  the  impiiry  whether 
he  has  used  duo  diligence  in  commiini- 
eating  his  discovery — in  wiich  case  the 
fu'st  inventor  fo>'feits  his  elaini.     Ifn'if. 

10.  If  an  inventor  C(>/(fvv//w  his  inven- 
tion idler  it  is  complete,  even  llnnigli  ho 
never  sold  it  for  protit  or  introdiwed  it 
to  public  UHo,  hu  cannot  claim  a  patent. 
fjoreridyti  v.  Dutr/iir,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) 
— DuM.oi',  J.;  I).  C,  1H(J1. 

11.  i\n  inventor  who  (linii/n>'if/y,.i\ul 
with  the  view  <»f  applying  it  imlefiniti'ly 
and  exclusively  for  his  own  profits, 
withholds  his  invention  from  the  puo- 
lie,  conies  not  within  the  policy  or  tho 
objects  of  tho  constitution  or  acts  of 
Congress.  IIo  does  not  promote  but 
impedes  the  progress  of  science  and  the 
useful  arts.     //>/(/. 

1'2.  The  decision  in  Spnir  v.  Stuart 
(ante  0),  that  tho  conocalment  of  an  in- 
vention for  more  than  two  years  stands 
on  no  better  footing  than  tho  sale  of 
such  invention  before  two  years,  con- 
sidered and  approved.     Ifnd. 

13.  A  negligence,  in  secreting  and  fail- 
ing to  patent  an  invention  for  more  than 
two  years  after  its  discovery,  forfeits  all 
right  to  claim  a  patent.  Kvon  tho  filing 
a  caveat,  if  filed  more  than  two  years 


»1'U 

i 


I 


/^* 


i,>^ 


SFi-;s^ 

.,.:^^  'i'ii 

W 

■■.,.,  m 

*""' 

^.«mL« 

030         SPK(MKIl"  I'KUFOUMANCE.— SPECIFICATION,  A.,  U. 


or  ct)NruAci8  as  to  j-atknts. 


now  UiVKNTlOX  TO  M  DKBk'UlIIKU  IS. 


nflcr  such  iliscoviTv,  will  not  mivc  the 
ritilits  of  tin'  inventor.  SnowJen  v. 
Piii'iU.,  MS.  (Apj).  CiiH.)  —  DuNLor, 
J.;   D.  C,  1801. 


SPECIFIC  PEUFORMANCE. 

1.  Till-  fact,  tliat  till'  .sulyi'ct  matter  of 
a  contract  sonj^ht  to  bo  enforced  is  a 
)>at»'nt  ritjlit,  does  not  of  itst-If  j^ivt'  tin- 
courts  of  the  rnitcd  Stales  jurisdiction. 
A  bill  filed  for  the  speeilic  performance 
of  such  a  contract  must  contain  the 
])r()per  averments  as  to  the  c/idritcter  of 
the  parties,  to  show  that  the  court  has 
jurisdiction.  Jliirr  v.  (i)r<jonj,  ti  Paino, 
4-20,  IJi).— TiiOMi'soy,  J.;  N.  Y.,  18-28. 

'J.  The  Circuit  Courts  have  no  juris- 
diction of  an  action  as  to  enforce  the 
speeilic  execution  of  a  contract  respect- 
ing a  i)atent,  where  the  parties  are  all 
citizens  of  the  same  state:  but  where 
the  ))laintiffs  set  up  a  riijht  under  a  i)at- 
ont,  and  allege  that  the  defendants  are 
infrinifing,  citizensliip  will  not  oust  ju- 
risdiction. Urooks  V.  Stollei,\  3  Mc- 
Lean, 525. — MtJjKAX,  J.;  Ohio,  1845. 

:\.  I)Ut  where  the  court  has  obtained 
j\uisdiction  on  the  ground  of  infringe- 
ment, it  may  then  decide  other  matters 
which  of  themselves  would  not  aftbrd 
groiuid  for  the  original  exercise  of  ju- 
risdiction.    IbuL,  5'29. 

4.  Under  §  17  of  the  act  of  1830,  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Circuit  Courts  as  to 
subject  matter  does  not  extend  to  a  bill 
iu  ecpiity  tiled  for  the  si)ecific  perform- 
ance of  a  contract  to  transfer  a  patent — 
the  jurisdiction  of  such  courts  being 
confined  to  actions  under  the  patent 
laics  granting  or  confirming  rights  to 
inventors.  Nesmithw. Calvert,!  Wood. 
&  Mic,  37.— WooDBuuY,  J.;  Mass., 
1845. 


6.  Hut  if  Hucli  a  bill  is  filed  ai^ttinst 
soveral  deferulants,  some  of  wlioni  nro 
residents  of  the  same  states  with  tli,, 
complainants,  the  bill  may  still  be  main. 
toined  against  the  dofenflants  wlio  arc 
residents  t)f  aiu>ther  state.     Ih'nl.,  J7 

0.  And  if  the  bill  jtrays  for  an  injiiiii. 
ti(m  against  the  use  of  a  patent,  tliat 
may  be  a  groimd  for  exercising  ju- 
risdiction  against  all  the  defendants. 
rind.,  38. 

7.  Where  a  bill  is  filed  to  enforce  tlic 
specific  performance  of  a  contract  in  iv- 
lation  to  a  patent,  the  Supreiric  ("(inn 
has  no  appellate  jurisdiction,  iniless  tlio 
matter  in  controversy  exceeds  tliovalin' 
of  two  thousand  dollars.  Brown  v, 
S/uxnnon,  20  How.,  50,  67. — Tandy 
Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1857. 


A. 
B. 

C. 
D. 


SPECIFICATION. 

Okveral  Principles  OF  CcASTurcTioN  Gllo 

IIOW  InVKNTION  to  UK   DKSCKIIIKI)  IN.    GIIO 

AMnioiTrY  IN,  AND  Ekkkot  of G36 

(!()NOKAI,MKNT  IN,  AND  KfFEUT  OK G3G 

DeFKOTS  I.V,  HOW  KEMEIJIKU 631 


A.     (jexeual   Puincu'lks    of   Cox- 

STUUCriON. 

See  Patent,  P.  1. 

D.      How  iNVENnON  TO  BE  DKSCBIDED 
IN. 

See  also  Composition  op  Matter, 
B. ;  Imi'rovement,  B.  ;  Machixi;,  D. 

1.  Under  the  j-tatent  act  of  KOS,  be- 
fore a  patent  can  issue,  the  inventor 
should  so  explain  his  invention,  that 
others  beside  himself  may  unclerstaiid 
aod  use  it ;  more  especially  when  the  iu- 


DF  CoNSTHrCTION  GM 
UKSCUIUKI)  IN.   G;10 

KKOT  OK CM 

KfFEUT  OF 03G 

KDIKU 631 


r  TO  BE  DESCUIBED 


it  act  of  l-iOS^e- 
sue,  the  inventor 
lis  invention,  tlut 
f  may  nnderstaml 
jcially  when  the  iu- 


SPKCIFICATION,  B. 


031 


now   IKVKNTION  TO    UK   DKSCUIUKO  IH. 


vention  is  to  ri'licvo  hnujun  misery,  euro 
Hhoiiitl  In*  takfii  to  liuvt;  ii  plain  an<l 
tliorongh  oxpoHition  of  tlio  art.  A  tiling  I 
oiniabli.'  of  doing  jjjood,  if  jutlicionsly 
iisi'tl,  may  ho  vi-ry  pernicious  if  misap- 
plii'il.  Pcrkitts'  (hiae,  1  Opin.,  04. — 
Lkk,  Atty.  Con. ;  1700. 

2.  The  thing  for  which  a  patent  is 
priinteil,  shoultl  be  truly  and  fully  de- 
tiiiihotl  in  tluf  speciiicatioii ;  but  if  this 
be  (lone  so  as  rlcarly  to  distinguish  it 
from  othor  things,  .-ind  enable  any  person 
skilled  in  the  art  of  which  it  is  a  brunch, 
or  with  which  it  is  most  nearly  conncct- 
cil,  to  make  and  use  the  same,  it  will  be 
suHic'ient.  Tho  matters  not  disclosed, 
nuist  appear  to  have  been  concealed  for 
the  |iurpose  of  deceiving  the  public,  to 
invalidate  tho  patent.  Vark  v.  /Jttle, 
;!  Wash.,  198. — WAsuiNiiXON,  J.;  Pa., 
1813. 

;i.  Tho  description  of  the  invention 
innsl  be  full,  clear,  and  explicit,  so  as  to 
distinguish  it  from  all  others  of  the 
same  kind,  and  to  enable  any  person 
skilled  in  the  art,  of  which  it  is  a  branch, 
to  make  and  nsc  it.  The  description 
sliould  be  accommodated  to  tlie  com- 
prehension of  any  practical  mechanic, 
without  taxing  his  genius  or  inventive 
powers.  Gray  v.  James,  Pet.  C.  C,  401. 
— Wasiiin'oton,  J.;  Pa.,  1817. 

4.  Whether  a  specification  is  defect- 
ive within  the  interpretation  of  the  Liw, 
must  depend  upon  the  evidence  of  those 
skilled  in  the  science  or  art  of  tho  inven- 
tion.   Ibid.,  401. 

5.  The  patentee  must  describe,  in  full 
and  ex.act  terms,  in  what  his  invention 
consists.  If  the  description  mixes  up 
the  old  and  the  new,  and  does  not  dis- 
tinctly ascertain  for  which  in  particular 
the  patent  is  claimed,  it  is  void.  Xoto- 
ett\.Zeicis,l  Mas.,  187. — Story,  J.; 
Mass.,  1817. 


0.  The  inventor  must  deliver  a  writ- 
ten dcsi^riptiun  of  his  invention,  in  such 
full,  clear,  ami  exact  terms,  that  any 
person  accpiainted  with  the  art,  may 
know  how  to  construct  and  use  it.  Tho 
reasons  for  this  rcipiirement  are,  to 
guard  the  public  against  unintentional 
infringenjent  of  the  patent,  during  its 
coiilinuaiKH^  and  to  enable  an  artist  to 
make  the  iinprovenn'T  .1  v  reference 
to  Honie  know  n  and  <  •■\'..,u  >  jcordt  d  au- 
thority, after  the  p...  at  h.is  run  out. 
Unnis  v.  I'Atton,  ii  Wash.,  45;j. — 
WAsniN(;TON,  J.;  Pa.,  181H. 

7.  Whether  a  patei  .  be  valid  or  liOt, 
nuist  materially  depend  upon  the  accU' 
racy  and  distnictness  with  which  tbo  in- 
vention is  stated.  Moody  v.  J'lske,  2 
Mas.,  118.— Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1820. 

8.  A  specification  m-cd  not  particu- 
larly describe  the  oi)eration  of  median 
ism  which  is  well  known  by  persons  ac- 
(piainted  with  the  art.  JuieasH  v.  Schuyl- 
kill Bank,  4  Wash.,  14. — Washington, 
J.;  Pa.,  1820. 

0.  3Ierely  describing  in  the  specifica- 
tion tho  parts  of  a  thing,  or  the  tnodus 
ojwrdiidi,  and  as  to  which  no  claim  is 
nuvde,  does  not  make  such  things  a  part 
of  the  ])atent.     Ibid.,  14. 

10.  The  8i»ocilicaliou  should  distin- 
guish the  new  from  the  old,  :uul  point 
out  in  what  the  invention  consists.  Tho 
invention  cannot  be  shown  by  testimo- 
ny, nor  can  the  jury  infer  it  from  exam- 
ining the  thing  patented,  and  comparing 
it  with  others  before  iu  use.  No  de- 
scription of  the  discovery  secured  by  a 
patent,  will  fulfil  the  demands  of  justice 
and  of  law,  but  such  as  is  of  record, 
and  of  Avhich  all  the  world  may  have 
the  benefit.  Dixon  v.  Moyer,  4  Wash., 
73.— Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1821. 

11.  Where  tho  specification  does  not 
describe  the  invention,  so  as  to  show  in 


■—■  ■^r*'^ 


trJ    ""■'•'  «H.,« 


u 


V- 


01)2 


SPECIFICATION,  B. 


now   ISVKNTIUN  TU   UK  DRHCUlllKI)  IK. 


Aviiat  r('S|u«i'|s  ilif  |il:iiii(ifr's  invciilion  or 
iiii|>r()Vt'iiK'M'  dilU'is  IVoiii  wliiil  Iiad  liccii 
l)«'lort'  known  or  ust'd,  llm  paf  cut  is  voitl. 
Ija)iiji!oii  V.  A;  (iroot.,  1  I'a'nu",  207. — 
LiviNcsToN,  J.;  N.  Y.,    1HJ2. 

VI.  Till'  act  of  ITO.'J,  )$  ;J,  ri'ciiiirc'H 
that  till'  spccilicatioii  iimst  dcscrilu'  the 
invention  "•  in  sncli  full,  clear,  and  exact 
terms,"  as  to  distinLfiiisli  the  same  from 
all  tliinijs  licfore  known.  The  sjiecili- 
cation  has  two  ohjccts:  one,  to  make 
known  the  manner  of  coiistriictinL;  tlu! 
invention,  so  as  to  «'nalil(^  artisans  to 
make  and  use  it,  !uid  thus  to  give  the 
jiiiblie  the  full  Ix-nctit  (»f  the  discovery 
after  the  o.iiiiation  of  the  palcnt.  The 
other  ulijecl  is,  to  ywi  the  imhlic  in  pos- 
session ol"  what  the  party  claims  as  his 
own  invciilion,  so  as  to  ascertain  if  he 
claim  any  tliim^  that  is  in  common  nse, 
or  already  known,  and  to  {^uard  aijainst 
prejudice  or  injury  from  the  nse  of  an 
invention  which  the  party  m.-iy  other- 
wise innocently  snpoose  not  to  be  jiat- 
entcd.  J'h'diiK  v.  Jutlon,  7  Wheat.,  4^4. 
— SroiiY,  .1.;  Slip.  CH.,  1822. 

13.  A  speciiication  which  mixes  up 
the  new  and  the  old,  but  does  not  ex- 
])lain  Avhat  is  the  nature  or  limit  of  the 
invention  claimed,  catniot  be  sustained. 
IbUl,  4.14. 

14.  The  invention  cannot  bo  made 
out  and  shown  at  the  trial,  or  be  estab- 
lished l)y  comparing  the  invention  spe- 
cified in  the  patent  with  former  ones  in 
use.     IbUL,  434,  435. 

15.  Both  the  language  and  policy  of 
the  act  of  Congrtss  require,  that  the 
specification  should  be  dear,  plain,  and 
intelligible,  so  that  others  may  be  taught 
by  it  to  make  or  J;i  the  thing  for  which 
tlic  patent  is  granted.  The  object  of  the 
speciticalion  is  to  inforni  the  public,  af- 
ter the  expiration  of  the  term  for  which 
the  patented  is  granted,  what  the  inven- 


tion is;  and  it  ought  therefore  to  put 
the  public  in  possession  of  whatever  is 
necess.'iry  to  lh«  use  and  enjoynieat 
thereof.  JSulliotf/iv.  licdjivUl,  1  I'ifna. 
450.— Thompson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1825. 

1(1.  It  is  a  correct  rule  as  to  pulcniN 
that  if  the  speciiication  is  sniriciintly 
explicit  in  its  details  to  enable  a  skilful 
machinist  to  construct  the  jiatented  iwi- 
provt-ment  or  invention,  without  any 
other  aid,  it  is  not  to  be  considered  void 
because  some  of  the  minor  details  of  tlio 
machine  are  iu)t  set  forth  ut  large.  Jiur- 
rail  V.  Jeweti,  2  I'aige,  142.— Wal- 
woKTH,  Chan.;  N.  Y.,  1830. 

17.  A  patent  is  a  b.argain  with  tlio 
public,  in  which  the  same  rules  of  good 
faith  jn-evail  as  in  other  contracts,  ami 
if  the  disclosure  coimnnnicates  the  in- 
vention to  the  pnblic,  the  statute  is  sat- 
isfied. Whitney  v.  Einniett^  Bald.,  319. 
— Baldwin,  J. ;  Pa.,  1831. 

18.  As  the  English  statute  does  not 
recpiire  any  specification,  these  rules  and 
principles  are  m:ittcrs  of  judicial  con- 
struction, on  whicli  the  English  courts 
act  without  any  statutory  dire«'tion.  IJiit 
in  the  I'^nited  States  it  is  diflerent,  and 
the  law  is  more  explicit.  As  to  the 
specification,  nothing  is  left  to  construc- 
tion, as  to  its  re(piisites  or  jiurjioscs, 
both  being  so  clearly  defined,  .'uid  in 
such  a  manner,  as  to  leave  no  discretion 
in  the  courts  to  presume  what  was  in- 
tended, to  alter,  or  diminish.  Ibid, 
319,  320. 

19.  If  from  the  p.atent,  specification, 
drawings,  model,  and  old  machine,  clear 
ideas  are  conveyed  to  men  of  luecliani- 
cal  skill  in  the  subject  matter,  by  which 
they  could  nuike,  or  direct  the  making 
of  the  machine,  by  following  the  direc- 
tions given,  the  specification  is  good 
within  the  act  of  Congress.    Ibid,,  322. 

20.  The  patentee  is  bound  to  describe 


roforo  ti)  juit 
[  whiitcviT  is 

ul     IMljOVIlU'llt 

/t(7(/,  1  I'uiiu', 
Y.,  l«'2r). 
as  to  itiiloiitN, 
is    siliVic'u'iitly 
iiaMf  a  slull'iil 
i  itatcntiKl  iin- 
williDUt  any 
Misidcrc'd  vdiil 
r  (lot ails  of  tlui 
at  larj^i!.  Jlnr- 
',    142.— Wai,- 

buo. 

rjj;ain  with  llio 
e  ruk's  of  good 
'  contracts,  and 
iiiiicates  the  in- 
0  statuti!  is  siU- 
»//(,«,  I'.aia.,  310. 
i31. 

tatiitc  docs  not 
,  llieso  ruli's  and 
of  judicial  con- 
Knti;lish  courts 
y  direction.  But 
s  diilVrent,  and 
it.      As  to  the 
eft  to  construc- 
os  or  purjioscs, 
deliiu'd,  and  in 
,vo  IK)  discretion 
10  what  was  in- 
iiuinish.     Ibid, 

nt,  specification, 
1  niadiine,  clear 
nen  of  inechani- 
natter,Ly  w'.iich 
rect  the  making 
owing  the  direc- 
ication  is  good 
ess.  Ib'uU-m. 
ound  to  describe 


SIMXIKIC'ATION,  B. 


oau 


now    INVKNTIOK   TO   IIU   lllMCUIUKI)   IN. 


with  reasonable  certainty,  in  what  his 
iiiveiilion  el>llsi.^ts,  and  what  his  partie- 
iiliir  claiin  is.  iiiit  he  is  not  lioiiiid  to 
use  any  precise  form  of  words.  It  is 
hiilliiient  if  the  eonrt  can  (dearly  aseer- 
^jiiii,  liy  liiir  iiilerprelaliun,  what  he  in- 
tends to  elaiui,  and  what  his  language 
truly  inil>orts,  even  though  the  expres- 
tiionn  ."H'o  inaccurately  or  imperfectly 
drawn.  Wi/cth  v.  Utom;  1  Story,  2Ht(, 
i;v(7. — SrouY,  .1.;  Mass,  1810. 

lit.  The  speeilication  must  contain 
nasoiiahle  certainty — must  describe  the 
machine  so  as  to  enable  a  |»erson  skilled 
iu  the  const  rue!  ion  of  miudunes,  tobuild 
il — liul  it  need  not  b(!  so  clear  as  to  be 
understood  byaperson  wholly  unskilled 
in  the  art.  lirooAs  v.  Jfirk/itU,  3  Ahv 
hcan,  2(>0.— McLkan,  .1. ;  Ohio,  lH4:t. 

22.  Hut  the  patentee  need  not  state 
of  what  material  every  j)art  of  the  ma- 
cliino  should  be  made.  The  princii)lo  is 
the  same,  whether  the  p.arts  are  com- 
iiosed  of  wood  or  metal.     ///!</,,  2()I. 

23.  The  object  of  the  law  in  requir- 
ing a  full,  clear,  and  cvact  descripti,:!! 
(if  the  thing  patented,  is  twofold:  1st, 
as  the  grant  gives  an  exclusive  right, 
that  the  nature  and  ext(Mit  of  it  may  be 
imdcr^tood;  and  2d,  that  when  the  ex- 
ilusivt  right  ceases,  from  the  descrip- 
tion the  nnudiine  nuiy  be  constructed. 
Bmoh  V.  Jiick-inU,  3  McTiCJUi,  441, 
442.~.AbiiKAiV,  J. ;  Ohio,  1S44. 

24.  If  the  invention  is  not  so  de- 
st'ribed,  as  to  be  known,  in  the  language 
of  the  statute,  from  every  other  thing, 
the  patent  is  void.     J  hid.,,  443. 

25.  The  speeilication  must  bo  com- 
lilcto.  No  delects  can  be  obviated  by  ex- 
traneous evidence  at  the  trial.  Ibid.,,  444. 

20.  The  utmost  precision  in  the  de- 
scription of  a  nuvchino  is  not  essential. 
Parts  of  machinery,  and  proc(isses  gen- 
erally known,  need  not  be  described. 


Nor  is  it  essenli;d  to  stale  the  propor 
tion  ite  piU'ls  of  a  niacdiiiie,  nor  tlu!  ve- 
lociiy  of  its  operations.     Tin-  size  or  ve-' 
locily  makes  no  dillerence  in  the  princi- 
ple,     //>/(/.,  44  7,  44H. 

!(!7.  The  speeiticalioii  a?id  dniwingof 
a  patent,  nnist  be  so  clear,  full,  juid  exact, 
as  to  enable  one  skilled  in  the  art  to 
which  it  pertains,  to  make  :md  use  the 
invention.  It  is  not  enough,  if  some 
very  skilful  artisan  could  make  and  uso 
it,  but  persons  of  ordinary  skill  must 
be  able  to  do  so;  niu.st  be  able  not 
only  to  construct,  but  to  use  the  ma- 
•  diine  for  a  useful  purpose.  Lipinm'ittt 
V.  luUy,  1  West.  Law  .lour.,  rtW. — 
luviN,  .1.;  I'a.,  1H44. 

2K.  Old  and  W(dl-knowu  macdiinery, 
with  which  the  new  contrivance  is  to  be 
connected,  need  not  bedescril)ed  in  the 
speeilication,  or  d(dineated  in  the  draw- 
ing, when  no  change  in  their  forms  or 
proportions  enters  into  the  new  inven- 
tion. I'Jniersoii  v.  I/ot/;/,  2  Dlatclif,  9. 
— IJurrs,.!.;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

2t).  If,  however,  the  description  is  un- 
certain and  obscrre,  as  to  what  was 
meant,  and  what  is  in  lact  tlit!  novelty, 
that  it  cannot  he  determined  whether 
the  improvement  (H)nsists  in  the  combi- 
nation of  the  whole,  or  of  all  the  parts, 
or  only  of  some  of  them,  and  of  which 
— or  of  an  invention  of  sonu?,  ami  if  so, 
of  which — the  uncertainty  will  be  fiital, 
and  the  i^atentee  will  be  under  the  ne- 
cessity of  making  a  new  specification, 
setting  forth  his  claim  witli  greater  cer- 
tainty, accuracy  and  clearness,  and  dis- 
claiming all  not  new.  Ilovey  v.  iStevens, 
3  Wood.  &,  ^Miii.,  30-32.— WooouuKV, 
J.;  Mass.,  184G. 

30.  The  patentee  must  describe  his  in- 
vention with  reasonable  certainty.  Un- 
less this  is  done,  the  public  are  unable  to 
know  whether  they  violate  t!ie  patent  or 


^4^i 


i'  ■;: 


"rrf  : 


'ISR^Jl 


"'     '»r*'  %••* 


'^Wi 


■w^m 


tidi 


SPECIFICATION,  B. 


ItUW   INVKNTIUN   TU  UK  UKHCIUBKD  IN. 


NW 


not,  and  are  also  iiiihIiU',  whim  the  Uiriu 
expires,  (o  make  iiiachiiieseDrreetly,  and 
derive  the  |irt>|ier  advaiitaj^es  fVoiii  (he 
patent.  Ihiroll  v.  Jiroirn,  1  Wood,  it 
Min.,  SO,  57. — Wt)oi)iiUKY,  J.;  Mass., 
1B45. 

;U.  Hut  a  patent  will  be  held  valid, 
if  the  invention  is  deserihed  with  no 
nmeh  elearne.sH  and  certainty,  that  other 
maehiues  could  readily  be  made  IVoni 
it  by  nieehanies  aecpiainted  with  tlu' 
subject.      IhuL,  57. 

3ii.  The  object  of  the  provisions  of  the 
statute  retiuirinj^an  inventor  to  describe 
his  invention  in  .as  fidi,  clear,  and  exact 
terms  as  to  enable  a  skilful  person  to  con- 
struct it,  is  twofold:  1,  that  when  the  term 
has  expired,  and  the  invention  b  onies 
public  property,  such  means  of  i  nia- 
tion  may  be  accessible  through  the  Pat- 
ent Otlice  as  will  enable  others  to  avail 
themselves  of  its  benefits;  and  2,  that 
while  the  patent  is  in  force  others  may 
be  informed  of  the  precise  claim  of  the 
p.'itentee,  and  not  it^noranlly  infrins^e  his 
exclusive  rights.  Parker  v.  iStiles,  5 
McLean,  55. — LEAVirr,  J.,  Ohio,  1849. 

33.  JJy  the  patent  laws  the  inventor 
is  not  to  be  protected  unless  he  de- 
scribes plainly  and  fully  what  ho  has 
done,  so  tlnit  the  public  may  copy  or 
imitate,  and  use  the  invention,  after  his 
l)atent  expires.  This  is  the  considera- 
tion for  the  exclusive  use  during  the 
])eriod  of  the  patent,  and  having  this 
prevents  the  patentee  from  claiming 
afterward  more  than  he  had  invented 
when  Iiis  patent  issued.  Smith  v.  Down- 
iHff,^iS. — WoouuL'UY,  J. ;  JMass.,  1850. 

34.  And  what  he  does  not,  or  cer- 
tainly what  in  the  misty  future  he  can- 
not describe,  he  must  be  presumed  not 
to  have  invented.     Ibid. 

35.  All  that  the  law  requires  in  re- 
spect to  clearness  in  the  specilicutiou  is, 


that  it  should  bo  clear  enough  to  ho 
miderstood  by  ordinary  mecrh.'uiics,  aiul 
that  the  thing  described  could  be  niailu 
from  it,  considering  the  specification  as 
H  whole,  and  adverting  to  the  drawiii<r^ 
on  file.  J/oi/i/  V.  JiJmerson,  11  IIoxv. 
tJOO. — WooKiuriiv,  J.;  Sup.  (It.,  1850. 
30.  As  a  previous  condition  to  the 
granting  or  issuing  of  every  patent,  the 
applicant  must  set  forth  in  his  spcciticii- 
tion  a  true,  full,  and  clear  account  and 
description  of  his  invention,  showinif 
the  contrivances,  mode,  method,  man- 
ner, or  means  by  which  the  result  is  to 
be  produced,  and  what  his  invnition  is 
wliat  he  claims  to  be  new,  ami  what  he 
admits  to  be  old.  Ycarsley  v.  Brook- 
afield,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mouskli.,  J.; 
D.  €.,  1H53. 

37.  Whoever  discovers  that  a  certain 
useful  result  will  be  produced  in  anv 
art,  machine,  manufacture,  or  coMiposi- 
tion  of  matter,  by  the  nse  of  certain 
means,  is  entitled  to  a  patent  for  it,  ]iro- 
vided  lie  specifies  the  means  used  so 
fully  and  exactly  that  a  skilful  person 
can,  by  using  the  means  specified,  witli- 
out  addition  or  subtraction,  produce  the 
residt  described.  If  this  cannot  bo  done, 
the  patent  is  void ;  if  it  can  be,  the  pal- 
cut  gives  the  exclusive  right  to  use 
the  means  specified,  and  nothing  more. 
O'lieilly  v.  Horse,  15  llow.,  119.— Ta- 
NKY,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup,  Ct.,  1853. 

38.  lie  who  discovers  that  a  certain 
useful  result  will  be  produced  in  any  ail, 
machine,  manufacture,  or  composition  of 
matter,  by  the  use  of  certain  means,  is 
entitled  to  :i  patent  for  such  discoveiy, 
provided  he  sets  forth  in  his  specifiea- 
tion  the  means  he  uses  to  produce  snch 
useful  result,  so  that  any  one  skilled  in 
the  art,  <fec.,  can  by  using  the  means  spe- 
cified, without  any  addition  or  subtrac- 
tion from  them,  produce  precisely  the 


Sl'KCIKICATION,  l\. 


0»3 


cnouj^li  to  1)0 
imu^liiuru's,  aiul 
,  couM  1)1!  iimdu 

pj)ecili(!:ili()ii  iis 
to  the  drawiiij^s 
;•«(>/*,    11    1I()\V., 
Sui).  C't.,  1850. 
ioiulilion  to  tlio 
ivcry  imtciit,  thu 
I  in  his  spi'ciflcii- 
oar  account  iiml 
entioii,  Hlio\viii<^ 
0,  method,  man- 
li  the  result  is  to 
;  his  invtntion  /.i, 
lew,  and  what  Im 
mrslcy  v.  Brook- 
.) — MousKix,  J.; 

rers  that  fi  certain 
produced  in  any 
jture,  or  coniposi- 
de  use  of  certain 
patent  for  it,  ])ro- 
e  means  used  so 
,t  a  skilful  person 
ms  specified,  with- 
iction,  produce  tlie 
lis  cannot  he  done, 
it  can  he,  tlio  pat- 
jive   riglit  to  use 
and  nothing  more. 
5  ITow.,  119.— Ta- 

1853. 
ers  tliat  a  certain 
•oducedinanyart, 
!,  or  composition  of 
f  certain  means,  is 
"or  stich  discovery, 
■th  in  his  specitieii- 
OS  to  produce  suck 
any  one  skilled  iu 
sing  the  means  spe- 
.ddition  or  subtrac- 
duce  precisely  the 


HOW    INVKNTION   TU  BB   UUICUIUKI)  IN. 


result  lio  (lescMihcs.  If  this  cannot  he 
dune  hy  Jhe  int-aiis  he  describes  the  pat- 
ent is  void.  Ainei'.  Pin  Co.  v.  Oakiulli: 
JUhCo.,  H  IJIatciif.,  U)2;  3  A.  L.  R.,  137. 
^■Inokusoli.,  J.;  Ct.,  1854. 

30.  Tlie  clearness  tlu;  law  requires  in 
a  specilicalion  must  he  such  as  will  dis- 
tinguish the  thinjjf  patented  from  nil 
otiiers  previously  known,  and  wliicli  will 
t'nahle  a  person  skilleil  in  I  he  art  or  sci- 
ence of  which  it  is  a  branch,  or  with 
Avhich  it  is  nearly  connected,  to  con- 
struct the  thing  s|)(>(rific(l.  'Jeeae  v. 
J'/u'/])x,  1  jNlcAlIis.,  49. — MoAi.LisTKit, 
J.;  Cal.,  18.55. 

40.  As  the  patent  laws  of  the  irnitod 
States  grant  the  patentee  a  monopoly, 
jind  not  only  award  damages  but  inilict 
penalties  for  the  violation  of  exclusive 
privilges,  it  recp.ires  the  invention  to  be 
80  described  in  the  specifications,  that 
one  ac(puiinted  with  the  art  or  mami- 
facture  to  which  it  relates  may  not  only 
understand  the  invention,  but  be  able 
by  following  the  specification,  with  the 
aid  of  the  drawing,  to  make  the  thing 
which  is  the  subjiict  of  the  ))atent. 
Winteritiute  v.  Jtedhiyton,  3IS. — Wil- 
son, J.;  Ohio,  1850. 

41.  The  patentee  may  l)e  regarded  as 
a  purchaser  from  the  ))nblic,  being botmd 
to  80  connnunicate  his  secret  by  specifi- 
cation, drawings,  and  models,  that  it 
shall  he  successfully  available  to  the 
whole  couimuiuty  at  the  expiration  of 
the  patent.    Ibid. 

42.  The  patentees,  to  make  their  title 
good,  must  describe  fully  and  clearly 
their  whole  invention,  and  the  method 

'  of  using  it.  If  any  thing  material  in 
respect  to  its  construction  or  working  is 
Glutted  in  their  specification,  they  lose 
all  claim  to  the  exclusive  use  of  their 
discovery.  CaiT  v.  Rice,  3  or  4  Blatchf 
-Betis,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1856. 


43.  It  is  a  settled  rule  of  law  that 
i\w  specification  need  not  describe  that 
which  is  within  the  ordinary  kncwl^dyc 
of  any  workman  having  a  competent 
knowledge  of  tho  work,  who  may  bo 
emi)loyed  to  put  up  the  apparatus,  or 
construct  the  macdnne.  -Piif/e  v.  J'lrri/, 
MS.— Wit-KiNs,  J.;  Mich.,  1857. 

44.  A  patent  may  bo  considered  in 
the  light  of  a  deed  from  tho  govern- 
ment, the  consideration  of  whi(di  is  tho 
invention  specified  ;  and  the  patentee  is 
bound  to  connnunicate  it  by  so  full, 
clear,  and  exact  a  description,  that  it 
shall  be  within  the  con  prehension  of 
the  ])ublic  at  the  expiration  of  the  pat- 
ent, for  at  that  period  his  invention  be- 
con»es  piiblic  j)ro])erly.     Iftid. 

45.  The  specification  is  intended  to 
teach  the  public  the  improvement  pat- 
ented: it  must  fully  disclose  the  secret ; 
must  give  the  best  mode  known  to  the 
inventor ;  and  cont.ain  nothing  defective, 
or  that  would  mislead  artists  of  compe- 
tent skill  in  the  particular  manufacture. 
Ibid. 

40.  A  Avitness,  in  order  to  be  coni|)e- 
tent  to  testify  as  to  Avhether  a  specifica- 
tion contains  a  sufficient  description  of 
the  invention,  must  be  one  skilled  in  the 
art :  one  not  so  skilled  is  not  a  fit  person 
to  determine  as  to  the  sufliciency  of  the 
description.  Poppenheiistn  v.  iV.  Y. 
O.  P.  Comb  Co.,  4  Ulatchf. — Inokkboll, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1858. 

47.  If  the  specification  does  not  clear- 
ly specify  and  point  out  the  improve 
ment  or  combination  which  is  claimed 
as  tho  invention  of  the  applicant,  a  pat- 
ent cannot  be  granted.  Davis,  Ejn 
parte,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Mkbuick,  J. ; 
U.  C,  1859. 

48.  The  object  and  design  of  the  law 
requiring  the  description  of  the  inven- 
tion to   be  full,  clear,  and  exact,  is, 


K4mM^' 


630 


SI'KCIFICATIOX,  C,  D. 


AMIItUl'ITY  AM)  t'ONOIALMIMT  IN;   KrrKCT  OF. 


thill  the  public  iiiiiy  bo  aibiioiiisliiMl  uf 
jirt'ciscly  what  tho  piitenti'o  chiiiuH,  ho 
thill  it  may  iiut  btf  i;^ii<»fantly  iiilViii!^('il, 
aii<l  also  that  whi'ii  thu  cxfliisivo  ri;^ht 
has  i'X|iiri'(l,  the  public!  may  bo  at  no 
loss  to  know  what  tho  nature  of  tho  in- 
vention was,  so  as  to  nuiko  it  valuablo 
and  practical.  Jiidsoa  v.  Muore,  MS. 
— Lkaviit,  .J.;  Ohio,  1800. 

40.  Wlu'thcr  there  is  n  suflkMent  spec- 
ification or  not  for  such  purpose,  is  u 
(piestion  of  fact  for  the  Jin'y.     I/>i(f. 

60.  The  ik'scription  need  not,  how- 
ever, be  so  particular  ns  to  dispense 
■with  tho  exercise  of  skill  and  judgment 
on  tho  part  of  the  mechanic.  In  carry- 
ing out  an  invention,  the  exercise  of 
some  skill  and  judgment  on  the  part  of 
the  mechanic  calleil  to  construct  it,  will 
alicays  bo  re((uired.  Sonu'thinj^  must 
necessarily  be  left  to  him.     Ibid. 

51.  In  deciding;  whether  the  subject 
of  an  invention  is  set  forth  in  a  clear 
and  intelliifible  manner,  so  that  one  can 
understand  its  precise  character,  it  is 
necessary  to  take  the  whole  specifica- 
lion  together,  not  simply  tho  summary 
at  the  conclusion,  but  the  entire  p.aper. 
Tho  single  point  is  whether,  taking  the 
■whole  specilication  together,  there  is  a 
subject  set  forth  and  described  which 
in  itself  is  patentable,  and  whether  it  is 
so  clearly  described  that  it  can  be  un- 
derstood, and  the  precise  character  of 
the  invention  known.  >/udson  v.  Coj^e, 
MS. — Leaviit,  J.;  Ohio,  18G0. 

C    Ambiguity  in,  and  Effect  of. 
See  Ambiguity. 

D.    Coxcealment  in,  and  Effect  of. 

1.  It  is  a  question  for  a  jury  whether 
the  specification  contain  the  whole  truth 


relative  to  tho  discovery,  and  if  not 
whether  it  has  been  concealeil  with  a 
view  to  deceive.    Jicuf^en  \,  JCiinowrs, 
1  Wash.,  171.— Washinoton,  J.;  l»a., 
1804. 

2.  As  to  tho  materiality  of  the  tliiii'' 
coturealed,  tho  (|uestion  is,  could  an  ar- 
tist, after  the  patentee's  right  is  expind 
construct  a  machine  by  looking  at  tho 
specification.  This  is  a  <piesti(ju  for  the 
jiiy.     Ilnd.,  171. 

;j,  IJnder  g  0  of  tho  .act  of  179;},  a 
delect  or  concealment  in  a  specification, 
in  order  to  make  the  patent  invaiiil, 
must  appear  to  have  been  made  for  the 
purpose  of  tleceiving  the  public.  Wldt- 
ucy  V.  Cartt  r,  Fessenden  on  Pat.,  2tl 
ed.,  i:t9. — JoiiNSO.V,  J.;  (leo.,  1800. 

4.  Any  matters  not  disclosed  in  a 
patent,  to  invalidate  it  tnust  appear  to 
have  been  concealed  for  the  purpose  of 
deceiving  the  public.  I'dr/c  v.  Littk,  3 
Wash.,  108. — Wasiiingiox,  J.;  Ta,, 
1813. 

5.  Under  §  0  of  the  act  of  1 70:i,  a  de- 
fect or  concealtnent  in  a  specification,  to 
avoiil  a  patent,  must  arise  from  an  in- 
tention to  deceivo  tho  public.  Whitte- 
more  v.  Cutter,  1  Gall.,  437. — Stoky, 
J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

G.  Under  tho  act  of  1 793,  though  the 
specification  is  materially  defective,  it 
will  not  invalidate  tho  patent,  unless  the 
jury  are  satisfied  that  tho  concealment 
of  tho  circumstances  not  described  was 
intended  to  deceive  the  public.  Gray 
v.  James,  Pet.,  C.  C,  401. — Washing- 
ton,  J.;  Pa.,  1817. 

7.  The  degree  of  evidence  required 
to  prove  such  fraudulent  intention,  rests 
with  the  jury.  Positive  evidence  is  not 
necessary.  The  intention  may  he  pre- 
sumed from  circumstances,  as  if  the  parts 
concealed  are  so  essential  and  so  obvi- 
ously necessary  to  be  disclosed,  that  no 


W-: 


1793,  thoujfh  tlio 
ally  defective,  it 
piitent,  unless  the 

the  coneeiiiincnl 
not  described  was 
he  public.     Gray 

401. — Washing- 


STATKS,  I'OWKflS  OF. 


C37 


POWBM  or,    IM   RMI'KCT  TO   PATKNTH. 


inc'L-Iiauie  skilled  in  (be  art  eould  retison- 
nl»|v  l>i'  expeeti'd  •'!  imderstuiid  tlioHid)- 
jcct  HO  !is  tVniii  flie  dfsciiptiDfi  ^iveii  ti> 
iii:ik(*  the  niacbiiie.  liut  Kueli  a  pre- 
empt i<>"  would  bo  we.'ikeiu'd  by  the 
U'stiinoiiy  of  sueh  skilfid  persons,  that 
tlii'v  could  not  hesitate  iu  siipplyiiijjf  the 
oinis>ii>ns.     //>/<A,  402. 

8.  It'  the  specification  is  not  so  full, 
clear,  an<l  exact,  as  to  t'U.ablo  n  skilful 
ijcrson  to  compound  and  make  the  same, 
this,  \mder  >5  0  of  the  act  of  170M,  docs 
not  avoid  tin  patent,  \udess  the  defect- 
ive concealment  or  descri[»tion  has  been 
made  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  the 
imblic.  LmcvU  v.  Lcwin,  1  Mas.,  18!), 
190.— Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  I.si7. 

E.    Dki'ects  i\,  now  niiMKniKD. 

See  jMisTAKKs;  IIeissuk  of  Patent. 


STATES,   POWERS   OF. 

1.  The  power  of  Congress  under  arti- 
cle 1,§  8  of  the  constitution,  in  seciu'ing 
to  authors  and  inventors  the  exclusive 
right  to  their  respective  writings  and 
discoveries,  is  limited  to  autliors  and  in- 
ventors only,  and  does  not  embrace  in- 
troducers, who  are  not  the  authors  or 
inventors.  TJinngston  v.  Van  Iiigen^ 
9  John.,  560,  500,  582. — Yatks,  Thomp- 
son, and  Kknt,  JJ.  ;  N.  Y.,  1812. 

2.  But  such  clause  does  not  prevent 
the  several  states  from  exercising  the 
power  of  securing  to  persotis  introduc- 
ing useful  inventions  the  exclusive  bene- 
fit of  such  inventions  for  a  limited  pe- 
riod.   J6«?.,  560,  566,  582. 

3.  Nor  does  it  take  away  from  the 
states  the  power  to  enlarge  within  their 
jurisdiction  the  privilege,  by  extending 
the  term  of  the  patent  or  monopoly, 


beyond  the  term  allowed  by  the  acts  of 
Congress.     If)l(l.,  fiHl. 

4.  \  st.'ite  cannot  take  away  from  an 
individual  his  patent  right,  but  if  an 
author  or  inventor  sln)ul<l,  instead  of  re- 
sorting to  the  net  of  Congress,  apply  to 
the  legislature  of  a  state  for  an  exclu- 
sive  right  to  his  jirodnction,  there  is 
nothing  to  hinder  th((  stale  granting  it, 
though  the  operation  of  the  grant  would 
bo  conlined  to  the  limits  of  the  state. 
ffiiif.,  581. 

5.  So  a  patentee  may  h.ive  the  time 
of  liis  monopoly  extended  by  the  legis- 
lature of  any  state  beyond  the  term 
granted  under  the  acts  of  Congress. 
//>/(/.,  581. 

0.  Nor  does  that  clause  of  the  con- 
stitution operate  as  an  exclusion  of  all 
state  legislative  authority  ami  interfer- 
ence to  aid  and  protect  the  rights  ob- 
tahied  under  the  general  government, 
if  the  power  is  exercised  in  harmony 
with  ju>d  in  subordination  to  the  supe- 
rior power  of  Congress.  Such  power 
is  not  gr.anted  by  exclusive  words  to  the 
United  States,  nor  prohibited  to  the  in- 
dividual states ;  it  is  therefore  a  concur- 
rent power,  which  may  be  exercised  by 
the  states,  in  a  variety  of  cases,  without 
any  infringement  of  the  congressional 
power.  Ibid.,  507,  581. — (Tiiompsox, 
Kent,  JJ.) 

7.  The  power  of  Congress  is  only  to 
ascertain  and  define  the  rights  of  prop- 
erty in  the  invention  or  work ;  it  does 
not  extend  to  regulating  the  use  of  it. 
Tins  is  exclusively  of  local  cognizance. 
Such  property,  must  be  used  and  enjoy- 
ed within  each  state  according  to  the 
laws  of  such  state.    Ibid.,  581. 

8.  The  grant  by  the  legislature  of  a 
state  of  an  exclusive  privilege  to  an  in- 
vention for  a  linaited  time,  does  not  im- 
ply that  at  the  expiration  of  the  period 


*^9 


•<■'  h.1.'     < 


\^yk*' 


mn 


STATITKS.  roXSTUrrriOX  OK;  a. 

i-orrHKMir  Ai'vu.     ait  ov  nixi,  )|  I. 


tlit^  iiiviM\ti<tii  nIwiII  t)i>('oiiio  |iiiMti<  pri)|i- 
•Tlv.  'I'lio  hi. Ill*  iiiiiv  rnicw  (In-  i;r!mt 
III  tlio  (Mill  of  tlii>  pt'riiiil,  lit-  n>t'ti><«*  In 
tio  HO.  h'l'iDui  V.  /''iifnn,  IN'!.,  ('.  I'., 
;I!I7.— W  \siiiNt;ro\,  .?. ;   I'a.,  IHKI. 

0.  CoiitraclH  in  rfl:ilii)ii  Id  piilt'iili'il 
ni:u'liiii«'s,  :iri'  rt>)j[iil:ilfil  liy  llii>  laus  of 
till' Hovcrnl  Hiah'H.  Wi/son  v.  Smuf/niu/, 
10  IIdw.,  IH).— T.\\KY,t'li.  .].;  Sii|..  I'l., 
is'.o. 

I(».  \f  tln>  ri}j;lit  of  llu>  itiin-liuscr  of 
n  p.'ilcntt'd  niat'liini'  is  iiirriiiuci],  lit>iuii>«t 
st'rk  hmIivhs  ill  lln»  coiirls  nC  llic  slHlt<», 
iliul:it'ft»rilii!;xli>lli('ir  laws.  'I'liniiacliiiu' 
is  |u'rsi»iial  |>ro|>('rl y,  ami  is  not  prolt'cl 
cil  by  tlu>  laws  ol"  ilu>  I'nilod  Slatt's, 
Itui  l)y  tlu»  laws  of  llic  slalt>  in  wlii<'h  it 
i.s  silnaU'il.  I{li>,»iiir\.  .^/ri^inirini,  I  i 
How.,  .'t.'>0.  'I'ankv,  Ch.  .1.;  Sup.  (M., 
iS.-rJ.      C/inlfn'    v.     /{osf.    /{./fhnf  To., 

'.".'  ll«)w.,  J-':!.— ('i.iKi-oiM»,.l. ;  Slip.  Ct., 
18:)l). 

1 1.  I'r('\ions  (o  llit>  acfs  of  Ponj^rcsH, 
many  ot"  the  slah's  had  cMMcist'd  llu' 
power  of  irianlini;  ••xrlusiNc  privilcp-s, 
williiii  llu'ir  ivsporlivo  liTritoi-ifs,  loiii- 
v«MilorK  aiul  iiiliodnt'iTs  of  invtMilions. 
l*ro\isioii  was  inatli'  in  llic  at'l  of  ITO.'I, 
g  T,  lor  siu'li  oases.     L^'^'"'-! 


SrATUTI'.S. 
A.    CorTnioiiT  Arrs r>:ts 

II.      TaTEXT    .Vf'TS. 

1.  Power  of  Coiiijres.^  h  enart fl'17 

2.  /' '/)■(•;/  iiiid  Inknt  of. C 17 

3.  GfnfraJ  or  Vuhlic  Arts 010 

4.  Spi'riiil  or  I'rivate  Acts. 

a.  OiMu-mlly , , (17(1 

b.  Act  f(ir  KiUefof  Tlioin:!!' Uliuu-luird l>77 

C.  Aot  for  Ucllof  of  Oliver  Kviinn (ITS 

d.  Act  for  Ucliof  of  William  Woodworth 6T9 

A.    CorvRiGiiT  Acts. 
The  notes  here  inserted  under  the  dif- 


fcriMif  soclioiin  of  ill*  Ni'VtM'id  ticli.  am 
of  a  ut'iit'iul  fliararttT, or  lia\f  iiioit  imr 
lictil;\f  rrft'reiH'e  to  llu»  i'<>nMtriiiH,,ti  dj' 
llii>  slaliili'S  tlii*tiis«flv«<H  lliaii  In  t||,.ir 
iipfiliriifiDH  ,'  and  siit'li  imlcH  .ate  cin. 
lined  lo  lliose  seel  inns  as  |o  wliirli  Ihrio 
liiive  lieeii  direcl  adjtidicalions. 

For  llio  Ncvenil  e<ipyrij;li|  ai'is  in  full 
and  willi  inori>  cxlrndetl  notes  tlieii'to 
see  AiTKNinx.      I  /'/</.  I 

Aer  or  17U0.     CitAf.  10. 
Sfiti<m  1. 

1.  ( 'opyti'^lit  was  forinetly  eoiisiilrn.,] 
to  lie  foiindeil  on  eoininon  law,  Inii  (>;||| 
now  onl\  lie  vieweil  iis  p:iii  of  mir  Ntal- 
iile  law.  Cinjton  v.  Sfo)i,\  '2  I'jiin,. 
.•is;i.  -TiioMi'soN,  .1.;  N.  v.,  Injs. 

'.  The  olijeel  of  the  tiets  of  ( 'oii'^'rcss 
seeiiriiiLj  tt>  iiiilhors  the  exclusive  \'\i^]\[ 
lo  their  \\ritiiiL;s,  was  the  proniotion  of 
seietiee.      //>it/.,  'M)'2. 

:t.  'The  privile^x*'  »>l' mi  aiillior  In  .m 
eveliisive  sale  tif  his  works  for  a  liiiii|(>,[ 
iinnilier  of  years,  allhoiiL^h  .a  inoii<i|iiiIv, 
is  nol  so  in  tin*  odious  ineanint;  of  tjio 
lerni  ;  lint  is  luit  a  proper  rew:ird  lur  liis 
lalior  provitled  liy  law,  and  to  wliich  liu 
18  as  iiiiK'h  entitled  m  to  the  eNt^liisivi' 
enjoyiiieiit  of  any  other  kiml  of  pnipcr- 
ly.  /Ihnit  V.  I\it(,n,  2  P.aiiie,  ;i!i:i.- 
'riioMi'soN,  .1,;   N.  v.,  IHJH. 

I.  The  "copyrii^hl"  reeoujnized  liy 
ihis  act,  anil  which  is  intctideil  to  \w 
protecled,  is  presnnied  to  lie  the  rii,'lil 
of  property  which  an  uiithor  has,  at 
eoniinon  law,  in  his  inaiiiiscript.  Such 
jirolection  is  given  iiH  well  to  iMiob 
piililished  as  to  in:iniiscri|it  ciiimcs. 
Whatton  V.  Pctrr.%  8  Pel.,  001.— Mc- 
LicAN,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  18:t4. 

5.  Congress,  in  passing  I  ho  .act  of 
1700,  did  not  legislate  in  reference  to 
existing  rights.     Instead  of  sanctioning 


STATHTHS,  CONSTIIUCTI'ION  OF>  A. 


6A0 


pvcrnl  noti.  nrp 

liiixr  limn-  jmr 

•ottHtriifflon  (if 

«   ticiii    (<•  <lu'tr 

«« 1 1)  wliii'li  tlu'iu 
t'iilioiis. 

ri^ilil  iKtH  ill  lull, 
>il  nnti'N  tliort'lo, 


hui'.  IC>. 


nu'ily  I'tiiisiilfriMl 
unit  !:i\v,  Itiil  cnii 
I  |»:»rt  «troiir  hIiU- 

Sfi>iii\  '2   I'liiiu', 
N.  Y.,  IHJS. 
'  Mfis  ol"  l'i)ii;^n'ss 
If  cxcliiHivo  I'mlil 

tlu'  |ir()iii<>tii>n  (if 

■  ail  audmr  to  ;iu 

(irks  lor  a  limitcil 

iij^li  a  iiii)iin|iuly, 

in»'aiiiii;j;  of  tlic 

)(>r  rt'wartl  Tor  lii^ 

,  ami  to  vvliii'Ii  In; 

IH  to  ill*'  t'NflllMVl' 

1-  kiiitl  ol"  jtn.iH'r- 
,  '2   I'aiuc,  :»•:..- 

,   \H'2H. 

is  iiiU'inif"!  to  1)0 
,1  to  lu'  tlio  vi|,'lil 
ail  autlmr  lias,  at 
manuscript.    Sucli 

lis  well   to  l)ooks 
lainisrript    ('"F^. 

8  IVl.,  0(51— Mc- 
lH;t4. 

:issiii<;  llio  ^^'^  0^ 
ito  in  roleronce  to 
tead  of  Banctioning 


(MPTHKIIIT    kil'H,       AtT   Of    lltIO,    (*,))    3,   4.      AITT  Of    INO},    )(    I. 


nn  I'liHtiiig  right  ,  it  crt'uttnl  it.    J/n'if., 

(Ill  I. 

I).  Ill  tli«>  riiit*<il  Siati'M  iiti  aiitlinr  ran 
Iiiivi'  11"  r\<'liisivi«  pritpnl y  or  cojij  rii^lil 
ill  lii'4  iMihli-^lii'tl  |iroiliii>lioii  «>\<'i'|i|  iin- 
ilcr  till'  Ihwh  Dl'Coiij^ri'SM,     //»/</.,  Oti'j. 

7,  A  |M>rsoii  cannot.  Iiiivc  an  oxcliHivc 
ri"lit  or  copyright  in  a  laltcl,  as  it  is  not 
•I  liook,  williin  tiic  pro\  isions  of  tlic 
hl:iliitc.  CijfWn  V.  ilnnifon,  \  Mcl.caii, 
f,l7.  -M»I,K.VN,  .1.;  Intl.,  IHIil. 

I.  Tin'  provisions  of  this  Kcction, 
vhii'li  rctpiirc  the  author  to  piililish  the 
title  (if  his  hook  in  a  newspaper,  iiiul  to 
deliver  a  copy  of  the  work  itself  to  llie 
Se.  retaiy  ol'  State,  are  iiii'rely  ilireelory, 
mill  constitiite  no  pari,  of  the  essential 
riMmixiles  for  seciirintx  the  I'opyrij^jht. 
Mr/ioh  V.  lii«jijliH,'.\  Day,  IT.H.  - Cuui- 
AM,  ('(.,    IHOM. 

'j.  The  piihlic.atioii  in  the  newspaper 
is  inteiideil  as  lej^jil  notice  of  the  rij^hts 
si'Ciiieil  to  till'  author,  Itiil  is  not  neces 
silly  where  actual  iioli<"e  is  l)roiifi;ht,  home 
(iillie  party.      A/;/<A,  ir»H. 

;i.  I'liiler  this  seel  ion  a  proprietor  can 
anjiiirc  no  title  to  a  copyriLcht  for  I  ho 
term  of  the  lirst  fourteen  years,  unless 
ho  shall  deposit,  in  the  clerk's  oHiee  a 
iniiited  copy  of  till'  title  of  the  book. 
Ktrrr  V.  rWc,  4  Wash.,  400.— Wasii- 
ixiiToN,  .1.;  I 'a-,  IH'24. 

I.  Hut  the  condition  upon  which  the 
liropiietor  is  to  be  entitled  to  the  bene- 
fit of  iho  act  cannot  be  cxlendcd  to  the 
ri'(|uisiti()ii  contained  in  the  last  siti- 
ti'iioe  of  that  section,  to  publish  a  I'opy 
of  the  record  of  the  title,  as  prescribed 
Ihorein.— //>•<(?.,  490. 

5.  If  the  title  of  an  autlior  dependo<l 
upon  the  act  of  1790,  it  would  be  coni- 
plote,  provided   ho    had    deposited    a 


printed  copy  of  the  title  of  the  hook  in 
the  clerk'rt  oHlce,  aM  direcled  by  }{  ;i  ; 
and  the  publication  of  a  copy  of  the 
same  wmild  only  be  necessary  to  eii:dile 
him  to  sue  for  the  forfeitures  created  liy 
that  Ncctioii.      //>/(/.,  IIK). 

f^lion  4, 

I.  The  copy  of  a  bonk  to  be  deliv- 
ered to  llie  Secretary  of  Stale  within 
six  moiiths  after  piiblishini;  thercnf,  ap- 
pears to  be  designed  for  public  purposes, 
and  has  no  connection  with  the  copy- 
riijht.  A  iiei;|rct  to  deliver  such  copy 
will  not  iiivalidat(>  the  copyrij^ht,  and 
is  not  a  condition  precetleiit  thereto. 
Xir/iiifn  V.  /iiiifij/ia,  :\  |)ay,  I  TiH.- Cu- 
nt AM,  (M.,  IHKH. 

'2.  I'lider  ihiH  Hcclion,  a  copy  of  n 
book  may  be  deposited  with  the  |)e- 
parlmeiit  of  Stale  after  the  expiration 
of  six  months  from  the  time  of  its  pub- 
lication, if  not  done  before,  and  will 
avail  from  the  time  of  its  being  depos- 
ited. />(fAo//'/»  r'(W,  I  Opiii.,  r>X2. — 
WiUT.  Ally.  (Jen.;   iH„"2. 

M.  Wliere  the  work  coiisisled  of  a 
number  of  volumes,  //</,/,  that  the  ile- 
livery  to  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
lirst  volume  of  the  work  within  six 
montliH  after  its  publication,  and  of  the 
rest  of  the  volumes  before  lhi«  oireiici) 
complained  of  is  committed,  or  thi^  ac- 
tion brought,  is  a  siiflicient  complianco 
wit  h  the  law.  Diiuijht,  v.  .  t/i/>/rft»i,  I 
N.  Y.,  Leg.  Obs.,  l99.~TiiuMi'soN,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  184;j. 

Act  of  1802.    Ciup.  3G. 
Section  1. 

1.  The  act  of  1H02,  ^  I,  proviih-s  th.at 
no  person  can  be  cut  it  hi  to  the  benefits 
of  the  act  of  1790,  unless  he  Hhall,  in 


.A»»l 


*'*"^«^wW»h. 


hmt< 


'^•^M»»^|! 


...  ,,, 


-  "_  -^-m  .'n,44i 


.hi' 


^mi 


Will 


■  s       *\ 


640 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OF;  A. 


t'i)i>rniaiiT  acts,    act  or  1003,  KH  I,  3.    A(T  or  inii). 


^S%» 


addUion  to  tho  rcquiiiitca  fiijniiictl  in 
t$D  :<  Kill  I  4  (if  I  hill  nof,  cniiNv  a  copy  of 
fho  n'r(»n|,  n>)|iiii'i>(l  hy  tlini  act  to  l»c 
]iilli!i-4|i(tl,  to  li(>  itiM  rtt  (I,  at  full  lcii.rtli, 
ill  the  titl)>|i:i<.'(>,  or  mi  ||i«>  pa^c  iniinu- 
«liiilcly  followiiijj  the  title.  /I'wr  v. 
6Wc,  4  Wash.,  UlO. — VVAhlllMuidN,  J. ; 
J 'a.,  \^'1\. 

2.  The  pcrwon,  therefore,  elaiininy  a 
copyright,  before  he  can  he  «'iititleil  to 
the  lieiieiitM  <if  the  nut  of  I7nu,  iiiuNt  per- 
form the  rei|iiisitert  ret|iiireil  hy  tlie  act 
of  IHO'J,  in  tiifdifiuH  tf)  those  prewcriheil 
in  ^1$  a  aiitl  4  ot  the  :iet  ol  I  TOO,  ami 
luiiMi  perform  flic  whole.  The.i't  adinitw 
of  IK)  otlu'r  conHtructioii.     Iltit/.,  41U. 

l\.  The  iiieaiiiiii;  of  lli>'  act  Ih  iis  if  it 
rcail:  "the  proprietor,  het'oro  lie  Hhall 
bo  eiititicil  t  'le  beiietii  of  tho  !ict  of 
171)0,  NJiall  cai.-o  a  copy  of  tho  reccil  of 
the  title  to  he  published;  ami  sh;ill  de- 
liver a  copy  of  tlic  book  to  the  Secret  ;iry 
of  Stale,  as  directed  by  the  third  and 
fourth  Hcctioiiri  of  that  net;  mid  Hlmll 
also  cause  a  coity  of  tlio  said  record  to 
be  inserted  at  full  leiii^'th  in  the  titlc- 
pa5,'e,"  ttc.     //>/(/.,  41)1. 

4.  Under  the  act  of  1 700,  when  con- 
Hulercd  in  connection  with  §  1  of  the 
net  of  1802,  Mil  author  caii  obtain  no  ex- 
clusive riufht  in  his  work,  unless  he  coni- 
plies  with  the  requirements  of  )5}5  ^  '""^^ 
4  of  tho  act  of  1790,  by  causing?  a  copy 
of  the  record  of  his  copyright  to  be 
printed  in  the  ncwNpapcrs,  and  delivcr- 
\n^  a  copy  of  his  work  to  the  Secretary 
of  State.  Wheaton  v.  PcUrs,  8  T^t., 
065.— McLean,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1834. 

Section  2. 

1.  Under  this  section,  the  person  in- 
tended and  described  as  the  proprietor 
of  a  copyright  in  a  print,  is  one  who 
shall  not  only  invent  and  design,  but 


who  hhall  aUo  enj^rave,  etch,  er  wmk 
the  print  to  m  hii-h  the  ri;^ht  in  eliiiiti(.,|  • 
or,  \\\\'\  frivm  /lit  oirn  xcurkn  ami  /,(. 
I'liifiniiM,  Hhall  cnixe  the  [iriiil  to  hf  i|,.. 
«i:;iied  and  engraved,  elrlnd  or  wtirkotl. 
/tinn»  V.  yoodn^f^  4  NN'ash.,  fil,-_ 
WAHiiiNi.roN,  J.;  I'n.,  1821. 

'2.  Ill  the  fiiHt  case,  the  inventor  nnl 
d((signer  is  ■deiititied  \»ith  the  engravi  r- 
or,  in  oilur  words,  the  entire  work  or 
subject  of  lb«'  eoj)yright  in  executed  hy 
the  •aine  person.  In  the  latter,  tlio  iii- 
vention  is  designetl  or  <'iMlin(|ied  livth., 
persttii  in  whom  the  right  is  vested,  ninl 
the  fortii  and  completion  of  the  wuiL 
are  evecuted  by  another.     Jftii/,,  51, 

n.  Iiut  in  neither  case  can  a  peimm 
claim  a  copyright  for  a  mere  invnitidn, 
tho  work  of  his  imagination  In(k,.,|  u., 
in  his  y,,\i\  mind,  or  existing  in  a  fi»iiu 
not  visible  to  others.     Jfiid.,  fll. 

4.  Nciilicr  is  ho  socntitleil,  unloss  lie 
has  not  only  iineiited,  but  also  <k'sigii',l 
or  reprcHcntcd  the  subject  in  sotne  visi- 
bio  form.     Iftid.,  SI. 

5.  The  jihrase  denif/n,  when  used  ns  a 
term  of  art,  means  the  giving  of  a  vi>i- 
ble  form  to  tho  conceptions  of  tlio  iiiiinl, 
or,  in  other  words,  to  the  invention. 
If>id.,  fi'i. 

0.  Where  neither  the  design  nor  tlie 
gerend  arrangement  of  a  print,  nor  tiie 
parts  which  composed  it,  were  tho  in- 
ve  ition  of  thf  plaintiff,  but  he  had  em- 
j)lo"  (^d  and  jiaid  tho  artists  who  ImJ 
composed  and  executed  it,  //(A/,  tlml  liu 
was  not  entitled  to  a  cojiy right  iiiicUr 
the  provisions  of  the  acts  of  Congresii. 
Ibid.,  53. 

Act  or  1810.    Chap.  19. 

1.  Under  the  act  of  1790  and  1819, 
as  to  patents  and  copyrights,  the  wu- 
era  of  copyrights  and  pat(  iits,  do  not 


v.u\  or  wtiik 
^lil  U  I'laiiiu'il ; 

|iiiiit  to  Ih'  ill' 
ht'il  or  workcil. 

Wash.,   f)l.- 
1821. 

10  in\  rntor  nnil 
li  tluM-nj^nivtr; 
I'litiit'  work,  or 
t  IH  «'X('C'iiti'(l  liy 
w  liUtiT,  the  ill- 
iMii'MuliiMl  liy  till' 
lit  iH  vi'stfd,  mill 
ion  of  the  \\o\l 
>r.     /A/'/.,  T)!. 
\8e  can  u  jii'igim 
I  itit-ro  iiiviiitioii, 
unlioii  lofkc'l  u|i 
'xintin;^  ii»  a  loim 

JhU,  r.i. 

L'lltitU'il,  uiilcislic 
Imt.  aim)  lU'/ij^u-il 
l)Ject  in  some  visi- 

whi'H  used  ns  a 
giving  of  11  vi>i- 
)tio!iH  of  the  mind, 
,(>  the  invention. 

ic  (IcHign  HOI"  the 

of  a  print,  nor  llic 

il  it,  weri!  the  in- 

tV,  l)iit  he  had  em- 

!irtists  who  li:i«l 

x'clit,  //r/'Mlmll"^' 
a  coityright  uiuhr 
acts  of  Congress. 


CuAiv  19. 

of  ITOO  and  1819, 
-.pyrights,  the    WD- 

,nd  patt  nts,  do  not 


fifTATUTES,  CXMfWni  (mON  OF}  A 


«4t 


cnl>T«l«IT  Mim     ACrPr  )■!»,  ACT  Or   IR.l),  §  I. 


hflvt*  rotlrotiH  or  rtOh-fin  nny  oaiM  where 

tli(.y  .'imlfl  not   lii'ton*  hiivo  hwX  i  »|iiif 

in  nonu-  Court  «'itht'r  of  iMjnity  or  law. 

l'lcr/"'iit  V.  Foirfi',  i!  WiukI.  it  Mill.,  i7. 

^Wooihu'kv,  J. ;  Miinh.,  1h  ki. 

'1.  'rh»'nit  nvU  inorcfv  oiiutiio  ihoin  to 

.,.(M  iito    NU(*h   claiins   it.    thw  Cin'itit 

llourt    of   thf   riiin'tl    St  at  I'M,  iih    (lii-y 

iiMially  hud   doiio    iM-fori',  but   withon' 

it,i\u>f  to  tho  Htnto  frihiuitilH;  thr  pulilif 

iiitt'rcNt  ri'i|uirtMl  n  iiiiifonn  Construction 

to  ht>  phu't'd  \>y  niu'  triltunal,  on  .'ill  ini- 

imrtunt  (|iii'MtioiiM  conm'ftt'd  with  riifhtH 

Kohiid.     Ihi<f.,'i1. 

3.  The  not  of  1810,  -o  far  \*  It  gave 
co'jiiizaiict'  to  tho  courtrt  of  the  rnltod 
States  in  ^•a^*•■H  of  copyriyht,  Htill  rt- 
iiiiiins  ill  fori'i',  and  is  ihc  only  hiw  con- 
t'tiriii;^  »'(|uit:il»lt'  jiirisdii'tion  on  thenu 
cdiirtN  in  Biii'h  on»OR ;  J<  0  of  tht-  act  of 
IBHl,  protcctH  manuscripts  (iiily.  SU'- 
l>lieuii  V.  (>liitf(fi:if/,  17  IIusv.,  l.'ia. — 
C'iiniH,J.;  Sup.  C't.;   1854. 

4.  Tho  equity  jurisdiction  "f  Htich 
courts,  as  to  copyrights,  docs  i\ot  ox- 
tciitl  to  the  adjudication  of  fori'.  itMrcn; 
iidcrrec  therefore  cannot  he  ciilertd  for 
IJR' |n'iiiiltic-<  itvcurred  for  a  violation  of 
tilt'  copyright.     //>/</.,  4r».''). 

"i.  Tho  jurisdiction  of  tho  Federal 
courts,  under  the  acts  of  (^»ngress,  re- 
9|)Cctiii<^  copyrights,  has  not  taken  away 
or  diininished  the  original  jurisdiction, 
which,  hcforo  such  acts,  the  st.ite  coutls 
cxcr'iHcd — except  where  the  jurisdic- 
tiiiii  was  made  exclusive  in  expres.s 
terms  (tr  hy  the  necessary  construction 
ut'  the  Federal  constitution.  Wool.'^ri/  v. 
Jml(f  4  Duer,  382. — DuKK,  J.;  N.  Y., 
b.v. 

I).  Under  tho  act  of  Congress  giv- 
ing' to  the  Circuit  Courts  cognizance  of 
ciisc''  arising  under  tho  laws  of  tho 
Inited  States,  granting  to  authors  the 

exclusive  right  to  their  writings,  the 
41 


citiee ntthip  of  tho  partUt*  Utlfftnt  \n  im* 
niateriiil  AV;««  v.  Wreath  y,  0  Aine-r. 
Law  Ileg.,  44,  4ft.— (\\iiWAI.I.A»KK,  J.} 

r«.,  iHuo. 

i'.  Tlie  act  of  I**10comM>riiv  rcincdit'S, 
lUid  not  riijhtH.      //»/«/.,  4fl. 

H.  Tndcr  till'  ftatiites,  which  confer 
and  regulate  r////''.t  of  literary  pr«»prie- 
torship,  l^l•  (  ititeii^hip  of  MU.  h  p:irlli'H 
is  uIno  uiiinipiM  taut.  It  is  si.lllcieiit  if 
tho  o(>tnplainaiit  in  a  nuident  of  thii 
Tnited  Stalen,      I /ml.,  46. 

Act  OP  1831.    Chap.  10. 

See  also  Coi'viiKiirr,  A.,  Ik,  C. 

1.  irnder  this  n't,  a  person  to  be  a 
"resident,"  ho  as  to  bo  entilh^d  to  a 
copyright,  must  be  a  i)enti:inent  resi- 
dent of  the  country.  A  person  tempo- 
rarily residing  here,  even  though  ho 
has  declared  his  intention  of  l)C(!oniing 
a  citizen,  cmnot  take  or  hold  a  copy- 
right. ( '(/rcy  V.  (fdUi'  r,  rjG  \iU-s'  Keg., 
'.JtJ'.'.— Bkits,  J.;  N.  v.,  I8;i9. 

i!,  Cupt.  3Iaryatt,  a  subject  of  Great 
Britain,  and  an  officer  under  that  gov- 
ernnuMi',  being  temporarily  in  this  coun- 
try, took  the  re«piir(il  o.-uhof  his  inten- 
tion to  become  a  citizen,  and  then  took 
out  a  copyright  for  one  of  his  books, 
and  assigned  the  saiiu-  to  the  plaintilV; 
J/>  III,  that  he  was  not  a  "  resident" 
within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  1831, 
so  as  to  be  entitled  to  a  copyright  for 
his  hook.     Jhiif, 

3.  The  author  or  compiler  of  a  musi- 
cal composition,  rnade  up  of  difft  i(;nt 
parts,  copied  from  older  compositions 
without  material  cliange,  and  put  to- 
gether into  one  tune,  with  only  slight 
alterations  or  additions,  is  not  entitled 


'O^t^f'i'U 


<Mr^*^r 


1'' 
hv    III 

Mill* 


'km*'\^W'i*' 


«.-«'  Iklfc'^'lfc. 


<IM*''<  ««>' 


•49 


PTATl'TKH,  CONSTItI'(^IOX  OF;  A. 
('■•••THKiiir  Arm.     Acr  or  Ili3l,  |i|  3,  4,  i. 


to  n  ro|»yrlH:tit  for  fciich  thpri'fnr.  ftrrif 
V,  Ciirati,^  l.iiw  I{»|».,  411.— Tank  V, 
Ch.  J. ;  M<l.,  I81.V 

4.  (>ii<>  wtio  ^rtM  oiliorn  tf>  ('oni|iil<>  n 
work,  or  I'ti^jruvo  n  print,  U  i  nt  cniiili'il 
to  n  «-(i|»yri>,'hl.  furfnttii  v.  I'mrlf, 
'I  W«ioiI.  A  Min.,  40. — NVi'  >iim  uY,  J.; 

MUMM.,    \HU\. 

0.  To  ••oimtltiitc  one  nu  niitlior.  In* 
rniiNt,  \\y  liiri  own  iiiti>lli'ctital  liilxir  :i|>- 
pl'u'd  to  tlit<  iii.'iltrialH  of  Win  rttiiipoMi- 
lion,  priiiliico  lui  arnin^t'incnt  or  conipW 
iatioii  nt'W  in  ItMrlf.  Atinill  v.  tyrntt, 
'i  mat.'lif.,  4<1.— lUrrs,  J. ;   N.  V.,  I  Hid. 

«l.  A  pfixiM  iiiiinot  Hirnri'  a  copyri^lit 
for  altcratioiiH  ami  irnprovfUxMitN  in  a 
tiui>«i('al  «'oniposition,  made  Ity  oiIuth  for 
liini,  and  af  Imm  c>xpcnH«<.      //</»/.,  4tl. 

7.  I'ndcr  tim  copyright  a«'t  of  iH.ll, 
tlu«  I»'>^al  axHigrii'*'  ol"  tlu«  autlmr  may 
take  ont  tlu*  oopyri^lit,  and  it  will  make 
no  dilVt'i'fncu  wlictlirr  tn*  holds  it  as 
trusti'c>,  lor  i\w  licm'tit  of  aiiollu'r,  nr 
not.  lAttle  V.  iioxhl^  '1  nialclil'.,  :i(it(. 
— Nki,8oN',  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

8.  An  artist,  who  in  (-mploycd  hy  the 
Uiiilcd  States  to  »Mi^'rav»'  a  chart,  of 
\shich  tliu  ori<j;itial  mami>cript  was  tho 
property  of,  and  I'lirniwhed  hy  the  gov- 
ornment,  lias  no  pretenoc  of  right  of 
copyrii;ht  in  the  engraved  p!.'»*  ■  s  or  im- 
pressions therefrom.  Sifxr^  »  (^tmf,  7 
Dpiii.,  C50. — CtsuiNii,  Atty.  (.Jen.; 
1850. 

9.  Under  the  net  of  18.31,  no  j)erson 
c.in  obtain  a  copyright,  except  authors 
who  aro  citizens  (jr  residents  of  the 
United  States,  ami  proprietors  under 
derivations  of  title  from  siwh  authorB. 
Kcene  v.  WlieaUcy,  0  Amor.  Law  Keg., 
45. — Cadwau.a  )Eit,  J. ;  1':l,  1800. 

10.  The  assignee  of  a  work,  composed 
by  a  non-resident  alien,  cannot  obtain 
a  copyright  for  it.     Ibid.,  45. 

11.  A  person  who  liircs  another  to 


write  n  iKmk,  nnri  jflvwltlm  thi' ih>«»'rtjk, 
linn  and  Hcnpe  of  the  wurk,  Im  not  lli(> 
niilhor.  The  literary  ninii  who  nriir^ 
ihu  book,  nnd  preparcM  it  for  piihlion. 
linn,  Im  tht*  author;  and  the  ci)pyt'i^|,t 
in  intendetl  to  protect  him,  and  not  tl|i< 
perMon  who  employed  him.  Ih,  ||7f| 
V.  lirook»,   MS.  -Nkij«on,  J.;   N.  Y,, 

IHIU. 

I'.*.  Where  the  incidenlNnnd  exintpiof 
»  persou'n  lile  wcro  furni<«hed  hy  miuIi 
perMon  to  niiother,  who  prepared  ih,,,, 
for  public*ation,  and  the  copyi^ht  w.ih 
taken  out  in  the  name  of  the  |ii'i'xiiti  n.t 
tarnishing  M\ich  facts,  //»/(/,  (hat  he  h;i« 
not  the  author,  and  that  a  party  liuiii 
ing  as  his  assignee  could  not  inaintain 
an  a<;tion  for  infringement.     Ihiii 

Sfctiim  9. 
SOO  also  C'OPYHIOIIT,  E. 

1.  An  assignment  of  a  "oopynglit"i,i 
to  be  H'ferred  to  what  was  then  in  ox 
istence,  and  not  to  any  future  ciiiitin. 
gi-ncy.  J'iirjKifit  v.  J'hwle,  'J  Wnod.  i 
.Min.,  43,  45.— VVooDULllV,  J.;  Masi, 
1H40. 

2.  An  assignment  of  a  "  copyri^'ht" 
should  not  by  construction  be  cxlcinlcd 
beyond  the  first  term,  unless  it  seems  to 
be  actually  so  nu':mt  by  the  iiiitlidr, 
and  to  include  any  future  conliiigciuv. 
/A/fA,  44. 

;t.  The  taking  out  a  second  term  oh 
copyright  is  not  like  the  streiigtlicniii;' 
of  a  defective  title,  but  rather  like  a 
new  interest  obtainecl  after  the  general 
interest  had  expired.     Ibid.,  40. 

Sections  4  dk  5. 
See  also  Copykigiit,  D 
1.  Where  a  work  consists  of  a  number 


i.ik,  \*  ii"t  <l>" 
nn  wlu»  wrltrH 
U   for  |»»i\ilio!i 

iin,  iiutl  in>l  till 
him.  7>«!  U7fj 
»oN,  J.;  N.  Y., 

|ltM5l»<l  «'Nti»tl»0f 

iriii"!""'!  hy  micli 
>  |»i't>i>i»v«'»l  th«iii 

,,r  the  iH't-dtii  K.) 

mt  II  l'!K"'y  iliiim 
i,uM  no'  i"!»ii>t:"ii 
iwui.     //>'•'. 

I  a. 

r,  K. 

„f  ft  "  oopyn^hl"  is 
il  was  tlu'ii  ill  I'x 
any  future  contin- 

.uuuY,  J.;  Mass., 

of  !i  "  ooi)yn^;ln" 
ructi«)n  be  extfiuU'il 
n,  unlesHit  >'i!''"'^'" 
;int    by  till!   iuitlmr, 

•,it\irc  contiiigt'iiiy. 

t  a  si'cond  torniofa 
tin-  Htn'ii:j;lli»''ii"'-' 
,  but  rather  like  a 
,o,\  al'tiT  the  general 

fw  4  «t  5. 
(JUT,  L) 

consists  of  a  number 


bTATLTES,  CON^4TlU  rriUN  OF;  A. 


«ia 


loPTMitllT  AOm 

T 


ktn  or  IMt,  W  f  •>  *> 


„f  vohiuie*,  tilt)  liuertioii  of  tlio  ri't'iird 
on  (lie  |*'*U*>  f**'^^  follouiii^  the  title  pikj^u 
ol'  the  ///■*/  lUtimnf  uf  llie  wurk,  in  it 
iiittii  lent  eoiii|iliiMieit  with  the  ntatitle. 
picit//if  V.  .l/7</•^>/4,  1  N.  Y.  Iie((.  Olm,, 
ItfH.— TinmrMoN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  I84:i. 

•j,  The  tilllllbi'r  of  Viilllliit'M  ill  witiell 
it  wi\n  Hlated  the  work  woiilil  b«>  piib- 
|i,iii'<|,  iiiitiie  lilt  part  of  itH  title,  aiul 
iii:ky  ho  rujeeted  ait  NiiriiliiNa^u.     Itiiil,, 

lUO. 

.'!.  The  author  may  Innert  tlie  mmw 
rreiinl  ill  another  edit  ion,  |iuhliMht'd  in 
iMlilVerent  number  of  vnlunieM,  without 
imi'airinjj;  the  e»»|»yri;;ht.      /f>i</.,  lliO. 

4.  I'nder  >(;$  t  and  A  of  llu>  aet  of 
IH;II,  ilepo»itin^  the  title  pa^e  in  the 
iii'opi'r  eli>rk'r«  ollico,  publirthip;;  a  notiec 
itcciinliii^  to  the  itet,  and  tlcliverin^  a 
copy  of  the  book,  are  eonditimiK  the  per 
fiiriuaiiee  of  which  is  t-ssmtial  to  tlu' 
title,  llxkcr  V.  7by..r,  *J  IJIatehC,  h|.— 
llmH,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IHIH. 

r>.  Where  the  tille-paj^eof  a  book  waH 
ili'|Misited  in  I  Hid,  and  the  notiec  of  the 
I'lilrv  iii^<t'rted  in  tlu;  book  stated  it  to 
liiive  Iteeti  ileposited  in  1H47,  //rA/,  that 
the  error  created  a  fatal  defect  in  the 
|,|;iiiititV'H  title.      //>!(/.,  84. 

li.  Kvcn  if  the  error  antsc  from  mis- 
lakf,  it  will  niaki"  no  dilleronco  a»  to  the 
ruMili.     n>{<f.,  H4. 

7.  Under  J5  4  a  person  U  not  entitled 
t(t  iiiiv  heiK'Ilt,  under  the  a<'t,  unless  he 
(li'|iosits  the  title-pa;;e  /xjorc  the  publi- 
catittn  of  liiK  work.     IhiiL,  85. 

8.  Ily  the  provisions  of  the  eopyri;;lit 
art  of  1831,  there  are  three  preliminary 
sK'])!j  rerpiisite  to  the  seeiiriiiLi;  a  valid 
iiiliyri;;lit :  1.  The  deposit  of  a  printed 
copy  of  the  title  before  pnblicallon,  with 
the  clerk  of  the  District  Court.  '.».  No- 
tice to  the  public,  by  jiriiiliiiL;  in  the 
lilaco  designated,  the  fact  of  the  entry, 
in  the  form  prescribed  by  the  .statute, 


and,  .1.  The  deponit  with  tlio  elerk  of  a 
copy  of  the  book,  «,be.,  or  muMieid  eoni- 
poxiiion,  within  three  montlet  from  thu 
•  late  of  pitlilicatioii.  Ji>Ui>!  wJin/m:*,  I 
lllatehf.,  tJJO.  — Nki,h«>n,  J.;  N.  Y., 
IHAO. 

0.  I'ntil  all  the  ihin^^n  re«piir«Ml  by 
)i;|  4  and  .^,  act  of  Iniii,  artudone,  tho 
copyright  Im  not  Neeiired  ;  but  by  lakin|{ 
the  incipient  Mtep,  a  ri^lit  \h  ac<piirei|, 
which  ehanevry  will  protect  until  the 
other  actM  may  be  ilone.  /'»///»!  v.  />«  rfit/, 
it    McLean,  ;i3i;.— Mci  ka.n,  J.;  t)liit), 

I  8. ■)'.'. 

10.  The  provisioiiH  of  {{  4  of  the  eopy> 
ii;^dit  aet  of  1 8.'! I,  as  to  the  deposit 
ul'  the  title  pa^ji!  t)t'  the  book  to  be  copy, 
righted,  beforii  publication,  and  the  de> 
ponit  of  II  printed  volume  of  the  book 
uithiii  three  months  after  piiblieatioii, 
must  be  complied  with  in  order  to  ena- 
ble a  party  to  avail  himself  of  the  pro- 
viHioUK  Heeuretl  by  that  aet.  Strmw.  v. 
SrhwiJlir,  4  lilatclif. — Nklhon,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
1857. 

Seetion  C, 

See  also  IvFuiSiiKMKNT,  A. 

1.  It  is  of  no  consequence  in  what 
form  tho  works  of  another  an  used, 
whether  it  be  a  simple  reprint,  or  by 
incorporating  it  in  Home  other  work.  If 
his  copyright  is  violated,  he  can  main- 
tain an  action  therefor,  (/nii/  v.  Jiiis- 
nitl,  1  Story,  19. — Stouv,  J.;  Mass., 
1839. 

2.  To  entitle  a  i)arty  to  an  action  for 
the  infringement  of  a  copyright,  it  is  not 
necessary  that  the  whole,  or  a  greater 
part  of  his  work  sho\ild  be  taken.  If  so 
much  is  taken  as  to  impair  the  value  of 
the  origin.'d,  or  so  that  the  labors  of  the 
original  author  an;  substanti:dly  appro- 
priated, an  action  will  lie.     I'oUom  v. 


\e,-'  %..«'  >,..jj 


'^W^IJ! 


.li'-  .;  »»■  dilf ^(i> 


w 


644 


STATl'TKS,  CONSTIirCTlON  OK;  A. 


COPYIUUIIT   ACTS.      ACT  OF    1831,    ^^   0,    7. 


m 


MMi 


^•lit* 


PS»i* 


rtf 


Mnr.'i/i,  2  Story,  115. — Stouy,  J. ;  Mass., 
1H41. 

."'.  Tlio  fiitifefy  ot"  Uic  coj>y right  i«  tlie 
piojitTty  of  tho  author,  nntl  it  is  no  dv- 
fence  tliat  anutlu'r  lius  aj>j)rt)|iriatctl  only 
u  part  of  such  juoncrty,  ami  not  the 
whole.     IbUl.^  1 1(5. 

4.  Nor  does  it  ni'cessaiily  (lepenel 
upon  tho  quantity  taken,  whether  it  is 
an  intVitigenient  of  a  eojtyriglit  or  not. 
Ihiil.,  110. 

5.  If  a  copyright  has  been  invatletl, 
•whether  tlie  party  knew  the  work  was 
copyriglited  or  not,  ho  is  liable  to  tho 
j)enalty  for  violation.  3fillctt  v.  Snow- 
deu,  1  West.  Law  Jour.,  240. — Hkits, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1843. 

0.  A  book  may,  in  one  i)art  of  it,  in- 
fringe the  copyright  of  another  work, 
and  in  other  j)ar«=  be  no  infringement; 
in  such  a  case  tho  remedy  will  not  be 
extended  beyond  the  injury.  Story  v. 
Jloh'oruhc,  4  McLean,  315. — ]\IcLeax, 
J.;  Ohio,  1847. 

7.  A  book,  within  the  meaning  of  the 
statute,  does  not  include  a  translation 
of  :i  work.  Stowe  v.  Thomas,  2  Amer. 
Law  Reg.,  230.— Guieu,  J.  ;  Pa.,  1853. 

8.  A  translation  may  be  called  a  trans- 
cript, or  copy  of  tho  author's  thought  or 
conception ;  but  in  no  correct  sense  can 
it  bo  called  a  copy  of  his  book.  Ibid., 
231. 

Penalties  under. 

1.  The  penalty  of  fifty  cents  per  slieet 
imposed  by  this  section,  is  incurred  for 
every  sheet  found  to  have  been  in  the 
defendant's  possession,  or  which  they 
ha<l  sold,  or  held  for  sale.  Dwight  v. 
Appleton,  1  N.  Y.  Leg.  Obs.,  198. — 
THOJirsoN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1843. 

2.  An  action  on  the  case  is  the  proper 
form  of  action  to  recover  damages  for  a 
violation  of  a  copyright :  trespass  will 


not  lie.     Atwill  v.  llintf,  2    Hliitclif. 
48.— Huns,  J. ;  N.  V.,  1H47. 

3.  Tho  penalty  declared  by  this  stv- 
tion  can  bo  adjudged  only  for  the  sliootj, 
Ibund  in  the  possession  of  tho  deti'iul- 
ant.  Jiackus  v.  Gould,  7  TIow.,811,— 
Mc'Lkan,  J, ;  Sup.  Ct.,  184M. 

4.  The  jH'ualty  imposed  by  this  sec- 
tion is  not  incurred  by  printing  and  jnib- 
lishing  so  much  of  a  book  as  to  amount 
to  an  iidVingemcMt  cf  the  copvri^Iit. 
Iio(/ers  V.  Jetfelt,  12  ]\Io.  Law  Iton., 
340. — CuuTis,  J.;  Mass.,  1858. 

5.  The  words  "  a  copy  of  a  book," 
found  in  ij  (>  of  the  .act  of  I  S3 1 ,  import  a 
transcript  or  copy  of  tho  entire  liuok. 
Ibid.,  341. 

0.  Congress  did  not  intend  to  inflict 
these  penalties  njton  the  unlawful  pniit- 
ing  or  publication  of  less  than  an  entire 
work.     Il/id.f  341. 

Section  t. 

1.  The  penalty  for  an  infringement  is 
fixed  by  this  section.  If  the  jury  liiul 
there  lias  been  an  infringement,  tliev 
must  ascertain  the  number  of  sheets 
proved  to  have  been  sold,  or  offered  for 
sale  (not  the  number  ])rinted),  and  re- 
turn a  verdict  ibr  one  dollar  for  each 
sheet  so  sold  or  offered  to  be  soM. 
Millett  v.  Snowden,  1  West.  Law  Jour., 
240.— Beits,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1843. 

2.  A  defendant  is  not  liable  to  the 
penalty  imposed  by  this  section,  unless 
he  was  guilty  of  the  infraction  of  the 
copyright,  within  two  years  before  ac- 
tion was  brought.  Reed  v.  Carusi,  8 
Law  Rep.,  412. — Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  MJ., 
1845. 

3.  The  engraving  or  preparation  of 
plates,  where  the  work  is  printed  from 
plates,  may  have  been  more  than  two 
years;  but  every  printing  for  sale  would 


:T-ri 


WB 


STATUTES,  CONSTllUCTION  OF;  A. 


646 


COI'YRIOHT  ACTS.   AOr  1831,  g^  0,  11.   ACT  OF  1834. 


,  '2   lilutcl-.f., 
47. 

.  1)y  lliis  s(v- 
lor  tlu"  slu'cls 
f  the  (lolViul- 
no\v.,Hll.— 
14S. 

I  l)y  tills  sec- 
it  ii\,i;  aii'.l  pub- 
.  as  to  aiiumm 
he  (M)))yvii;lit. 
o.  Law  lii'i)., 
,  1H")H. 

)y  of  a  book,'' 

1831,1111)1011  :i 

le  oiitire  book. 

iiitcntl  to  iiiiVul 

unlawrul  iniiil- 

s  than  an  ontiie 


infrinoromcnt  is 
If  tbo  jiny  iiiul 
liugeiiient,  they 
miber  of  sheets 
1,  or  offered  fur 
inted),  aiul  re- 
tlolhvr  i\n-  eacli 
ed  to  be  sold, 
ost.  Law  Jour., 
,  1843. 
ut,  liable  to  tlie 
s  section,  unless 
ufraction  of  the 
years  before  ac- 
ed  V.  Carusi,  8 
lEY,  Cb.  J.;  MJm 

•  preparation  of 
is  printed  from 
more  than  t\vo 

mgfor  sale  would 


he  a  new  infraction  of  the  rij,'ht,  niul  if 
Bueii  printinj;  was  within  two  years  be- 
fore suit  broiij,'ht,  the  ilefeiidant  is  lia- 
\,W.     IhUl,  41 -J. 

t.  The  jienally  is  at  the  rate  of  one 
dollar  for  each  hheet  the  defemlaiit  may 
have  caused  to  be  printed  for  Hale,  with- 
in two  years  before  suit  brought.  Ibid., 
412. 

Section  9. 

See  also  Lkitkus  ;  Manuscripts, 

1.  There  remains  in  an  author,  iiot- 
\vith^taIlding  the  copyright  by  statute, 
!i  eoninion  law  title  to  liis  works  before 
iiuhlicalion.  Jones  \.  Tfiornc,  I  N.  Y. 
beg.  Obs.,  401).— McCouN,  V.  Chan.; 
N.  Y.,  lH4a. 

2.  At  coinnion  law,  independently  of 
the  st.'itutc,  the  author  of  a  nianuseript 
iiiii,'ht  obtain  redress  against  one  who 
hud  surreptitiously  gained  possession  of 
it.  Jhirtlefte  v.  Critti/idifi,  4  McLean, 
301.— McLiCAX,  J,;  Ohio,  1847. 

;?.  On  general,  equitable  principles, 
relief  may  also  be  given,  under  like  cir- 
cumstances, by  a  Court  of  Chancery. 
Ibid.,  301. 

4.  The  use,  by  an  author,  of  liis  nian- 
useript lor  the  jiurpose  of  instruction,  is 
not  an  abandonment  of  it  to  the  pub- 
lic. Xor  is  it  an  abandonment  to  allow 
liis  piiitils  to  take  coiiies.     Ibid.,  303. 

5.  Those  also  who  have  been  permit- 
ted to  take  copies,  have  no  right  to  a 
use  which  was  not  in  contemplation, 
when  the  consent  to  take  copies  was 
given.    Ibid.,  303. 

G.  The  common  law  protects  the  right 
of  un  author  to  liis  manuscript  only. 
Bartlctte  v.  Crittenden,  5  McLean,  38. — 
MclEAy,  J.;  Ohio,  1849. 

7.  §  9  of  the  copyright  act  of  1831, 
also  protects  such  right.     Ibid.,  38. 


8.  The  .-xct  of  1831,  J5  9,  giving  re- 
dress fur  the  unauthorized  printimj  or 
publinhin(/  oj' maniixcripts,  operates  in 
favor  of  a  resident  of  the  United  States, 
who  has  ac(piired  the  proprietorship  of 
an  iinjyrintcd  literary  cfunposilion  from 
a  non-resident  alien  author.     Keenc  v. 

Whrnthy,  9  Anier.    Law   lleg.,    45. — 
Cai>wai.i,ai)KI!,  J.;  I'a.,  1800. 

9.  But  this  section — and  which  is  the 
only  one  enabling  a  proprietor,  who  do- 
rivea  his  title  from  such  an  author,  to  as- 
sert any  right  under  the  act — gives  no 
redress  for  an  unautliorized  theatrical 
representation.     Ibid.,  45. 

Stclion  11. 

The  penalties  referred  to  in  this  sec- 
tion, cannot  be  recovered  in  an  action 
brought  in  the  name  of  more  than  one 
person.  Ihrcft  v.  Atwill,  1  IJlatchf., 
155.— Nklsox,  J. ;  X.  Y.,  1840. 

Act  op  1834.    Ciup.  157. 

1.  An  assignment  of  an  interest  in  a 
copyright  must  be  in  writing  to  be  valid 
and  operative  ;  but  an  agreement  to  as- 
sign may  be  by  parol.  Gould  v.  Banks, 
8  Wend.,  505. — Nei.sox,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1832. 

2.  An  assignment  of  a  copyright,  al- 
though not  recorded,  is  still  valiil  as  be- 
tween the  jiarties,  and  as  to  all  pi'rsons, 
not  claiming  under  the  assignors.  Webb 
v.  Powers,  2  Wood.  &  Min.,  510. — 
WooumiRY,  J.;  3Lass.,  1847. 

3.  A  formal  transfer  of  a  copyright, 
by  this  act,  is  recpiired  to  be  proved  and 
recorded  as  a  deed  for  the  conveyance  of 
land,  and  such  record  operates  :\y  notice. 
Little  V.  Hall,  18  How.,  171.— McLean, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1855. 

4.  The  statute  of  1834,  sanctioning 


i,;i-'4«#!l 


M*'  Bgyi'*'' '1- 


^Ij^^ww*^' 


Wfirflv-K 


'^oiM 


i 


v;^''*'C. 


!i?w^: 


*       •  s 


646 


STATUTES,  CONSTIIUCTTON  OF;  A. 


COPYRIUUT  ACTS.     ACT  Or  1856. 


assin;iiinL'iits  of  copyri'^lit,  proscribes 
only  the  iiistniinciit  by  which  they  tniiy 
bi'  iissij^iied,  ;iii<l  the  iiiocU'  of  recording, 
but  does  not  deliuu  what  interest  may 
bo  assigned.  Huberts  v.  Meyers^  13 
Mo.  Law  Uep.,  101. — Spuaouk,  J.; 
Mass.,  1800. 

5.  Tiiere  is  no  sufficient  reason  for 
preventing  an  author  conveying  a  dis- 
tinct portion  of  liis  right.  Divisibility, 
as  Aveil  as  assignability,  enhances  the 
value  of  hisproperty.  lOld.,  401.  [Con- 
tra, (5, 2^ost.] 

(J.  AVhere  an  assignment, under  which 
suit  was  brought,  was  o+"  iho  exclusive 
right  of  actl.ig  and  reprtscnling  a  cer- 
tain drama,  Avit'nin  the  Ignited  States, 
o.vcei)t  as  to  five  cities,  for  the  term  of 
one  year,  Jlehf,  that  sucli  an  assign- 
ment was  valid  und  the  statute. 
Ibid.,  400,  401. 

r.  The  statute!-  ->f  the  United  States, 
for  the  protection  of  authors,  do  not, 
like  those  for  ho  benefit  of  inventors, 
sanction  transfers  of  limited  local  pro- 
prietorships of  exclusive  jtrivilcges. 
Kecne  v.  Wheatley,  9  Amer.  Law  Reg., 
4G. — Cadavafxadki!,  J.;  Pa.,  18G0. 

S.  A  V  viting,  which  is  in  form  a 
transfer,  by  an  author,  of  his  exclusive 
right  for  a  designated  portion  of  the 
United  States,  operates  at  law,  ruly  as 
a  mere  license,  and  is  ineffectual  as  an 
assignment.     Ibid.,  4G. 

9.  But  in  equity,  a  limited  local,  or 
other  partial  assignment,  if  made  for  a 
valuable  consideration,  nuiy  be  carrieil 
into  effect  whether  it  would  be  effectual 
in  law  or  not.    Ibid.,  47. 


Act  or  1856.    Cuap.  169. 

1.  The  act  of  185G  was  passed  to  give 
to  the  authors  of  dramatic  compositions 


the  exclusive  right  of  acting  and  rcpro. 
senting,  which  theydi<l  notinijov  luuUr 
the  I »revious  statut es.  /iobertu  v .  Jl,  y, v,< 
13  Mo.  LaAV  Hep.,  307.— Si-uauvk,  J.  • 
Mass.,  1800. 

2.  This  act  assumes  the  doctrine  that 
representation  is  not  publication.  Tin; 
prior  acts  secured  to  authors  the  exclu- 
sive right  of  printing  and  publication  • 
and  it  was  only  because  publication  did 
not  embrace  acting  or  representation 
that  this  statute  of  1850  was  p;issod,  su- 
peradding that  exclusive  right  to  tliosu 
2)reviously  enjoyed.     Ibid.,  397. 

3.  The  previous  acting  or  rpprospiit- 
ing  a  play,  will  not  deprive  the  author 
of  the  right  to  afterward  take  out  a 
copyright.     Ibid.,  397. 

4.  An  assignee  of  the  exclusive  ri^lit 
of  acting  and  representing  a  drama,  in 
certain  jjlaces,  may  maintain  an  action 
in  his  own  name,  even  after  a  rep'cscn- 
tation  by  him,  for  an  injunction  to  pre- 
vent its  ])eing  re])resepted  by  aiiotlicr 
within  such  places.     Ibid.,  100,  401. 

5.  And  such  action  may  be  main- 
tained, although  the  author  or  assignee 
has  only  filed  his  title-page,  and  has  not 
published  the  work  or  play.  Mid,, 
401.    [Contra,  15  j^ost.] 

0.  The  only  act  which  affords  redress 
for  unauthorized  theatrical  representa- 
tions, is  the  act  of  August  18th,  185G; 
but  this  only  applies  to  cases  in  wliieli 
copyright  is  eftectually  secured  under 
the  act  of  1831.  Hcene  v.  W/ieatki/, 
9  Amer.  Law  Keg.,  45. — Cadwalladei!, 
J. ;  Pa.,  ]  SGO. 

7.  But  under  this  act,  an  assign, e  of 
a  dramatic  composition,  cannot  main- 
tain an  action  for  its  unauthorizi^d  rep 
resentation  by  others,  nrless  he  has  per- 
formed all  the  acts  required  by  law  to 
secure  a  copyright,  including  the  deposit 
of  a.  printed  copy.    Ibid.,  45,  46. 


:^,  ..■ 


( tlio  floctriiic  tliiil 
jmbliciitloi).  Tlic 
iiiithdrs  tli((  oxclii- 

nnil  i)ul»liciilii)ii ; 
ISC  publication  diil 
or  reprt'scntution, 
J50  was  passed,  sii- 
sive  right  to  ll\osi! 

Ihiil,  H97. 
ctiuj;  or  rcprcseiit- 
leprive  the  autlior 
rward   talvc  otit  a 

97. 

tlie  exclusive  right 
senting  a  drama,  in 
maintain  an  action 
on  after  a  rep'-L'si;:i- 
n  injunction  to  pre- 
psented  by  another 

Ibid.,  400,  401. 
[ion   may  bo  main- 
>  author  or  assignee 
le-pago,  and  has  not 
•k  or  play.     Ihid.^ 

shich  affords  redress 
loatrical  represent;!- 
A\igust  18th,  185C; 
js  to  cases  in  wliieli 
ually  secin-ed  umler 
Kcene  v.  Wheatloj, 
45, — Cadwalladek, 

s  act,  an  assign. e  of 
isition,  cannot  main- 
ts  unanthorizod  rep- 
ers,  mdess  he  has  per- 
s  required  by  law  to 
,including  the  deposit 
Ibid.,  45,  40. 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OF ;  W.  2. 


647 


I'ATENT   ACTS;    I'OMCT   AND   I.NTENT  OT. 


B.    Patkmt  Acts. 
1.  Power  of  Co/iffrefis  to  enact. 

Sec  CoNGUEfiS. 

2.  Poli.cy  and  Intent  of. 
See  also  Patents,  P.  1. 

1.  Many  of  tlie  provisions  of  our  pat- 
ent acts  are  derived  from  the  principloH 
and  practice  wliich  liavo  prevailed  in 
the  construction  of  those  of  England; 
and  thoug'ii  it  is  not  strictly  the  case  in 
respect  to  the  English  statute  of  monop- 
olies, as  in  respect  to  the  statute  of 
frauds  arid  of  limitations,  which  have 
been  adopted  into  our  own  legislation, 
that  tlu;  known  and  settled  construction 
of  those  statutes  by  courts  of  law  has 
been  considered  as  silently  incorporated 
into  our  acts,  or  has  been  received  with 
all  the  weight  of  authority,  yet  the  con- 
strnclion  of  the  statute  of  nionoi)olies 
adopted  by  the  English  courts,  and  the 
priiK'ipies  and  practice  which  have  long 
rc'.'iilatod  the  grants  of  th(;ir  patents,  as 
tliey  nnist  liavo  been  known  and  are 
tjcitly  referred  to  in  some  of  the  pro- 
visions of  our  own  statute,  afford  materi- 
als to  illustrate  it.  Pennock  v.  Dlaloyue, 
2  Pet.,  18.— Stouy,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1820. 

2.  The  intention  of  the  patent  law,  as 
declared  by  Congress,  is  to  promote  the 
progress  of  the  useful  arts,  by  the  bene- 
fits granted  to  inventors  ;  not  by  those 
accruing  to  the  public  after  the  patent 
has  expired,  as  in  England.  Wliitncy 
v.  Emmett,  Bald.,  321. — Baldwin,  J. ; 
Pa.,  1831. 

3.  Intended  for  their  protection  and 
security,  the  law  should  be  construed 
favorably  and  benignly  in  flivor  of  jiat- 


entees.  When  the  invention  is  substan- 
tially new  and  useful,  and  the  HjKM'ificrt- 
tiou  is  intelligiblo  to  men  who  umler- 
stainl  the  subject,  juries  ought  to  look 
favorably  on  the  right  of  property,  and 
fmd  against  a  patentee  only  for  some 
substantial  defeet  in  nis  title  jmpers  or 
proof.     Pjid.,  ;I22. 

4.  To  promote  the  progress  of  the 
useful  arts  is  the  interest  and  policy  of 
every  enlightened  government.  It  can- 
not be  doubted  that  the  settled  purpose 
of  the  United  States  has  even  been  to 
confer  on  the  authors  of  useful  inventions 
an  exclusive  right  in  their  inventions  for 
the  time  mentioned  in  their  patent.  It 
is  the  reward  stipulated  for  the  advan- 
tages derived  by  the  public  for  the  ex- 
ertions of  the  individual,  and  is  intended 
as  a  stinnilus  to  those  exertions.  The 
laws  which  are  passed  to  give  effect 
to  this  purpose  ought  to  bo  con- 
strued in  the  spirit  in  which  they  have 
been  made ;  and  should  be  executed 
fairly  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, 
if  this  can  be  done  without  transcend- 
ing the  statute,  or  countenancing  acts 
which  are  fraudulent  or  may  prove 
mischievous.  Gr<int  v.  liaymond,  6 
Pet.,  241,  242.  — Marshall,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1832. 

5.  The  great  object  and  intention  of 
the  patent  acts  is  to  secure  to  the  pub- 
lic the  advantages  to  be  derived  from 
the  discoveries  of  individuals,  and  the 
means  it  em])loys  are  the  compersation 
made  to  those  individuals  for  the  time 
and  labor  devoted  to  these  discoveries, 
by  the  exclusive  right  to  make,  use,  and 
sell  the  things  discovered  for  a  limited 
time.     Ibid.,  243. 

6.  Patents  for  inventions  are  not  to 
be  treated  as  mere  monopolies  odious 
in  the  eyes  of  the  law,  and  therefore  not 
to  be  favored ;  nor  are  they  to  be  con- 


'  ^'^'?iii!''<i 


4iJ 


■'  -"wi 


■'-^  ^m''  <««**• 


t>,. 


Ijgtf'' 


W^W' 


'''*■•'  iSb.i''^,-^' 


G4R 


STATl'TllS,  (X)XSTltrtTI(IN  OF;  B.  2. 


"I 


i-^i. 


VATIMT  ACT8;   IHIUOT  AND  INTKNT  OF. 


hlriu'il  willi  llu'  utmost  rlj^or,  as  strirt- 
iKniiiii J'trin.  .ii/i<.t  V.  //owartf,  1  Siimii., 
48:..— Sn»Kv,  .1.;  .Mjiss.,  \hx\. 

7.  'I'lio  »'oiistitutii>ii  of  tlio  Uiiitftl 
States,  ill  ^iviiii::  uiitl'.r.rity  to  Coiij^ii'sh 
to  liraiit  putt'iits  for  ii  liiuiti'il  tuT-.txi, 
(It'clan-s  till'  ohji'ct  tt)  !n'  to  proiiioti' 
tlir  proijivsH  of  siMt'iii'o  aiiil  useful  arts, 
nil  object  as  truly  national,  aii>l  iiicrito- 
rious,  aiitl  wel!  loimdcil  in  |mlilic  policy. 


in  ailvaiii'injx  llio  arts,  ;lirouo;li  Nciciiw 
and  in;;;('iinil\,  liy  jUii'.<etiiif.j  its  |iin,li|,.. 
tioiis  of  wlial  tlid  not  hefore  «'.\is|,  jn,,; 
of  what  nevt-r  Itoloinxeil  tt)  anotlicr  iicr- 
son,  ..:•  tlu'  |>iil»Iii'.  liiirall  v,  Jtroiru,  1 
Wood,  it  .Mill.,  .")7. — WooKiuuv,  ,!.; 
."M.'iss.,  lHl,^. 

II.  I'lider  tilt'  jtatent,  l.aws  tin'  in. 
Vi'iitor  rei'L'iviis  no  monopoly.  Iiisuad 
of  ivt'civiiii;  any  lliiiiix  from  tlic  pulijic, 


sctipc  of  national  jn'otci'tion.  Ui'iico 
it  lias  always  Ihm-ii  tlu'  coiusi'  ol'  llu* 
.\iiu'riiaii  courts  —  aiul  lalti'iiy  of  tin* 
Kii!^lisli  -to  t'onstruc  patents  fairly  and 
liliiTally,  and  not  sul'jcct  tlicni  to  any 
oscrniccand  critical  rolinoincnts.  7/>/(/., 

•is:.. 

8.  It  is  no  oliji'ction  to  tlic  valiility  of 
laws  rcspcctiii,u  pati'iils,  lliat  tlu'y  .iiv 
retrospective  in  their  operation.  The 
powers  ot"  Conjjress  tt*  li-iiisl.ite  upon 
the  suhjt'ct  of  p.'itents  is  plenary  hy  the 
coiistitiitioii,  and  as  tliero  are  no  re- 
straints on  its  exercise,  there  can  be  no 
liiuitation  of  its  riirht  to  modify  them  at 
j.U-asure,  .so  that  they  do  not  take  away 
the  ri^ihls  of  property  in  e\isiini;  pat- 
ents. JIt'Clu>'i//i  \..Ki/ii/.iltnt(f,  I  How., 
'JOlK-  l>.vi.i>\rix,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  ist;l. 

0.  The  patent  law  jjrives  to  Inventors 
an  oxehisive  right  in  their  inventions, 
but  it  is  not  a  monopoly  in  an  odious 
sense.  It  takes  nothing;  Ironi  the  com- 
munity at  larjje,  but  s.'ourcs  to  th.eni  the 
j;reatest  benetits.  And  to  secure  them 
the  remuneration  the  law  provides,  a 
liberal  construction  should  be  rjiven  to 
it.  ///•()( '/i-.-j  V.  IiiekiuU,\\  ^IcLean, 4;t7. 
— McLkan,  .1.;  Ohio,  1S44. 

It).  Tiie  patent  laws  are  not  made  to 
encoura>xe  mo.iopolies  of  what  before 
belouixed  to  others,  or  to  the  public- 
which  is  the  true  idea  of  a  mononi-'x' — 
but  the  design  is  to  encourage  ^vu.u.- 


as  any  which  can  possibly  be  within  the    ln'  confers  on  it  tlu*  j.jreat('st   bciictiis- 

and  all  he  asks,  and  all  he  r«>ccivos 
is  that  for  a  W'w  years  ho  shall  reali/o 
some  advaiitajxe  from  his  own  crealion. 
Pttrkii'  v.  //iriro/^//,  I  .McLean,  Itt'j.-- 
Ml  Kk.\n,  ,1.;  III.,  ist8. 

I'J.  The  piiwer  jj;ranted  by  the  patent 
laws  is  domestic  in  its  character,  and 
necessarily  confined  within  the  limits 
of  the  riiited  States.  The  patent  acts 
do  not  and  were  not  intiiiiled  to  opi>r. 
ate  beyond  the  limits  of  the  I'nitcil 
Stati's,  ami  a  patentee's  right  of  prop- 
erty and  exclusive  use  cannot  extend 
beyond  the  limits  to  whii'h  the  law  it- 
self is  coniined.  Jinnenw  /)i(c/ii\<ine,]'^ 
Mow.,  1!):..— Taney,  Ch.  J.  ;  Sup.  Ci., 
IS".  (5. 

111.  The  patent  acts  have  been  passed 
for  the  promotion  of  the  useful  ar'.s— 
for  the  ultimate  benefit  of  the  repub- 
lic, and  not  for  the  sole  benefit  of  in- 
ventors and  patentees.  It  is  for  tlio 
ulliniate  benefit  of  the  public  that  priv- 
ileges are  granted  to  inventors,  allowed 
to  operate,  anil  protected  fur  limited 
times  for  their  direci  benefit.  Jhti/ \. 
Union  litib.Co.y  ;J  or  4  Blatchf. — ll.vu, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

14.  Patents  are  granted  to  inventors 
not  for  their  benefit  simply,  but  for  the 
purpose  of  benefiting  the  {.iiblic  hy  en- 
'.'^'.•rrg'ng  inventors  to  make  inventions 
r,  i;i '!;  n..'.;.  be  useful  to  the  public  wlioa 
?  laccJ    a;    lieir  disposal.     Hansom  \, 


m 


:tinj^  its  proihic- 
M'l'oro  oxisi,  ain". 
1  to  iiMotlu  r  |u'r- 
('<>//  V.  fSrowii,  \ 
WooPluliY,  J.; 

lit,  laws  till-  in. 
\()pi)ly.  lt\''li';i(l 
\\on\  tlu'  |iiililic, 
;foatt'st  lKMU'lit>; 
all  In-  ri'i'oivcs, 
s  hi'  shall  ri'ulizo 
his  (uvn  iMVulion. 
[  .Mi'Loan,  !t7'J.— 

It  ml  by  tho  patent 
Its  rharactt'i',  ami 
within    till'  limits 

Thi'  imti'iit  arts 
inlondi'il  to  oiuT- 
trt  of  thi'  I'nitiHl 
•o's  ri<?ht  of  i>r(>])- 
lisi'  oaiuiol  I'xlohil 

whii'h  the  law  it- 

\cii  Y.  Ihd'/i^'Siie^]'^ 

C'h.  .1.;   Sui..  Ct., 

have  been  passed 
the  useful  ar'.s— 
ielit  of  the  reimh- 
Isole  henetit  ot"  ill- 
's.    It,  is   for  the 
ii-  public  that  piiv- 
liiivoutors,  allowed 
ieeteil   f>>i'  liiniteil 
i    beiiolit.    Jhti/w 
U  Blatehf— Hall, 

lautcd  to  itiventors 
jimply,  but  for  the 
the  publie  hv  en- 
L  make  inventions 
jto  the  public  wlien 
losal.     Jionsom  v. 


STATIJTKS,  i:ONSTUl'(TIONj  OF  IJ.  3. 


049 


I'ATBNT    Al'TH;    I'UIIUU.      ACT  Of    lYOO,    g^    1,3,4,0,0. 


_M,n/oi\  ttc,  <>/  Xcio  Yorlc,  MS.—  IIali,, 
j.;'n.  v.,  1h:)0. 

i:i.  The  limited  ami  temporary  mo- 
iiiiiMdv  ijraiited  to  iiiveiituiH  was  never 
ili'siiiiieil  for  tlirir  e\elusive  prolil,  or 
iiilvaiitaLje;  the  benefit  to  the  public  or 
(onnnunity  at  larjje  was  anollier,  ami 
ildiilitless  the  primary  objccl  in  <;rant- 
iiis,' anil  seeurinj;  that  monopoly.  Ju;/t- 
,l,,ll  v.  UV/i.vor,  '21  I  low.,  yJ7,  a^H.— 
DaNIKI,  .'■  ;  Sup.  ("I.,  IHSS. 

1(1.  'I'liis  \va^  at  onee  the  ecpiivnleiit 
('i\i'ii  l>y  the  publie  for  benilits  be- 
siowetl  liy  the  i^eiiius  anil  nieilitalions 
and  skill  of  iiuliviiiuals,  ami  the  ineen- 
tivc  to  finlher  ellbrts  for  tiio  same  iin- 
liortaiit  objects.     I/)i<f.,  ;i'J8. 

a.  (n'lend  or  Public  Arts. 

Tlio  notes  here  inserfeil  umler  the 
ditl'erent  sections  of  the  several  acts,  are 
(il'iiiieiieral  character,  or  have  more  par- 
liiular  reference  to  the  co/iufntcfio)!  of 
ihe  statutes,  than  to  {\n'\r  (ip/>ficti(ion/ 
and  such  notes  are  eonliiieil  lo  those 
s'ltioiis  as  to  which  there  have  been 
iliiTCl  atljuilications. 

For  the  several  patent  acts  in  full,  and 
with  more  extended  notes  thereto,  see 
ArrKNDi.x.     [-/v'(/.J 

Act  of  mu).    Cii.vp.  7. 
iicction  1. 

1.  Under  this  section  it  was  held  that 
tlio  alienations  and  su.Lji^fostions  of  the 
lietitioii  must  be  substantially  recited  in 
the  patent,  or  the  patent  was  void. 
l-jvii$  V.  CfH(iiifj(  IV,  '2  Wash.,  12(5. — 
WAsiiixaTON,  J. ;  I'a.,  1807. 

'.'.  The  Secretary  of  Stato  cannot  issue 
apiUont  unless  the  prcre(|uisites  reepiirod 
by  l;i\v  are  complied  with ;  as  lie  canaol 


issue  a  patent  without  aspi'i-ifieatioii,  or 
with  II  speeillcation  alto^xelher  anibi^^ti- 
oils  and  imiuli'llii^iltle.  Ivnciisn  v.  «S'i7t//yi-l 
/i-iU  littnk,  \  Wash.,  l;t.  -WAblli.NU- 
To.N,  J.;  ra.,  Ib20, 


Section  3. 

The  olVicer  authori/.od  to  fjivo  copien 
of  papers  or  drawiii'^s,  in  patent  cases, 
has  no  concern  with  the  purpose  for 
which  asked.  The  policy  of  tin-  law 
rather  ret|uires  than  forbids  that  copies 
should  bo  ji;iven  when  applied  for. 
Aiion.f  1  Opin.,  171. — 1'i.ncicnky,  Atty. 
(;en. ;  181 'J. 

Section  4. 

A  erccti'd  on  his  own  j^remises,  and 
at  his  own  expense,  a  machine,  which 
was  the  invention  of  1>.  I»  then  took 
of  A  a  lease  of  the  machine  for  a  term 
of  years,  covenanting  to  reconvey  the 
same,  at  the  ei.d  of  the  term  of  yi-ars  to 
A.  r>  afterward  brought  an  action 
against  A  for  the  use  under  such  recon- 
veyance. IFeld,  that  this  amounted  to 
a  license  or- consent  to  use,  in  writing, 
within  the  meaning  of  this  section. 
Itcutyen  v.  JC<i)uncrs,  1  Wash.,  172. — 
WAHUixiiTOx,  J.;  Pa.,  1804. 

Section  b. 


See  act  of  1793,  §  10. 


S.  :tion  6. 


As  to  General  Issue  and  notice,  see 
notes  lo  act  of  17i)3,  §  0,  and  act  of 
18;J6,  §  16. 

See  also  Patent,  P.  3. 


.IJ     v 

t  4' 

.1 

.;U-,. 


/ 


•I! 


'j 


n 


6S0 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OK;  H.  3. 


I'ATBNT  AOm;    I'l  "I.IC.      ACT  Or   1703,    g    1. 


■  V,'-*     " 


l*WV' 


m 


Nr 


T'^mltr  tlic  act  of  1700  a  [mtoiit  \\  ■< 
iiiHclc  j»'ihi<i  fdcie  i'vi«li'iu't' ;  that  not 
was  rupcalud  hy  the  act  of  1703,  and 
tliat  provision  was  not  ru-cnactt'd  in  it. 
Ilenco  a  patent  was  not  rt'coived  in 
conrts  of  justico  as  even  ^>r/;/<(/  J\wic 
ovidi'Dce  tliat  the  invention  patented 
■WHS  new  or  useful,  but  tlie  phiintiff  was 
l)ound  to  jirovc!  these  facts  in  order  to 
make  out  his  case.  But  the  act  of  I8;<(i 
introduced  a  new  system ;  and  under 
it — its  iiKjuisitioii  and  examination — a 
patent  is  received  as  prima  /acie  evi- 
dence of  the  trutli  of  the  facts  asserted 
in  it.  GoriiitKj  v.  /htn/c/i^  I.'j  I  low., 
270,  271.— Gkikr,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

Act  or  1793.    Ciiai-.  0. 
Section  1. 

1.  The  first  sectior  of  this  act  is  to  be 
construed  a\  ith  tlio  other  parts  of  liie 
act  to  mean  that  tlie  discovery  shouhl 
be  unknown,  and  not  used  as  the  inven- 
tion of  any  otlier  than  (he  patentee,  be- 
fore the  a])plication  lor  a  patent.  Mor- 
ris v.  JIiuitiiKjton^  1  I'aine,  35;i. — 
Thompson,  J.  ;  N.  Y.,  1824. 

2.  The  first  section  of  the  act  of  1793 
is  to  be  construed  with  the  sixth  sectji  n 
of  the  same  act,  and  ine.'ins  that  the  first 
inventor  has  a  right  to  a  ])atoiit,  though 
there  may  have  been  a  knowledge  of  the 
thing  invented  before  the  appUixition 
for  a  patent,  if  such  use  or  knowledge 
•was  not  anterior  to  the  discovery.  3Iel- 
lus  V.  SiMtee,  •!  Mas.,  111. — Stokv,  J.; 
Mass.,,  1825. 

3.  The  true  construction  of  the  act  of 
1793,  considering  the  first  and  sixth  sec- 
tions together,  is  that  to  invfilidate  a  pat- 
ent because  of  a  prior  use  or  knowledge, 
the  thing  p.atcnted  must  have  been  used 
prior  to  the  alleged  discovery  of  the 
patentee,  and  not  merely  prior  to  the 


>tf^)lH'ation.  Dread  well  v.  lilatlcn  4 
Wash.,  707,  708.— WAsiiiNciTo.v,  J.. 
Pa.,  1827. 

4.  The  moaning  of  the  M'ords  "not 
known,"  «fec.,  in  55  1  of  the  act  of  179;) 
is  that  the  invention  must  not  h.-ive  been 
kiu)wn  or  used  bi/  the  jmblir  before  tlio 
application.  Petniock,  v.  Dialogitt  2 
I'et.,  19. — Stoky,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  IS'jl). 

5.  Tlio  patent  act  of  1790  used  the 
words  "not  ktiown  or  used  before" 
without  a<lding  the  words  ♦•  the  a])plica. 
tion,"  in  connection  with  the  strucliiit; 
of  the  sentence  in  which  they  stand' 
they  might  have  been  referred  either  to 
the  time  of  the  invention,  or  of  the  ap. 
plication.  The  addition  of  the  latter 
words  in  the  act  of  1793  must  have 
been  ex  industria,  and  with  the  cautious 
intention  to  clear  away  a  doid)t  and  lix 
the  original  and  deliberate  nieaninif  of 
the  legislature.     Ibid.,  22. 

0.  The  words  "not  known  or  used 
before  the  application,"  refer  to  the  iip- 
plication  for  the  patent,  and  not  to  tlie 
discovery  referred  to  in  the  sixth  sec- 
tion;  but  the  previous  use  to  iiivalidafo 
a  p.'itent  must  be  a  public  use  l)v  x\w 
consent  or  accpiiescenoe  of  the  patentee. 
Whitney  v.  Emmett,  IJald.,  309. — Bai.d- 
WIN,  J. ;  Pa.,  1831. 

7.  Within  the  spirit  of  this  section  it 
was  held  that  the  Secretary  of  State, 
though  not  expressly  authorized,  might 
receive  the  surrender  of  letters  patent 
which  were  defective  by  reason  of  mis- 
takes innocently  committed,  either  by 
the  department,  or  by  the  inventor, 
and  reissue  a  new  and  corrected  pat- 
ent. Grant  v.  Raymond.,  0  Pet.,  242.— 
Marshall,  Ch.  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1 8;J2. 

8.  The  knowledge  and  use  spoken  of 
in  this  act  has  reference  to  the  public 
only.  A  surreptitious  knowledge  and 
use  will  not  aflfect  the  right  of  the  in- 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OK ;  U.  .1. 


Ojl 


riglit  of  the  in- 


PATKNT  ACT8;    PUBLIC.      ACT  Qt   1703,    SS   2|   3- 


vciit'T.     S/i(iinv.  Cooper,  VPt't.,  iUO. — 
MrI-i;AV,  J.;  Slip.  {'!,,  1h:i:i. 

!».  Tlioiiu'li  this  act,  liki-  that  of  1700, 
ri(|uiit'.s  a  petition  to  ho  prcHi-ntcd,  and 
tli(;  piiti-nt,  when  issued,  to  recite  the 
"iilli'iTiitions  and  sugjrostions  of  the  pe- 
titi""/'  it  appears  on  investitj;afion  tiiat 
aflei"  the  act  of  17!>i),  tiie  jictition  alone 
fiolilotn  contained  any  thing  as  to  the 
iiiittiit  heyond  a  mere  title ;  sometimes 
fuljpr,  !ind  again  very  imperfect  and 
gt'iicral,  with  no  other  ailegalions  or 
suggest  ions,  or  descriptions  whatever, 
except  those  in  the  schedule  or  specifi- 
cation. /A>///y  V.  Emerson,  (i  Ihtw.,  480, 
481. — WooniuiSY,  J. ;  Sup.  Cf.,  1847. 

10.  Hut  the  Hpecilication  being  filed 
■it  tlie  same  time,  and  often  on  tlio  same 
paper,  seems  to  have  been  regarded, 
wliotlicr  specially  named  in  the  petition 
or  not,  as  a  part  of  it.  To  avoid  mis- 
takes as  to  the  extent  of  tlie  inventor's 
claim,  and  to  comply  with  the  law,  by 
inserting  in  tlie  jjatent  at  least  the  sub- 
stance of  tlie  petition,  the  oflicers  in- 
serted, by  expres.s  reference,  the  whole 
descriptive  portion  of  it  as  contained  in 
the  schedule.     Ibid.,  48\. 


Section  2. 
See  also  Foinr. 

1.  It  is  not  every  change  of  form  and 
proportion  which  is  declared  l)y  this  act 
to  be  no  discovery,  but  such  as  is  siin- 
pli/  !i  cliange  of  form  and  proportion, 
and  nothing  more.  If,  by  changing  the 
form  and  proportion,  a  new  effect  is  ]>ro- 
(luccd,  there  is  not  simply  a  change  of 
form  and  proportion,  but  a  change  of 
jirinciple  also.  Davis  v.  Palmer,  2 
Brock.,  310. — MABSHAtx,  Ch.  J.;  Va., 
18'.!  7. 

2.  Though  this  declaratory  act,  that 


a  change  in  form  ih  not  a  discovery,  wa» 
not  re-enacteil  in  the  law  of  Ih;)(»,  it  ih  a 
principle  which  necessarily  m.-ikes  part 
of  (!very  system  of  law  granting  patents 
for  new  inventions.  Wititftm  v.  Den- 
tneiiif,  15  How.,  341. — Cuktis,  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1863. 

Section  3. 

1.  The  t.iking  of  the  oath,  by  the  in- 
ventor, is  but  apreretpiisile  to  the  grant- 
ing of  a  patent,  and  in  no  degree  essen- 
tial to  its  validity.  If  therefore  not 
conformable  to  the  statute,  it  is  no  ob- 
jection to  the  patent.  W/iittemore  \. 
Ci/t(er,  1  Gall.,  43a. — Si'ouv,  J.  j  Mass., 
1813. 

2.  Under  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion requiring  drawings  with  written 
references,  if  the  specification  refers  to 
the  dr.'iwings,  they  thereby  become  part 
of  the  written  description  of  the  inven- 
tion. JEarle  v.  Sawyer,  4  Mas.,  10,  11. 
— Stoky,  J.;  Mass.,  1825. 

3.  An  exemplification  of  a  specifica- 
tion of  a  patent  is  made  evidence  by 
this  section  of  the  act  of  Congress.  The 
exemplification  of  the  patent  itself  stands 
ui)on  the  conuuon  law,  as  being  an  ex- 
emplification of  a  record  of  a  public 
document,  and  is  alw.iys  to  be  received 
as  evidence.  The  drawing  or  model 
need  not  be  exemplified.  Peck  v.  Far- 
rhigton,  9  Wend.,  45. — Savage,  Ch. 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1832. 

4.  The  patent  act  of  179^  does  not 
limit  the  inventor  to  one  single  mode  or 
one  single  set  of  ingredients  to  carry 
into  eflfect  his  invention.  Ho  may  claim 
as  many  modes  as  he  pleases,  provided 
always  that  the  claim  is  limited  to  such 
as  he  has  invented,  and  as  arc  substan- 
tially new,  ;wd  §  3  of  this  act  requires 
in  the  case  of  u  machine,  that  the  inven- 


mm^f' 


.^^^il^Ew 


"'>•»'  <W>'' ' 


.-!X*-0 


r 


'  •  9^  'n,,, 


■  *r;i^|#r 


'^^\i 


m{ 


wm^  ^ 


652 


STATUTKS,  CONSTUrCTloX  OF;  11.  3. 


rATKXT  aoth;  rruLio.    act  or  n'j;i,  ^g  4,  6. 


/^li 


tor  sIihII  cxiihiiti  tliu  Hi>vori(I  nioiIuH  in 
which  h(!  hiis  ('()iilciii|ilat<>i|  the  iipplicti- 
tion  ot'ilM  |ti'in('i)ilr.  Iii/<inv.  (lumlwin, 
3  Siunii.,  fiiJl. — Snmv,  J.;  IMiiss.,  1830. 
6.  ITiidi'i'  thiN  Nfction,  tlic  oiiiiHNioii  of 
written  rcfcrcnci'H  in  tlio  HpLTilinition  to 
thu  (Iniwini^s,  iiiiloss  such  rcri'rc'nci'ft 
art;  iioccssiiry  to  iiii  iiiiiU'rstuiitiiii;^  of 
tho  iiivi'tition,  will  not  vitiato  the  pnt- 
cnt.  lit'inilcH  V.  liickmll,  ;«  Mcl^oaii, 
201.— M.  Lkax,  J. ;  Ohio,  1H4.I;  'Vush- 
hum  V.  (I'oulif,  3  tStur}',  i-i'<i. — fSiouv, 
J.;  Mass.,  1H44. 

6.  It  Ih  (lout)tfiil  wlic'thcr  this  sccition 
rocniircs  tlio  specification  to  contain  ir>'it- 
tcn  reft'VcncL'S  to  tiio  (ira\viri<;s.  It  is 
Bufflcicnt  il'  drawings  an<l  written  refer- 
ences lire  put  on  file  with  the  specifica- 
tion; and  if  the  references  recjuired  are 
written  on  (he  drawiiif^s,  tho  statute  is 
satisfied.  J'Jinermn  v.  Jlo'jf/,  2  IJhitchi'., 
0,  10.— Ukits,  J.;  N.  y.,  1845. 

7.  Tuder  tho  act  of  1703,  the  speci- 
iication  was  not  rerpiireil  to  be  made  a 
part  of  liie  letters  patent,  but  the  in- 
ventor could  have  it  so  incrporated 
with  thetn  if  ho  desired.  Hogg  v.  JSm- 
craon,  1 1  IIow.,  004. — Woouutuv,  J. ; 
Sup,  Ct.,  1850. 

Section  4. 

1.  It  is  the  business  of  the  assignee 
of  a  patent-right  to  see  that  the  assign- 
ment is  put  on  record.  Morrill  v.  War- 
thiiigton,  14  Mas.,  392. — Cuuiam;  Mass., 
1817. 

2.  An  assignment  of  a  patent,  thougli 
not  recorded  in  the  office  of  the  Secre- 
tary of  State,  is  still  valid,  e.\cept  as 
against  creditors  and  subsequent  pur- 
chasers. JTolde7iv.  Curtis,  2  N.I  lamp., 
63. — "Woodhuuy,  J.;  N.  II.,  1819. 

3.  Under  this  section  an  assignment 
is  not  valid  imless  it  has  been  recorded 


in  the  olllco  of  the  Secretary  of  Stnto. 
Jliggitia  v.  Strong,  4  Mlackf.,  183.— 
Dewkv,  J.;  Ind.,  Ih.iO. 

4.  An  assignment  of  a  parlicular  in. 
terest  in  »  patent-right,  tui  u  convcyanco 
of  a  right  to  use  an  invention  within  a 
limited  territory,  is  not  re(piin  d  (o  ij,, 
recordetl.  SttveiiH  v.  Ileml,  I)  N'orin. 
177. — W1M.IAM8,  Ch.  J.;  Vt.,  1837. 

6.  Under  this  section,  until  an  asj^ign. 
niont  is  rec(trd(Ml,  the  assignee  is  not 
sul)stituted  to  the  rights  and  resjionsj. 
bilities  of  tho  patentee,  so  uh  to  nmin- 
tain  a  suit  at  law  or  in  ecjuity,  foundod 
thereon.  Wgeth  v.  Stone,  1  Story,  206. 
— Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

Section  6. 

1.  Actions  brought  for  an  iiifiin^'c- 
nient  of  a  patent  are  not  cognizahle  in 
a  state  court,  but  are  only  cognizablu  in 
the  Circuit  Courts  of  the  Tnited  StatM. 
Parnons  v.  Uarnard,  7  John.,  144.— 
Ciriam;  X.  y.,  1810. 

2.  Under  this  section  the  assignee  of 
a  part  of  a  patent  cannot  maintain  .in 
action  at  law  for  a  violation  of  the  pat- 
ent. Tyler  V.  Tuel,  0  Cra.,  324.— Clri- 
am;  Sup.  Ct.,  1810. 

3.  But  the  assignee  of  a  moiety  may 
join  with  tho  patentee  in  an  action  for 
a  violation.  Whittemore  v.  Cntlcr,  1 
Gali.,  4;iO.— Stoev,  J. ;  Mass.,  1813. 

4.  Under  this  section,  subjecting  to 
a  penalty  ''any  person  who  shall  make, 
devise,  and  use,  or  sell,  the  thing  so  in- 
vented," it  might  well  be  questioned 
whether  any  person  woiihl  be  subject  to 
the  penalty  for  using  a  machine,  which 
ho  had  not  .ilso  made  and  devised.  Bui 
this  doubt  is  removed  by  §  3  of  the  act 
of  1 800,  which  repeals  this  §  5,  and  suh- 
jects  to  damages  "any  per.son  who 
shall  make,  devise,  use,  or  sell'"  the  in- 


STATl'TKH,  roXSTRUCnON  OF,  B.  8. 


ess 


■l:iry  of  Stiitj. 
Ihu-kr.,  183.— 


PATKNT  AOTH;  I'l  III.IO.   ACT  OF  1703,  ^^   5,  0. 


vpntioii  of  another.  Et^'inn  v.  Junffin^ 
1  IJn.d;.,  '-'.")0,  231.— Maksiiai.i,,  C'Ii. 
.1.;  Vu.,  181.1.     ^ 

5.  WIhto  an  invontor  ii«(sij;i\(Ml  his 
invi'iitioii  l»i'l(>rc  p.itrnl  taktti  niil,  //</</, 
that  tin-  :ictioii  for  iiifriii},'t'mciit  could 
not  l>t'  iiiaiiitaincil  by  tlu>  piitciitcc,  Ittit 
hIioiiI'I  III'  broiij^ht  hy  llic  assii^'iicc. 
Jlo'hift  V.  Ailinnx,  \  Miis.,  15. — Stouv, 
J,;  Ma.s.,  iH'j:,. 

0.  WliftliiT  the  nssij,'tu'((  of  ii  part 
iiitt'iT>*t  ill  II  piitt'iit,  cin^uinMcrihotl  by 
liK'iil  limits,  may  iiiaiiitain  a  suit  at  law  ; 
(mry,  Hut  lio  may  in  oniiity.  Oytv  v. 
A'yt',  4  Wa^sli.,  584. — W AsiiiN.iToN,  J. ; 
Pa.,  18'J(1. 

7.  Un.lt'i'  tho  nets  of  1703  and  IHOO, 
tlie  Circuit  Courts  of  thu  Unitctl 
Stiites  alone  luivo  jurisdiction  of  ac- 
tions brought  for  damages  for  an  in- 
lViii!,'('iiient  of  a  patent.  Jiurrall  v. 
Jewett,  2  Paige,  145.— Walwoktii, 
Clmn.;N.  Y.,  IBiiO. 

8.  Tlic  uiiikcr  and  seller  of  a  patented 
artiilo,  wlliiiii  flio  meaning  of  this  nec- 
tion,  is  tho  perHon  for  whom,  by  whose 
JiroL'ti(»n,  and  for  whose  account  the  ar- 
ticle is  sold,  ami  not  the  mere  workman 
employed  to  sell.  Delano  v.  Svott^  (111- 
piii,  498.— TIoi'KiNsox,  J.;  Pa.,  I'.U. 

9.  §  4  of  the  patent  act  of  1 7!>(),  nnule 
nil  infringer  liable  to  pay  such  damages 
as  the  jury  should  find,  and  also  forfeit 
the  imu'liinc.  §  5  of  the  act  of  1793, 
declared  that  .an  infringer  should  pay  a 
sum  equal  to  three  times  the  price  for 
whieh  the  patentee  had  sold  licenses. 
§  3  of  the  act  of  1800,  provided  that  an 
infringer  should  pay  three  times  the  ac- 
tual damages  sustained.  Seymour  v. 
}f'Cormifk^  16  IIow.,  488, — GniKrw,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

10.  §  14  of  the  patent  act  of  183G, 
confines  the  jury  to  the  actual  damages 
sustained  by  the  patentee.    The  power 


to  hirrenne  thoni,  n«  punltlvo  dfimngp% 
Is  committed  to  the  discretinM  and  jud<> 
ment  of  the  court.     A/>/</.,  4H0. 


Stction  fl. 

1.  Tills  section  does  not  enumerate  all 
the  defences  of  which  the  ib'feiidant  may 
leg.illy  avail  himself:  as  lu^  may  give  Iti 
evidence  that  lie  never  did  the  thing  at- 
tributed to  him  ;  that  the  patentee?  is  nn 
alien,  and  not  entitled  under  the  act ;  or 
that  ln!  h.'is  a  license  or  authority  under 
the  pateiite*'.  Whithinorn  v.  Cxftur,  1 
Gall.,  435.— Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

2.  Tlio  oltject  of  this  section  was  to 
gu.inl  against  defeating  patents  by  tho 
settingnpof  a  prior  invention  wlii(  h  had 
never  l)een  reduced  to  practice.  Jleil- 
ford  v.  I  flint,  1  Mas.,  305. — Stouy,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1817. 

3.  This  section  appears  to  have  been 
drawn  with  the  idea  that  the  defendant 
would  not  be  at  liberty  to  contest  tho 
validity  of  tlic  patent  on  the  general  is- 
sue, and  intends  to  relieve  the  defend- 
ant from  the  difticulties  of  pleading,  by 
allowing  him  to  give  in  evidence  matter 
which  iilTeets  the  patent.  Evana  v. 
Eaton,  3  Wheat.,  503,  504.  — Mau- 
siiAi.i,,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 

4.  Such  notice  is,  however,  for  the 
security  of  the  plaintitl',  to  protect  him 
.'ig.ainst  surprise.     Ibid.,  504. 

5.  The  provisions  of  this  section  do 
not  apply  to  enable  a  i>lainliff  to  treat 
his  patent  as  void.  The  2*i"oceeding9 
under  this  section  are  tho  acts  of  the 
defendant  only,  and  the  plaintift'  has  no 
right  to  set  up  a  defect  in  his  own  pat- 
ent. Morris  v.  Huntington,  1  Paine, 
355. — Thompson',  J.;  N.  Y.,  1824. 

G.  This  section  docs  not  enumerate 
all  the  defences  which  a  party  may 


■>1l  kut**!  t'ii 


fc'  i 


™«*l4    '(I 


est 


STATTTK^,  CONHTUUtTlOV  OP,  H.  a. 


i'ATKyf  Acni;  fvw.tr     ACT  or  IftJJ,  ^i  0,  JO. 


r'^^:iL 


^ 

/i» 


J 

A 


inuko  li(  n  Hnit  liroiiLrlif  untinnt  hirr*  for 
violiilin^  II  pitU'iit.  Oiii-  (iltvioiiH  iirritM- 
kioM  IM  wli«<rtt  III)  iiNOH  it  uii<I(>r  ii  lirvimo 
or  grant  iVoni  tlu'  iiivt'iitor.  IVinnK-k  v. 
TJialaf/ue.,  'J  IV't.,  'I'i. — SruUY,  J, ;  .Sij(>. 
ft.,  1HV!1». 

7.  TIh*  ('irouil  Court,  in  a  civil  »iiit, 
cannot  ilccluri;  n  patent  void  except  lor 
tilt!  caiiMcs  Hpocififil  in  tliis  Ncction.  If 
lliL'  patent  is  defective  for  any  oilier 
cause,  tlie  verdit  t  mlint  he  ^eni'ral  for 
tlio  defi'iiilant,  WfiUnvij  v.  J'hntnrtt^ 
llald.,  :)21.— IlAi.nwiN,  J,;  I'u.,  Im-U. 

H.  If  a  difeiidant  heeks  to  annul  a 
pati'iit  lie  must  proceed  in  piecise  con- 
formity witif  g  0  of  tho  act  of  170;J ;  and 
"fraudiileiil  intent"  must  bo  found  by 
the  jury  to  juntify  a  juil;;iiient  of  ruti-tt- 


ly.    Stmrm.^  v.  hnmtt,  1  M;»ii.,  i74.__ 
Stouy,  J.;  MasH.,  IHIO. 


lui'  l)y  llie  court.  This  scitioii  di»en  not 
control  tilt!  third.  Gniid  v.  Iitii/m>iii<l, 
0  Pet.,  ;247.— Maksiiau-,  Ch.  J.;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1832. 


Section  9. 

1.  An  inventor  filed  a  dcHcription  of 
his  allej?e(l  invention,  in  IHO-J,  us  re- 
(piired  l)y  5$  3  of  the  act  of  I"!):',  and 
took  no  further  ntep  until  1H14.  In  that 
year  another  person  made  application 
for  a  patent  for  the  saini;  invention, 
without  knowlcdj^o  uf  the  first  invcii- 
lioii.  J/ihl,  that  there  was  no  limitation 
of  time  within  which  a  patent  must  bo 
taken  out  after  the  specification  filed, 
and  that  the  facts  made  a  case  of  inter- 
fcreuce  to  be  arbitrated  under  thi-  sec- 
tion. Anon.,  5  0]tin.,  70l. — Ui-.sii,Atty. 
Gen.;  1814. 

2.  The  refusal  of  a  defendant  to  sub- 
mit liis  (;laim  to  arbitration  under  this 
suction,  and  his  subsecpiently  obtaining 
a  patent  therefor,  is  not  conclusive  evi- 
dence, in  a  proceeding  under  §  10,  that 
such  patent  waa  obtained  surreptitiouj- 


Stction  10. 

1.  ProreedingH  under  \.\\\n  noifiou  up,,,, 
tho  rule  ni»i  are  not  ct)MrhiNi\e.  TIik 
firoccKM  awnrdeil  upon  making  tin-  riilo 
abxolule,  is  in  the  nature  of  a/«.'<>i'  fnvi. 
itn,  and  is  not  final.  Sd-nrnrs  v.  Jhirnit 
1  Mas.,  lO.').— Srouv,  J.;  Ma«.M.,  in  o, 

li.  The  authority  intended  to  he  pivtii 
by  thi^  section  is  vested  exclusively  in 
the  Dinirict  Courts,  and  pn.,  .(.(Jin-^fH 
under  it  are  summary,  ami  not  in  tin; 
nature  of  a  urire  facias.  The  inakinj,' 
the  rule  ;*m/  absoliitu  works  n  repeal  of 
the  p.itciif  without  further  pri)(e('iljri"!(, 
J/r(,',iir  V.  /iij/iin,  \  V.  S.  Law  Jdir. 
OH.— Vax  Nk.sm,  J.;  N.  Y.,  Is^'J. 

3.  Under  this  Hection  the  niaktiig  lli« 
rule  7iinl  absoluft!  docs  not  tfe  facto 
work  a  repeal  f»f  the  |)ateiit :  hut  (lie 
process  to  be  i--;ued  is  in  the  nature  of 
a  «rire  fariaa  to  tho  putentee  to  show 
cause  why  tho  patent  sliould  not  he  re- 
pealed. Wood  it  Ilruntla(/r,  Kx  jnirt,\ 
1)  Wheat.,  004,  01').— Stoky,  J.;  Sti],. 
Ct.,  1824. 

4.  The  jurisdiction  given  to  the  Dis- 
trict Court,  under  tlii.'i  section,  applies 
only  to  cases  in  which  the  patent  has 
been  obtaineil  by  fraud,  surreptitiously, 
by  false  suggestion,  or  by  some  wilful 
misrepresentation  and  decej>tioii.  Dc 
la  HO  V.  Scott,  Gilpin,  403. — IIoi'Ki.vso.v, 
J.;  Pa.,  1834. 

5.  The  liearing  on  tlio  return  of  tho 
rulo  to  show  cause  is  on'  •  initinl,  and 
the  order  of  tho  judge  is  not  tli.it  tho 
patent  is  inv.ilid,  but  only  il  .it  proces.": 
shall  issue  for  a  trial  of  its  validity. 
Ibl>l,  404. 

0.  Tho  summary  proceeding  under 
this  section  is  given  to  protect  the  pul> 


^^ 


OTATtTES*  CONhrUUtTlUN  OFj  II.  a. 


«M 


PATKKT   AOT«;    n»lM.      AVt  Ot  1193,  %  l\.      AOT  Of    \mW    f^    \,   ;i 


lie  from  »utiiiif«'Hl  framl  in   lakin<^  out  ]     4.  CopU-H  of  |iu|uTi  rniiiiol  Ik>  titkcn 
nntoiiW   C'  >>   fi'*'i    of    (»f!U'i>    hoiiiK   in     )>y  lliiiil  (MtrmnH.     Tfioy  t/tkist  Ik»  iiiado 


clii'rk)  for  known  nn<l  ooniinun  tliint;t4. 
//.;./,  404. 

7.  h  }i\\en  tln«  |)ow«M*  lo  niiy  jjorson 
to  cull  upon  n  pati'nttHt  for  nn  extiniinii- 
tit.M  of  lii»«  right,  and  linvo  lii-^  palrnt  re- 
pciik'd  if  it  nliall  1)0  fontid  t!  ,  lit*  itt  not 
iritilli'd  toil       Iftitl.,  fi(H). 

H.  In  proceeding'  under  tJiis  sootion, 
tlif  L'niti'd  Statos  will  nut  •      Hiiimtihi- 


liy  ttio  proper  olllcur,  iind  tln<  ftrs  prtid 
tluTifor.  J/*o/i.,  2  Opiii.,  4.^0,— 'V'ankv, 
Alt),  (iiii.  i  IbJl, 


Act  or  1800,    Cmr.  3S. 
»Kt{m  1. 

1.  Undor  thiH  net  a  forciitnor,  thon^li 
t,.(l  iw  plainlills  ill  an  action  o:  scifH  fit-  Imvln);  rcnidud  vvitliin  tlio  United  Stati-n 
,/,M  in  the  plac»' of  till' patentee,    lK«o(/''-,r  |„„ro  than  I w  >  year>«,  eoiild  ii»t  li;iv« 

a  patent  for  \u.  iiuentiun  operated  hy 
hitn  in  .•ux-thor  «'ountry,  ItelMro  li<f  oniiw 
here,  ;i  ,  .  .:  could  inf  take  (he  oath  ro- 
(plii  (  Ity  this  st.it lite.  Ihiplitt'n  Citse, 
I  (>i»iii.,  :iJ2.— WiuT,  Atty.  (ien. ;  IH'JC;, 

2.  liy  till-  provisionH  of  this  act,  taken 
in  connection  with  thoHc  oi'  the  tu'i  of 
170:i,  citi/eiiH  and  aliens,  as  to  pulenl- 
riglils,  are  jiiaced  snWstantially  upon  the 
saino  ^'I'ound,  as  to  a  i'i|j;lit  to  a  patent 
when  the  invention  ha.s  iieen  known  or 
used  In  foro  it  was  patented.  In  lioth 
cases  the  ri<;ht  i^«  to  be  tested  l»y  the 
same  i  lie.  iShato  v.  Cooper,  7  I'et., 
;uo. — McLk.v.n,  J,;  Sup.  Ct.,  la33. 

Sertion  3. 

1  This  section  gave  jurisdiction  uiiljr 
in  actions  on  the  cane  /  Ihhf,  therefi'  e, 
that  a  suit  in  c»piity,  respi'i-tin^  a  pat- 
ent, in  order  to  be  cogtiizable  by  the 
Circuit  Courts,  must  come  within  the 
provisions  of  the  judiciary  act  of  1VHI>, 
and  that  wiiere  tho  parties  were  all 
residents  of  the  same  state,  such  courts 
had  not  jurisdiction.  Livinfjston  v. 
Van  Ingen,  I  I'alne,  4H,  hA. — LivixG- 
STON,  J.';  N.  Y.,  1811.  [This  defect. 
was  afterwanl  remedied  by  tho  act  of 
1819.     Ed:\ 

2.  This  section  gives  an  action  aj^aiust 
any  one  who  shall  "  make,  devise,  use, 


Wit/'  nn.^,  (iilpiii,  ftilU,  .,2-i. — lIoi'KIN- 
»o.\,  J. ;  Po.,  1834. 

Section  11. 

I.  The  officer  intrusted  to  jfive  copies 
of  pollers  or  drawings  in  |»at«'nt  cwses, 
lias  no  concern  with  tlie  purpose  for 
wliicli  asked.  The  policy  of  tin  law 
nitlicr  re(piires  than  forbids  tliaf  copies 
shoald  he  given.  ^l//()»,,  1  Opin.,  171. — 
riS(KNKV,  Atty.  fJen.;  1«12, 

•J.  A  defendant  being  permit  U'd,  iin- 
.lor ;:;  ij  of  the  act  of  170H  to  set  up  the 
(litVtice  that  the  plaintitrs  specification 
ilfH-'S  not  contain  the  whole  truth,  he 
k\»  under  this  section  a  riglit  to  call 
(or  and  have  a  copy  of  the  plaintitrs 
siitrilication,  and  no  conditions  can  be 
imposed  upon  tho  uso  of  such  copy. 
Anon.,  1  Cpin.,  370. — Wirt,  Atty. 
Gen.;  1820. 

n.  The  proviso  to  this  section  cannot 
1)1'  '-oiisidcred  as  opening  to  all  persons 
iiul -icriniinately  the  right  to  demand 
f()l)ii's  of  papers  respecting  patents 
Riiuited  to  others.  As  to  <  thcrs  than 
u  defendant,  as  provided  for  in  §  6,  it 
rests  in  the  discretion  of  the  depart- 
ment whether  copies  shall  be  furnished 
or  refused.  A/.  >n.,  1  Opin.,  718  — 
WiET,  Atty.  Gen.;  1825. 


'»«'.,. 


!^!1^IU 


'■  •*•    -'.li 


i. 


'  'WIp«'''»»^!i' 


■>•,-■  5,^.- 


IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


4'^/ 


ii^  <^J^ 


'/.. 


<" 


1.0 


I.I 


s*^  lis 

u 


|iO 


■  2.0 


ii.25 


my 


VI 


'/a 


^: 


Photographic 

Sdeaices 
Corporation 


23  WEST  MAIN  STREET 

WEBSTER,  NY.  14580 

(716)  872-4503 


i,\ 


# 


iV 


\ 


A 


%. 


^q> 


\^ 


^  \   WriS 


^ 


>A 


'«^ 


,v 


<l> 


>^ 


^ 


G50 


STA'rUTKS,  CONSTRUCTION  OF;  B.  3. 


'^tK 


^ 


all- 


I'Al'KNT  U;T8;  PUIIMC  ACT.  OP  ISOO,  g  3   ACT  OF  1H19. 


i<r  sril,"  llic  tliiiifif  patt'iiliMl,  and  iukos 
llif  |il;u-i'  of  15  6  of  tli(>  act  <tf  171):i, 
vliicli^ravcaii  action  a^'aiiiHt  any  one  who 
hIiouM  "  make,  devise,  (tnd  use,  c.r  sell," 
and  which  is  repealed  liy  ^  4  of  the  act  of 
1300.  This  change  was  made  because 
of  Homo  doubi  'vvhelhef  thf>  langua.i^e 
of  §  T)  of  the  act  of  1703,  did  not  couple 
the  mahinuj  and  usukj  together,  to  con- 
stitute an  crt'eiu'e,  so  that  making,  with- 
out using,  or  using  without  making,  uas 
not  an  infringement.  AVhltteinore  v. 
Cutter,  1  Gall.,  432.— Stoky,  J. ;  Mass., 
1813. 

3.  The  doubt  which  arose  under  §  5  of 
thoact  of  1 71)3, whether  any  person  would 
be  subject  to  the  penalty  therein  men- 
tioned, for  lining  a  machine  which  he 
had  not  also  imule  and  devised,  is  re- 
moved by  this  section,  which  repeals  §  5 
of  ilie  act  of  1793,  and  subjects  to  dama- 
ges any  person  who  shall  "  make,  devise, 
use,  or  sell,"  the  thing  patented.  Evans 
V.  Jordan,  1  ]>rock.,  252. — Marshall, 
Ch.  J.;  Va.,  1813. 

4.  Under  this  section,  the  sale,  under 
execution,  of  the  materials  of  patented 
articles,  is  not  such  a  sale  as  makes  the 
sherift"liablc  to  an  infringement.  Satcin 
V.  Guild,  1  Gall.;  487.-Stohy,  J. ;  Mass., 
1813. 

5.  Under  this  section  the  jury  find 
single  damages,  and  the  court  treble 
them  in  awarding  judgment.  Lowell 
V.  Lewis,  1  Mas.,  185. —  Story,  J.; 
Mass.,  1817. 

G.  Under  this  section  if  the  jury  find 
for  the  plaintiff,  they  are  to  find  the 
actual  damages  sustained  by  him.  The 
court  will  treble  them.  Gray  v.  James, 
Pet.  C.  C,  403. — "VVasiiingtox,  J.; 
Pa.,  1817.  Evans  v.  Ilcttick,  3  Wash., 
422. — WAsnixGTON,  J. ;  Pa.,  1818. 

7.  This  section  fixed  the  amount  of 
the  recovery  at  three  ti.nes  the  actual 


damage  sustained.  Trebling  the  ilam. 
ages,  under  the  act  of  1830,  rests  with 
the  discretion  of  the  court.  Gnyony, 
Scrnll,  1  IMatchf.,  245.— Nklsox,  J.' 
N.  Y.,  1847.  "' 


Act  op  1819.    Chap.  19. 

1.  This  act  removes  the  defect  tliat 
existed  under  the  act  of  1800,  by  wliiih 
the  Circidt  Courts  did  not  have  juris. 
diction  of  srits  in  equity,  but  only  of 
actions  on  tlie  case,  where  the  parlii's 
were  all  residents  of  the  same  state. 
Livin(jnton  v.  Van  Ingen,  1  Paine,  54, 
N.  Y.,  1811  (note). 

2.  This  act  does  not  enlarge  or  sltor 
the  powers  of  the  court  over  the  snlyoct 
matter  of  the  cause  of  action.  It  only  ex- 
tends its  jurisdiction  to  i)arties  not  be- 
fore fidling  within  it.  It  removed  the 
objection  that  prior  to  it,  a  citizen  of 
one  state  could  not  obtain  an  injunction 
in  the  Circuit  Court,  for  a  violation  of 
a  patent-right,  against  a  citizen  of  the 
same  state,  and  gave  the  jurisdiction, 
although  the  parties  were  citizens  of  the 
same  state.  Sullivan  v.  Bedficld,  1 
Paine,  447,  448. — Thompscn,  J.;  N, 
Y.,  1825. 

3.  This  act  extends  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Circuit  Courts  to  all  cases  at  law 
and  in  equity,  arising  under  the  patent 
laws ;  but  there  is  nothing  in  the  act 
which,  either  in  terms  or  by  nocessarj 
implication,  renders  that  jurisdiction  ex- 
clusive. Hurrall  v.  Jewctt,  2  Paicje, 
145.— Walworth,  Chan. ;  N.  Y.,  1830. 

4.  Though  the  substance  of  this  en- 
actment, so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  sub- 
ject of  patent-rights,  is  incorporated 
into  §  17  of  the  act  of  1836,  and  is  no 
longer  in  force,"  proprio  vigore,  yet  so 
fiir  as  it  gave  cognizance  to  the  courts 


i 


STiiTUTES,  CONSTRTTCTIOX  OF ;  B.  3. 


68^ 


bliii;^  tlio  (lam. 
h;I0,  rt'sts  with 
lU't.  Gnyiin  v. 
— Nklsox,  J.; 


IIAP.   19. 

the  (It'foot  tli:it 
•  1 800,  by  whuli 
not  have  jviris- 
ity,  but  only  of 
[icrc  the  paitii'S 
the  Raiue  Ktatc. 
j/en,  1  I'ahie,  5t, 

,  enlarge  or  alter 
;over  the  subject 
ction.    It  only  ex- 
o  parties  not  be- 
lt removed  the 
:o  it,  a  citizen  of 
taui  an  injunction 
"or  a  violation  of 
a  citizen  of  tlic 
the  jurisfliction, 
ere  citizens  of  the 
V.  ReOficld,  1 
lOMPscx,  J.;  N. 

the  jurisdiction 
to  all  cases  at  law 
luider  the  patent 
)thing  in  the  act 
8  or  by  necessary 
at  jtirisdicticn  ex- 

Jemtt,  2  Paige, 
lan.-,  N.Y.,1830. 
istanco  of  tliis  en- 
•elates  to  the  sub- 
is  incorporated 
>f  1836,  and  is  no 

no  vigore,  yet  so 
ince  to  the  courts 


PATENT  AOTH;   PCDLIO.      ACT  OF   18,12,  JJ?    2,  3.      ACT  OF   1836,  g   2. 


of  tlio  United  States  of  cases  ofeopy- 
richt,  it  still  n'nuiins  in  force,  and  is  the 
onlv  law  coiiferriiit?  equitable  jurisdic- 
tion on  tliose  courts  in  such  cases  Ste- 
vens \.  (7li«f<fhif/,  17  IIi)\v.,  455. — Cur- 
tis, J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  lH5t. 

5.  There  is  nothing  in  this  act  which 
extends  the  equity  j)owers  of  the  courts 
to  the  adjudication  of  forfeitures.  Ibid., 
455. 

Act  or  1832.    Cuap.  1C2. 
Section  2. 

1.  Under  the  patent  laws,  prior  to 
1836,  if  a  patent  was  renewed,  it  was  a 
new  grant,  indepen<lent  of  the  old,  and 
the  patentee  was  entitled  to  the  sole 
and  exclusive  benefit  thereof,  unless  the 
licensees,  or  assignees,  had  by  their  orig- 
inal grant  secured  to  themselves,  by  ex- 
press covcant  or  grant,  a  right  to  the 
henefit  of  the  renewed  patent.  Wash- 
burn V.  Gould,  3  Story,  135. — Story, 
J.;  Mass.,  1844. 

2.  Pricr  to  this  statute,  the  only 
mode  of  prolonging  the  term  of  a  patent, 
beyond  the  original  grant,  was  by  means 
of  private  acts  of  Congress,  upon  indi- 
vidual applications.  Wilson  v.  Rosseau, 
4  How.,  685. — Nelson,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct., 
1845. 

f 

Section  3. 

1.  The  proviso  of  this  section  is  in 
affirmance  of  the  principles  laid  down 
hy  the  Supreme  Court  in  Pennock  v. 
dialogue,  2  Pet.,  1,  1829;  Grant  v. 
Raymond,  a  Pet.,  241-245,  1832;  and 
Shaw  V.  Cooper,  7  Pet.,  314,  315, 1833. 
VcClurffh  V.  Kingsland,  1  IIow.,  207. 
-Baldwtn,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1843. 

2.  As  the  exception  in  the  proviso  is 

42 


limited  to  the  use  of  the  invention,  un- 
der a  special  license,  after  the  gra:it  of 
the  original  patent,  it  leaves  the  use 
jirior  to  the  application  for  such  patent 
clearly  obnoxious  to  the  ])rinciple  es- 
tablished in  J\'n)io('h  V.  Ditdoijitc,  2 
Pet.,  1,  1829,  whereby  the  patent  would 
become  void.     Ihid.,  207. 

3,  The  provision  of  this  section  is 
susceptible  of  but  one  construction,  ami 
that  is,  that  the  patentee  may  sustain  an 
action  for  any  use  or  violation  of  his  in- 
vention, after  the  grant  of  the  new  ])at- 
ent.  No  prior  use  of  a  defective  i)at- 
ent  can  authorize  the  use  of  the  inven- 
tion after  the  emanation  of  the  renewed 
p.atent.  Stimpson  v.  Wei*t  Chester  It. 
It.,  4  How.,  402.— McLkax,  J. ;  Sup. 
Ct.,  1845. 

4,  To  give  to  the  patentee  the  fruits 
of  his  invention  was  its  object,  which 
would  be  defeated  if  a  right  could  bo 
founded  on  a  use  subsequent  to  the 
original  patent,  and  prior  to  the  renew- 
ed one.     Ibid.,  402. 

Act  or  1836.    Chap.  357. 
Section  2. 
See  also  Commissioner,  G. 

1.  Under  this  section  the  chief  clerk 
is  the  acting  Commissioner  whenever 
for  any  reason,  the  Commissioner  is  un- 
able to  discharge  his  duties.  Wood- 
worthy.  Hall,  1  Wood.  &  Min.,  256,  392. 
— Woodbury,  J.;  Mass.,  1846. 

2.  The  courts  will  take  notice,  judi- 
cially, of  the  persons  who,  from  time  to 
time,  preside  over  the  Patent  Office, 
whether  permanently  or  transiently. 
York  €&  Maryland  It.  It.  v.  WinanSy 
17  How.,  41. — Campbell,  J.;  Sup.  Ct., 
1854. 


'<•'  W  || 


'*'■""  Wi»i»filii 


'f^W;iiii!ij 


■ijaMt' 


058 


STATUTKS,  CONSTRUCTION  OF;  B.  3. 


iC 


% 


wm 


iM^ryi^L,, 


\>.>^.  '"^'Ww- 


•'^^. 


^l>^^^, 


4 


PATENT  ACTA;   Pl'BUO.     ACT  OF   1630,  JJj^   4,  6,  6. 


Section  4. 
Sec  also  CoriEs  ok  Papehs, 

1.  A  certified  copy  of  an  assignment 
is  competent  evidence,  and  the  party 
cannot  be  re<piircd  to  prodnce  tlic  orij^- 
inals.  .firou/iS  v.  liivknell,  3  McLean, 
430.— M«Lkan,  J.;  Ohio,  1H44. 

2.  Certified  copies  of  papers  and 
drawings,  on  file  in  the  Patent  Office, 
must  be  received  in  evidence  when  of- 
fered. If  tluy  are  discordant,  they 
may  destroy  the  eifect  of  each  other; 
but  tliey  need  not  concur  in  every  ])ar- 
ticular.  I'Jmerson  v.  Hogg,  2  IMatclif,, 
12.— Hktts,  J. ;  N.  Y,,  1845. 

3.  If  ci)i)ies  of  a  patent  are  errone- 
ous, the  C  iiinmissioner  of  Patents  has 
the  power,  and  ought  to  make  them  con- 
form to  the  patent  itself,  and  to  the  rec- 
ord. Woodioorth  v.  HaU,  1  Wood.  & 
Mill.,  200.— WooDBUUY,  J.;  ISIass.,  1840. 

4.  Certified  copies  of  papers,  in  the 
Patent  Office,  axa  irrhna  fdcie  evidence 
of  the  genuineness  of  the  original  on 
file,  and  absolute  evidence  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  copies  from  the  record. 
ParJccr  v.  Ilmcorth,  4  McLean,  371. — 
McLean,  J.;  111.,  1848. 

5.  The  Commissioner  of  Patents  hav- 
mg  under  his  care  and  custody  the  rec- 
ords as  to  patents,  it  is  his  duty  to  give 
authenticated  copies  to  any  person  de- 
manding the  same,  on  payment  of  the 
legal  fees ;  but  a  demand,  accompanied 
by  rudeness  and  insult,  is  not  a  legal 
demand.  Boy  den  v.  Burke,  14  How., 
683.— Gkieu,  J.;  Sup.  Ct,  1852. 

6.  A  certifieU  copy  of  an  assignment 
of  a  patent,  from  the  Patent  Office,  is 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  genuine- 
ness of  the  original.  Lee  v.  Blandy, 
MS. — ^Leavitt,  J.;  Ohio,  1860. 


Section  6. 
Sec  also  Patknt,  D.  1,  E. 

1.  Under  the  patent  laws,  since  1836, 
the  specification  is  always  annexed  to 
and  forms  a  part  of  the  letters  jjatont. 
PittHw  WhUman,2  Story,  021.— Sio 
uv,  J. ;  ISIo..  I M43. 

2.  The  phiiiseology  of  thin  aci,  in 
respect  to  what  the  patent  shall  con- 
tain, was  changed  from  that  contaimtl 
in  the  acts  of  1700  and  1793,  in  order 
to  conform  to  the  usage  and  constnic- 
tion  Mnder  the  act  of  1793  (of  insortinir 
the  whole  descriptive  portion  of  the  pe- 
tition in  the  patent),  as  such  course 
sometimes  was  misunderstood,  and  led 
to  misconstructions.  IIo<j<j  v.  Emerson 

0    IIOW.,    482. — WOODHUKY,   J.;    Sup, 
Ct..  1847. 

Section  6. 

As  to  snlyect  matter  of  patent,  see 
Pa-zent,  a. 

As  to  hoAV  invention  should  be  de- 
scribed, see  Speoificatiox,  H. 

As  to  patent  including  more  than  one 
invention,  see  Patent,  D.  2. 

See  also  Dua wings  ;  Machine,  B.  ; 
Oath. 

1.  This  section  seems  clearly  to  shew 
that  a  patentee  may  lawfully  unite  in 
one  patent,  all  the  modes  of  applying 
his  invention  contemplated,  and  nil  tlie 
different  sorts  or  modifications  of  ma- 
chinery, by  which  it  may  be  a])plio(l, 
and  if  each  were  new,  the  patent  would 
cover  them  all.  Wi/eth  v.  Stone,  1  Sto- 
ry, 292.— Storv,  J. ;  Mass.,  1840. 

2.  The  words  "by  others,"  in  this 
section,  wore  probably  added  by  way  of 


[vws,  HJncc  lfi30, 

iiys  aniK'xt'd  to, 

lettorH  psitt-nt. 

tory,  021.— SiH> 

of  tl\is  aci,  li> 
[latent  shall  con- 
u  tliat  containL'd 
d   I70n,  ii\  (iitU'r 
ore  ami  construo- 
noa  (of  insertini,' 
portion  of  tlie  pe- 
I,  as  purli  course 
iderstood,  ami  led 
Iloijy  V.  Emerson^ 
3DUURY,  J.;   Sup, 


tcr  of  patent,  see 
ition  should  be  de- 

ATIOX,  H. 

[ding  more  than  one 
•,  D.  2. 

;(;s;  Machine,  B.; 


[ems  clearly  to  shew 
ay  lawfully  unite  in 
J  modes  of  applying 
Inplatcl,  and  nil  the 
Modifications  of  ma- 
lit  may  l^e  applit^^'l, 
[w,  the  patent  would 
lyeth  V.  Stone,  1  Sto- 
1. ;  Mass.,  1840. 
by  others,"  in  this 
bly  added  by  way  of 


STATUTES,  CONSTUUCriOX  OF;  W.  n. 


060 


PATKHT  ACTS;   PfUUC.     ACT  OF    ISIIO,  J^  7. 


explanation  of  the  doubt  formerly  en- 
tertained «>n  the  subject,  whether  a  use 
bvthe  patentee  himself  of  his  invention, 
before  application,  would  deprive  him 
of  a  ripfht  to  a  patent ;  and  to  eonfirin 
the  decision  in  l\,iuock  v.  7Jioluf/m\  2 
Pet.,  18-22.  Jieedv.  Cutter,  1  Story, 
697. — Stoby,  J.;  ^Iu88.,  ia4l. 

.1.  The  words  "  not  known  or  tised 
ly  others  before  his  discovery  or  inven- 
tion," do  not  denote  a  plurality  of  per- 
sons, by  whom  the  use  shouhl  be  known, 
but  that  the  use  should  be  by  some  oth- 
er person  or  persons  than  the  patentee. 
IhkU  507,  608. 

4.  g§  0  nnd  15  of  the  act  of  1830, 
and  ^  9  of  the  act  of  ISsy?,  are  to  be 
construed,  as  to  originality  of  invention, 
as  though  they  were  embodied  in  one 
act.  Smith  v.  Eh/,  5  McLean,  84, — 
McLean,  J. ;  Ohio,  1  -^49. 

5.  Tlie  second  set  of  drawings  re- 
quired by  this  act,  are  unnecessary  until 
the  patent  issues,  and  need  not  accom- 
pany the  application.  French  v.  Rogers, 
jIS.—Kane,  J.;  Pa.,  1851;  O'lteilly 
V.  Mo^ae,  15  How.,  126. — Grieu,  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 

0.  The  things  specified  in  this  section 
are  prerequisites  to  the  granting  of  a 
patent,  and  unless  these  prerecpiisites 
aro  complied  with,  a  party  sued  for  an 
infringement  of  tlie  patent,  may  show 
that  they  have  not  been  complied  with, 
and  in  that  mode  defeat  the  action  of 
the  suppobsd  inventor.  HiOisom  v. 
]iI(tyor,  (&c.,  of  New  York,  MS, — ILvll, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1856. 

Section  1. 

As  to  withdrawal,  see  Application,  C. 
See  also  Prior  Knowledge  and  In- 
vention. 

1.  The  Commissioner  is  bound  to  issue 


a  patent  in  the  case  and  under  the  cir- 
cumstances mentioned  in  this  section. 
Ho  has  no  discretion  about  it.  J/il- 
(hidth  V,  llvath,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)  — 
('uAN<ii,  Ch.  J.;  1).  C,  1H41. 

2.  Wlien  a  patent  has  issued,  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Commissioner  is  ex- 
hausted, and  he  has  no  further  control 
over  it,  except  under  g  l.T,  upon  appli- 
cation for  u  reissue.  J'oineroy  v.  Conni- 
son,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Cra;,  u,  Ch,  J, ; 
D,  C,  1842. 

3.  The  renew.ll  oath  ref|ulred  l»y  this 
section  is  recjuired  only  when  the  jippli- 
cant  persists  in  liis  application,  after 
hiiving  been  informed  of  the  defects  of 
his  speeificatitm.  This  happens  before 
rejection.  If  the  rejection  is  final,  though 
upon  a  first  examination,  no  new  oath 
is  necessary  to  enable  him  to  ai)pe!d. 
Croaker,  I'Jx  parte,  MS.  (Ai)p.  Cas.) — 
CiJANOii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1850. 

4.  The  words  "prior  to  the  applica- 
tion," in  §  7  of  the  .*tct  of  18.30,  refer  only 
to  the  "puVdic  use  or  sale  (of  the  inven 
tion),  witli  the  applicant's  consent  or 
allowance,"  and  do  not  refer  to  any 
thing  else.  Bartholomew  v.  Saicycr^ 
MS. — Ingkrsoll,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

6.  The  words  "prior  to  the  .illeged 
invention  of  the  applicant,"  refer  to  an 
invention  or  discovery  of  some  one, 
other  than  tlio  applicant,  in  this  conn- 
try,  and  also  to  a  patent  or  description 
in  this  or  some  foreign  country.     Ihid. 

6.  The  true  meaning  of  this  section 
is,  that  a  patent  shall  issue  to  the  appli- 
cant, and  be  valid,  if  he  is  the  origina- 
tor and  author  of  a  useful  invention,  un- 
less the  thing  invented  by  him  has,  prior 
to  his  jilleged  invention  or  discovery, 
been  invented,  or  discovered,  or  used,  by 
some  one  else  in  this  country ;  or  unless 
the  invention  of  the  applicant  has  been 
p.itcnted,  or  described  in  some  printed 


mt' 


•ta.  »'' 


.■«.*'":» 


''4U#< 


9m 


coo 


KrATUTKS,  lONSTIllHTlON  OK;  H.  S. 


p^TmT  AOTt;  fvniw.    aot  or  1836,  %i  s,  9,  10. 


E^j 


nw 


|iiililic:ili(iii,  ill  fliiH  «>n«otiit<  fnri'i^n  coiin- 
Iry,  |trioi'  to  tho  iillogi'tl  invi'iitinii  or 
(liHiovi'i  V  •>('  the  .■ipplicaiil  ;  or  Ins  lu-cii 
on  ^iilt'  wilii  till'  :i|)|ilii-:iiit's  foiisciit, 
]ii'ior  to    IiIh   application    tor  ii  piktciil. 

7.  An  orij,i;in!il  ii|i|ilic:iti<)n  or  Hpccill- 
onti«)ii  oaiiMol  lu- aiii('iiilc(l,«<\ct'pt  iiiiilir 
lliin  Nt'i'lioii,  to  fdiil'oriii  tin*  .spci-ilicatioii 
to  tho  altOkUtioiiH  NU^);«>NttMl  Ity  the  Com- 
missioiu'r.  Dyson,  Ke  juirtr,  MS.  (App. 
CuH.)  — I)rNi,«»i%  .1.;  \).i\,  !H(1(). 

Section  8. 
SOO  also  AlTKALS,  11. 

1.  Under  tliis  section  no  appeal  can 
lic  taken  fVoin  tlu>  <lccisioii  of  (lu>  Coin- 
jnissioncr  of  I'ati'iits,  unless  the  oppli 
cdfii'ii  I'or  a  patent  is  rejected.  In  no 
ease  can  an  appeal  l)e  taken  to  tlu>  tjr.'iiit- 
iiijjj  ofa  patent.  I^oincroyw  Conniaon, 
MS.  (App.  (\iH.)— CuANcii,  Ch.  J.;  I). 
C,  iscj. 

'J.  The  words  "either,"  in  this  hoc- 
tion — wlien  8peakinj»  of  the  parties  who 
may  appeal — applies  to  the  wonls  "such 
ajiplieaiits,"  i.  e.,  cither  of  such  <t/>pU- 
t'lt'its.  This  construclion  is  sustained 
Ity  tho  language  below,  authorizing  the 
judge,  on  appeal,  "to  deteriuine  which 
or  whether  either  of  the  xippUcants  is 
ontltl'.'d  to  receive  a  patent  as  prayed 
for."     IhiJ. 

;K  Thero  is  no  liinitalion  of  time  as  to 
an  appeal  from  a  decision  of  tho  Com- 
missioner of  Patents  'o  tho  justices  of 
Circuit  Court.  Jatmey^  J'Jx  parte,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.) — Cbancii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C, 
1S47. 

4.  Under  the  act  of  1830,  §§  7  and  8, 
two  classes  of  cases  are  provided  for. 
An  aj)peal  i.s  given  by  g  1  to  an  appli- 
cant, where  there  is  no  opposing  party ; 


and  by  ^  N,  whore  there  are  inteiiViin.r 
applications.  And  there  is  iintliinir  j,, 
the  repciiliiig  act  of  IH:ill  which  lalos 
away  or  impairs  such  right,  /•'nit: 
Ke  parte,  MS.  (.\pp.  Can.)  Mouski.i,, 
J.;  I).  C. ;  IHft.'J. 

r>.  Cndor  this  section  a  patenlee  li;is 
eipial  right  of  appeal  iVoin  a  deeisinn  ,i|' 
the  Coiniiiissioner  of  Patents  in  fa\iinir 
an  appli<*ant,  that  an  applicant  has  jVom 
a  decision  in  favor  of  a  prior  pitteiiliv. 
Ihthcit'k  \.  Ihyenrr,  MS.  (.\pp.  ('as.)  - 
Mkuku  K,  .1.;  I>.  C.,  IH.MI. 

0.  Tlie  right  of  appeal  is  now  cuii- 
sideretl  as  established  in  aceordaiitv 
with  tliis  last  tiecision.     |  iul.] 

7.  Appeals  are  now  taken  to  (Ii(<  jn^. 
tices  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  Distriit, 
of  Columbia,  instead  of  to  the  board  (if 
examiners  createil  by  this  seciioii, 
See  act  of  IHUil,  g  11,  and  act  of  IH.VJ, 

Sertipn  9. 

HyJJ  10  of  the  act  of  M.areh  'J,  lS(',l,iil| 
laws  diseriinin;Uiiig  between  the  iiilial)- 
itants  of  the  United  States  and  lliosc  (if 
tither  countries,  which  shall  not  discrim- 
inate against  the  inhabitants  of  ilu' 
Unitetl  St.ates,  .are  repo.'iled  ;  and  a  new 
rate   of  fees  enacted,   uniform  for  all. 

Sectum  10. 

1.  Under  this  section,  if  .an  inventor 
die  before  he  has  (ditained  a  patent  lor 
his  invention,  no  person  other  than  his 
executor  or  administrator  can  apply  tor 
a  patent  for  such  invention,  and  the 
j)atont  nmst  be  issued  to  sudi  person  in 
trust  for  the  heirs  at  law  or  devisees  of 
tho  inventor.  Stiinpson  v.  Roijm,  i 
Blatchf. — Inuersoll,  J. ;  Ct.,  1859. 


lit 


STAI'II'IKS,  rONsrUl'CTH'N   Ol';   M.  :i. 


001 


\  IK  ni>l)ru\;;  in 

\\\  whicli  lak.'s 

lif^lil.      I''"lli, 

\H.)      Moiisvi.i., 

I  ;i  p!it<'iitfi>  Ikis 
in  !»  <l«M'isiiiii  III' 
I'lils  ill  luMir  III' 
|ll'u'!»Ul  liiis  iVnm 
I  ]in<>r  ]i;il»'i>Ii't'. 
iS.  (App-riis.)- 

AM). 

n'Ul    if*   ""^^   '■'*"• 
I    ill    uffonluiii'i' 

laKt'H  li>  tlio  jiH- 
lit  of  till'  nistiii'l 
f  [o  \\n'  l)0!iril  of 
hy  this  section. 
iiiul  ivot  of  IHftJ, 


Mim'h2JSi'.l,;in 
lolwctMi  tilt'  i»li;il»- 
itiit«'s  and  those  of 

I  H\\i\\\  not  discrim- 
|ili;il>it!\nts   tif   tl\o 

)t':iU'<l ;  uiul  11  iii'w 
uHirorm  lor  nil. 


10. 

lion,  if  an  iiivontor 
laini'd  a  jiivtciit  lor 
Lon  oUu'i-  tlmn  liis 
Inilor  oan  uvply  f"r 
Jnvontioii,  and  tl\o 
1(1  to  stu'h  iiprsou  in 
]  law  or  devisees  of 
[pson  V.  iJo.'/fs,  ^ 
IJ.;  Ct.,  1859. 


PATRiKT  Airra;  IMIIIMC.   Ail'  or   INMIt,  (ID  II,  11 


. ,  It  ni'OtI  not,  liowi'vcr,  ho  «'X|»r»'HMt'«l 
III  lilt'  p.'ilciit  that  it  in  issiicil  to  hikIi 
cxvin\i*y  ill  fi'ttnf  f'nr  those  fiititlfil  to 
it.  It  will  Ito  Niilllcit'iil  that  tlio  |iati<nt 
net  forth  that  it  wax  iHsiit'il  to  tlit>^rautt>t> 
HI*  I'xt'i'iitor.  What  tho  I'xt'fiitor  tlot's 
ill  n'latioii  to  thf  propi'rt)  of  tht>  dovi 
Hor,  ht'  d»)t'H  in  trust  for  those  to  whom 
Hiii'h  prtipert)  in  giviMi  by  the  will. 
Ilii,l. 

S^Uon  H. 

Soo  also  AssmNMKNf,  A.,  11.,  (\ 

I.  'riic  provision  as  to  reconliiifjj  as 
(iiijiiiiit'iitH  within  three  tnonlhs  is  merely 
(liri't'tory,  ant!  exeeptas  to  iiiti  riiieiliato 
toini  Ji(fi'  |)nn'liasei-s,  without  iiotiee, 
iiiiv  siiliseipii'iil  ret'ordinjjj  is  NiiUifieiit. 
UrotiliS  V.  Hi/ttin,  'J  S(t)ry,  ftl'J.  Sro- 
uv,.I.;  Mass.,  isi:t;  fiffn  v.  W/iifm<in, 
'1  Stt)ry,  (115.-— Stouv,  ,1. ;  Maine.,  18 '.;{ ; 
l>liiii<'/i.  (in>i-Sf<),'/,-  luw.  V.  Wiiriirr,  1 
r.liilthf., 'JV1.-Nki,hon,.I.;  Ct.,  ISKJ. 

'J,  A  nn'iv  liiM'nNo  iieotl  not  In*  reeord- 
eil ;  it  is  not  an  oxolusive  rijjjht.  Jtrooks 
V.  lii/ani,  2  Story,  ftt'J,  51;). — Stoky, 
.1.;  Mass.,  1H|;». 

;i.  'Phis  section  refers  to  the  grant  of 
:in  excluNivo  right  in  a  patent,  and  the 
teriiu'j'('/*/.i/w  rompreliemls  not  only  an 
I'xclusivo  right  to  the  whole  patent,  lint 
an  exi'liisivo  right  tt>  the  pat  "lit  in  u 
|iiiiti('ular  section  of  <!ou!itry.  Wii^h- 
liiirn  v.  (hnild,  H  Story,  1!J1. — Stout,  J. ; 
Mass.,  1841. 

4.  This  si't'titin  provides  for  lint  three 
kinds  of  assignments :  1  st.  As  to  the 
whole  interest ;  'id,  As  to  an  nndivitled 
part;  and  3d,  An  exelnsive  right  in 
any  district.  lilanohanl  v.  /'Jl<lridt/e, 
iWall.,  Jr.,  339,  340.— Gkiku,  J.;  Ta., 
1849. 

0.  This  statu* e  renders  the  monopoly 


capable  of  siilidi\  isimi  as  to  locality,  ami 
in  no  other  way.      //</«/,,  340. 

II.  I'ntler  this  section  an  assignment 
of  a  patent  may  he  made  as  wt>ll  heforti 
tlie  issiiiiig  ol'  the  patent  as  aOerwariJ. 
The  thing  to  h"  assignetl  is  not  the  mere 
parchment,  hut  the  monopoly  conl'crrctl 
— thi>  right  of  property  which  it  ere- 
atiw;  ami  when  tin*  parly  has  iic<piirc<l 
an  inchoate  right,  anassignmcnt  o|' it  is 
legal,  (fdj/lrr  v.  Wibhr,  10  ilnw.,  103. 
-  'I'ankv,  ('h..I. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  18,M). 

7.  I'lidcr  this  Hcclioii  an  assignment 
must  lie  recorded  within  three  months 
lo  ilet'eal  the  right  of  a  siihseipieiit  pur- 
chaser wilhtMit  notice,  ami  lor  ii  valiia- 
hle  coiisitleratitui.  In  ortler  to  gnaril 
against  an  «>utslanding  title  of  over 
tlire<>  nioulh.s'  diinilion,  the  piirc'iaser 
need  tuily  look  to  the  records  of  the 
Patent  Ollicc.  Within  that  period  lio 
must  jiroteet  himsi  If  in  the  hest  way  lio 
can,  as  an  nnreconletl  assignment  would 
prev.ail,  hut  it  must  hi^  tme  in  writing 
that  may  he  recori'.ed.  (lihsun  v.doi)/,; 
•2  I  Match!'.,  148.— NicLHoN,  J.;  N.  Y,, 
1850. 


Hedion  12. 

1.  This  section,  providing  for  a  cave- 
at, is  for  the  heiielit  of  the  inventor,  hut 
is  not  necessary  lor  the  preservation  of 
his  right,  nor  does  the  omission  to  filo 
a  caveat  impair  his  title.  Ifihlraith  v. 
Ilvath,  ArS.  (App.  Oas.)-CKANi:it,  Ch. 
J.;  D.  0.,  1841. 

2.  It  only  en.ahles  hitn  to  have  notice 
of  !iny  interfe.  ing  ap|)!ic!ition.  It,  how- 
ever, gives  no  notice  to  the  world,  nor 
even  to  the  interfering  applicant;  and 
is  notice  to  the  Commissioner  only. 
Ibid. 

3.  The  caveat  is  to  set  "forth  the  de- 


■illH' 


*^\^t 


'  ^f  i 


662 


STATl  TFS,  {'ONSTKI'CTIOX  OF;  H.  3. 


PATKNT   ACTN;    I'UBUO.   ACT  Ot   1H:I<),  )|§    I'i,  18. 


u 


m 


Ki);ii  ami  iMirpoHc"  ofthn  invention,  nixl 
*' its  |>i-in('ip:il  aixl  <lis(in<;iiiHliiMf{  clmr- 
nctt'ilHticH,"  l)iit  it  Is  not  in'<'»'Hsary  tliiif 
it  nIiouIiI  explain  tlitt  iirincipio  involvcil, 
or  tli««  nuxiuM  in  wliieli  it  can  Itc  np- 
|>lii><i,  nor  how  it  in  distin^nirdioil  from 
oliu'r  invcntioiiM.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
to  accompany  it  with  specimens  of  in- 
gredients, or  "onipountlH,  or  nio(h'ln,  or 
drawings,  or  witii  au  oath  of  invention 
or  discovery.  Anan.,  MS.,  Opin. — 
Ih.ACK,  Atty.  (Jen.;    1857. 

4.  Tiie  Conunissionor  can  j)erfurm  no 
act  upon  it  bnt  tiling  it,  nor  in  conse- 
fpicnce  of  it,  except  to  give  the  cavea- 
tor notice  of  a  conflicting  appHcation. 
Ibid. 

T).  The  purpose  of  n  caveat  is  to  save 
the  discoverer  of  an  invention  from  the 
effect  of  the  rule  of  law  that  gives  to 
the  inventor  M'ho  flr«t  adapts  his  inven- 
tion to  practical  use  the  right  to  the 
grant  of  a  patent :  and  if  the  Conunis- 
siuner  complies  with  the  terms  of  >^  12 
of  the  act  of  18U(5  as  to  giving  the  cave- 
ator notice  of  any  interfering  applica- 
tion, it  is  to  secure  him  against  the 
effect  of  the  rule.  Phdps,  Dodge  (b 
Co.  v.  Brown  Jims.,  18  IIow.  Pr.,  8. — 
Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

0.  lint  if  the  Commissioner  accident- 
ally omits  to  give  the  caveator  the  no- 
tice required,  his  rights  will  not  bo 
prejiidiced  thereby.     Ibid. 


Section  13. 
See  also  Reissue  of  Patkio". 

1.  This  section  made  no  material 
change  from  §  3  of  the  act  of  1832,  in 
respect  to  the  use  of  an  invention,  under 
a  defective  patent,  conferring  any  right 
to  continue  such  use  under  the  reissued 


patent ;  but  any  pertton  using  an  invon. 
tion  protected  by  a  renewed  patent,  siil,. 
secpicntly  to  the  date  i'  I  he  act  of  ls;i() 
(July  4),  is  guilty  of  an  infringeriiriit, 
however  long  ho  may  have  used  the 
same,  after  the  date  of  the  defective  jiihI 
surrendcsred  patent.  Stinijtuon  \.  H'j,/ 
VlanUr  li.  li.,  4  How.,  402.— M»  Lkax, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1H45. 

'J.  Untler  this  sectidti  tho  power  to 
surrender  a  patent  and  take  out  \\  ro- 
newal  ther«'of,  is  vested  exclusively  iti 
the  patentee,  his  executors,  administra- 
tors, or  assigns  ;  and  there  is  n()tliiii(f 
restricting  such  right,  because  of  special 
or  limited  grants  or  licenses  j)re\  ioiislv 
made.  Smith  v.  Mercer^  4  West,  baw 
Jour.,  nii. — Kank,  J.;  Pa.,  184(1. 

3.  It  is  not  the  meaning  of  this  sec- 
tion that  the  patentee,  in  his  reissue, 
must  describe  and  claim,  in  his  new 
speciflcation,  either  in  words  or  idea, 
just  what  he  described  and  claimed  in 
his  old  one;  but  his  specification  imist 
be  of  the  sam«'  invention,  and  hocuniioi 
embraci  a  dit!erent  subject  matter  than 
that  ho  sought  to  i)atent  originally. 
Frencli  v.  liogers^  MS. — Gkiku,  Kane, 
JJ. ;  Pa.,  1851. 

4.  There  may  bo  more  than  one  re- 
issue of  the  same  patent ;  the  surrender 
and  reissue  should  be  allowed  to  follow 
each  other  as  often  as  the  inventor  is 
content  to  bo  more  specific  or  more 
modest  in  his  claims.     Ibid. 

5.  This  section  may  be  regarded  as 
afli'-ining  the  propriety  of  the  usage 
tvhich  had  obtained  under  the  former 
laws,  and  under  which  a  second  reissue 
was  allowed,  as  well  as  the  first.    Ibid. 

6.  An  improvement  may  be  annexed, 
under  this  section,  to  the  specification 
of  the  original  patent,  so  as  to  make  it 
form  a  part  of  the  original  patent:  but 
there  is  nothing  that  forbids  an  inventor 


!4. 


iismn  im  invi'ii. 
red  piUt'iit,  Hiili. 
I  lit*  act  of  ls;i(i 
»  ■mtVinj^ctui'iit, 
hiivi'  ust'tl  till' 
u'  tU'tiTtivo  mill 
thiipsDn  V.  Wml 
40'J.— M<  I-K.AX, 

J  t1»o  powi'f  to 
.  tako  out  u  ro- 
ll cxcliiHivcly  In 
tors,  uilmiiiistni- 
luTo  is  nothini,' 
let'iuiso  of  siurial 
I'usort  ])rt'viimsly 
•(T,  4  West.  Law 

Ta.,  1840. 
.niiig  of  tlii.s  8CC- 
L<,  in  liin  reissue, 
Slim,  ill  hiw  new 
I  words  or  idea, 
id  and  cliuniid  in 
uiccitii'utioM  must 
lon,  and  he  I'luimii 

)ject  matter  than 
mtent    orifjiiially. 

.— GuiKU,  Kank, 


loro  tlian  oiio  re- 

lilt ;  tlio  surrender 

sillowed  to  follow 

us  tlie  inventor  is 

specific  or  more 

Ibid. 
.V  be  regarded  as 
Ity  of  tlie  usage 
under  the  former 
•h  a  second  reissue 
as  the  first.    Ibid. 

may  be  annexed, 
the  specitication 
it,  so  as  to  make  it 

iginal  patent:  Ijut 
forbids  au  iuveutor 


ST.VriTKS,  COXSTUUCTION'  OK;  H.  8. 


003 


i>AiKM  Ai-m;  vvuua.    act  or  11130,  %%  13,  U. 


takinj^  out  n  new  luiteijf  for  the  iujprove- 
meiil,  if  he  prefers  it.  (H'liiilly  v. 
Jili<r»<^,  I.')  How.,  1U2.— Tankv,  (Ii.  J.; 
tr,u|).  Ct.,  iHft.'l. 

7.  'I'he  power  to  correct  mistakes  in 
a  patent  is  confided  to  the  ('ouimis- 
gioiier  of  I'atents  under  this  section,  and 
Joes  not  belong  to  the  courts.  The 
courtd  can  only  eonstruo  tho  specifica- 
tion ami  ••laiin,  as  it  stands.  JCittlr.  v. 
}[nritm,  2  Curt.,  478.— Cturis,  J.; 
Mass.,  lH.-)5. 

8.  Hy  this  section,  tho  hoIo  right  to 
surrcmlcr  is  given,  1st.  To  the  jtatentee, 
if  111'  is  alive  and  has  made  no  assign- 
int'iit  of  the  original  patent ;  'Jd.  To  the 
ext'cMitors  and  atlministrators  of  the  pat- 
entee, after  his  deceuHO,  where  tliere 
has  lieen  no  such  assignment ;  and,  :id. 
To  the  assigiuie,  wln'U  there  has  been  an 
assiuinnent  of  the  original  patent.  The 
ri},'lit  to  surrender  is  given  to  no  one 
else.    Putter  v.  Holland^  MS.— Inoku- 

BOU.,  <T.  ;   Ct.,  1858. 

9.  Where,  however,  there  has  been 
an  assigmnent  of  an  undivided  part  of 
the  whole  patent,  in  such  case  the  as- 
signee and  patentee  become  joint  own- 
ers, and  should  join  in  the  surrender, 
and  if  they  do  not,  it  will  be  invalid, 
unless  the  part  o«  ner  not  joining  shall 
ratify  it.    Ibid. 

10.  This  section  gives  to  the  patentee 
the  right  to  correct  his  description  or 
(specification,  when  its  imperfection  has 
arisen  from  inadvertency,  accident,  or 
mistake.  But  tho  only  condition  on 
which  this  can  be  done  is  that  the  orig- 
inal patent  n  inoperative  or  invalid  by 
reason  of  a  fiiiluro  to  comply  with  tho 
requirements  of  the  statute.  The  pro- 
ceed! ii;;  is  therefore  equivalent  to  a  dis- 
tinct admission,  made  in  the  most  solemn 
form,  that  the  patent  has  no  validity  in 


action  Tnr  its  infriiigoment.     Mnj^tt  v. 
Gm-r^  .MS.- LKAvrrr,  J.;  Ohio,  \mo. 

1  i.  Thu  words,  **  it  shall  !)«•  liiirful  for 
the  Commissi«mer,  il;c.,  to  cnuHC  n  new 
patent  to  bo  issuetl,"  in  {$  13,  act  of  18;to, 
are  to  be  constr\ied  as  tududtitiiri/,  and 
to  be  of  the  sam«'  import  as  if  the  wordu 
had  been,  '*  it  m/hiU  f>r  the  duty  of  tho 
Commi.ssion<>r,"  Ac.  The  true  meaning 
is,  the  CoinmisNioner  is  to  have  no  dis- 
cretion in  the  case  provided  for  in  tho 
section.  Dyaon,  Kx  jxtrtCy  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— 1)1  Ni.oi',  J.;   I).  C,  1800. 

12.  When  the  c.ise  providetl  for  arises, 
he  is  cinnmundcdU)  cxereisj'  the  power, 
whether  he  thinks  it  just  and  right  to 
exercise  it,  or  not ;  he  has  no  discretion. 
Ibid. 

la.  "What  the  logisl.'Xture  designed  to 
secure  to  patentees  by  this  section  was, 
to  en.'vble  them  to  cure  honcnt  miHtakes^ 
and  to  get  sidmtiintinlbj 2>rote<'tio)i  for 
the  Kdine  i/ine/ition  they  had  made  and 
intended  to  be  piitented,  when  the  orig- 
inal |»atent  was  granted.  The  only  lim- 
itation in  tho  statute  is  that  the  inven- 
tion shall  be  tho  same.     Ibid. 

14.  To  prove  that  his  invention, 
claimed  on  the  reissue,  is  the  same  made 
and  intended  to  be  p.itented,  he  is  not 
limited  to  the  specification,  models,  or 
drawings  of  his  original  patent,  but  he 
may  go  outside  of  these  and  show  by 
other  proof,  that  his  invention,  at  tho 
time  of  the  original  patent,  was  such  as 
he  sought  to  protect  by  his  reissue. 
Ibid. 


Section  14. 

See  also  Actions,  B.  1,3;  Damages. 

1.  The  assignees  of  an  exclusive  right 
in  a  patent,  are  the  proper  persons  to 


the  sense  of  entitling  a  patentee  to  an  I  maintain  an  action  for  a  violation  of  it. 


#1 


^.^^  tm  'Ui 


W.W.^HrKi'^U,,,;! 


004 


BTATITTI'S,  CONSTIirCTlON  OV  \  11.  t. 


I  AiKM   nil,  niiuo.     Acr  1)1'  I'^.lit,  Kd   14,   lA. 


f  f.**,. 


'W, 


:^^- 


"tjn 


V 

^/^^= 

^**'W«^Mi 

^ 

]rf»«/*A»/r/»  V.  f/»nlJ,  n  Slory,  Ml,  107. 
— Siouv,  .1. ;  M.\nn.,  IhH. 

'2.  Tilt'  f;nuitft<  «it'  an  rxoiiinivo  ri^lil 
uiiil«<r  a  patent,  rvi>n  tlKMij^h  rtiirli  ri^lit 
Im  liniid'il  ti>  a  iiariiciilitr  niiniltci-  of  ni:i 
I'liincM,  may  niiiiiitain  an  action  t\>v  in- 
fi'in^t'nu'i  t.  Wilnitn  v.  liiinniiiu^i  Iluw., 
OStJ,  (IMS.— Nkmom,  J.;  Hup.  I'l.,  lH4ft. 

:<.  rndci'  lliirt  Hi'ftion,  in  fotnu'clion 
with  1}  11  lit'  tilt'  art  of  ISiKJ,  an  action 
iri  given  onl)  to  hiicIi  parly  -composed 
uf  out!  or  nioro  pernonH — aH  ptmHeNMCN  tlio 
MJutk'  interest  in  the  patent.  Siiifilmn 
V.  iKii/^l  IMiilclit",2JI. — N'klmo.n,  IIktis 
JJ.;   N.  v.,  IHJO. 

4.  Wliert'  a  parly  Iiuh  an  interest  in 
only  a  pari  of  a  [Kitent,  as  a  liceiiHO  to  uho 
the  invention,  lu>  cannot  maintain  an  ac- 
tion for  an  iiirrin;;emenl.     Iltlif.,  'Jil. 

5  Aitiml  i/itifi(ii/i s,  acconlin<.j  l«»  tliis 
noetiun,  are  I  lie  Himi  llxetl  l»y  tlio  ver- 
dict. 'Pile  court  may  render  jinlj^menl 
for  three  limes  I  lie  amount  of  the  ver- 
dict. >S(,j,/„>i/<  V.  Felf,  '_•  IWalchf,  :1H. 
— Hirns,  .T. ;  X.  V.,  IHKI. 

(].  I'lider  this  Hcclion,  it  rests  in  <he 
discrelion  of  the  coi:rl  whether  the  dani- 
aj:;es  shall  he  Irehled.  I'lider  the  act 
of  l.sOO,  the  amount  of  recov«'ry  was 
fixed  at  three  times  th«>  actual  <lama<;es 
sustained.  Out/on  \.  A<crnllf'\  IMatchf, 
24.').— Nki.son,  J.;  N,  Y.,  1847. 

7.  I>ut  umler  this  section  the  court 
may  increase  the  tlamai;es,  t hough  the 
]>laintitr  is  not  entitled  to  recover  costs 
under  §  1)  of  the  act  of  Ih;)7,  by  reason 
of  neglect  iii  filing  a  disclaimer  until 
after  .'U'tion  was  coiinnenccd.  If>iil.,2H\. 

8.  Previous  to  the  act  of  1h:1({,  the 
court  were  compelled  to  treble  the  d.am- 
nges.  Since  that  act  they  are  not  com- 
pelled t'>  do  so,  but  may  increase  them 
or  not,  at  their  discretion.  iStinipson  v. 
Jiailroada,  1  Wall.,  Jr.,  IGO. — Guiek, 
J.;  Pa.,  1847. 


0.  Aeliial  damag'  <«  docM  tiol  mean  vx. 
eiiiplary,  vimlictiM*  damages,  lliiil.,  idd, 

10.  The  HonI  "iWMigneen,"  in  ilij, 
Heel  ion,  nuiNt  be  tauiMlrued  by  reference 
to  {}  II  of  the  same  a«'t,  its  meaning  tim 
assignee  of  a  win  'e  inlereni,  or  an  iin. 
divided  tine,  tir  an  excliiMive  local  right. 
JUnui/ianl  V.  /•.'lifriifi/i;  1  Wall.,  Jr. 
;U0.-   (Jkikh,  J. ;  Ptt.,  1S40. 

11.  To  eiiablt>  an  assigneti  tif  a  m-c. 
lioiial  interest  in  a  patent  to  hid!  in  Inn 
tiwn  mime  mnler  this  section,  litt  nniHl 
liavi>  ihe  e\clu^<ive  right,  or  entire  uihI 
tm<|ua!iileii  monopoly  which  the  paten 
tee  held  in  (he  territory  specified,  ex<lu(l. 
ing  the  patentee  himself,  us  \\e||  as  niji 
ers.  <t'<ii//ir  \.  Wililir,  lo  How.,  4|)4. 
— Tankv,  Cli.  .1.;  Sup.  Ct.,  |H50. 

VI.  SJ  4  of  the  patent  act  of  !7i)o, 
made  an  inlVinger  liable  to  pay  siuli 
tiami'ges  as  the  jury  should  lind,  ami 
.also  forfeit  the  machine.  ^  Ti  of  the  ai't 
tif  I7!)M,  declared  that  an  itilViiii'cr 
slmuld  p.'iy  a  sum  e<pial  to  three  tiiiu's 
the  price  for  which  the  patentee  Imij 
sold  liceiiKes.  The  act  of  IHOO  provid- 
ed  that  an  inlVinger  should  pay  tlircu 
times  tht>  actual  damages  siistaiiiiMl, 
g  14  of  the  patent  act  tif  IHMO  conriiics 
the  jury  to  the  ucliial  damage-  siiHlaiitcil 
by  the  patentee.  The  power  to  increasn 
I  hem  as  punitive  damages,  is  coininit- 
led  lo  the  discretion  and  jiidgineiii  ot' 
tht^  court.  Seymour  v.  JlrCvriiurl;  u\ 
How.,  488.— Gkiku,  J. ;  Sup.  Cl.,  1853, 

Seelion  16. 
See  also  Dkfkncks  ;  (iknkhai,  Issuk; 

PUINTKD  PlTHI.ICATION  ;    I'uiOR  K.NOWL- 

KiKiK  ANu  Invkntion  ;  PitlOU  USK. 

1.  The  public  use  of  an  invention, 
before  aj)plication,  referred  to  in  this 
section,  means  a  public    use   with  tin 


STATt'TKS,  CONSTUl'CTIUN  OK;  II.  .1. 


OdS 


not  Illt'tUI  l<X- 
•H.    //»|./..  ItHl. 

i'«'i«,"  ill  tliii 
1  )iy  n'ri'r»'iici' 
I  nu'iiniii};  tlio 
'Mt,  ttr  nil  iiii- 
n'  liiciil  ri^'lil, 
1  NVull.,  Jr., 
lit. 

liU'O  of  n    H'f- 
I    ti)  NtlC  ill    lllH 

■tiiiii,  III'  iiiiisl 
«»r  fill  ire  !iii<l 
licli   tlic  paten 
n-ifu'tl,  fxcliul- 
iis  well  UH  nth- 
10  IIiiw.,  41)1. 
'I.,  ls.-.(». 
1  uct  of  1700, 
i'  to   pay  HiK'li 
uultl  timl,  and 
g  5  of  I  lie  ail 
I    an   iiiriiiii,Mr 
to  tlirt'i'  liiiii'H 
»   patfiitct'  liail 
1"  1H(M)  provid- 
xiltl  pay  tliiTe 
>H'H   Hii^laiiii'd. 
if  IH:i(i  (•(iiitini's 
ai^i'-"  MistaiiU'd 
wiT  Id  liicrcaxii 
ij;os,  is  «-oiumit- 

jUlllMIU'llt  lit' 

MrCunnii'k\  Ki 
Sup.  Cl.,  1853. 


Jknkhai.Issuk; 
1'khik  Knc.wl- 
PlllOll  IJsK. 

if  an  invcMition, 
'iTcd  to  in  tills 
use   with  tho 


MTRhi'  «•  iH,  11  iii.it'.     At  r  nt    |N;itl,  )|  la. 


i.iiiM'iit  of  tlio  liivfiilor,  I'ltluT  i»«'iu'rrtl- 
|v  allow  I'll  or  iii'<|iiii'M't>il  in,  oi  at  li*ii>«t 
uiiliiiiil<'<l  ))i  liiix't  or  I'xii'iil,  or  olijiil, 
Hint  not  iMi'i't'ly  i'X|>«>rliiii*iiliil  or  ti'iii|Mf 

rnrv,  a*  uii    net  of  n intiioilitlion  or 

lkiniliii'»>«.  W'lfith  v.  Sfinii,  I  Story, 
ilSl,     Stouv,  .1,  ;    .Mans.,  |hIO. 

•J,   TIlK  lU-f't'lU't'  >«pt'fillf.l    ill     tlllH    HOC- 

tliii),  "that  th«'  patiMiti'o  wtiM  not  iIik 
orijjiii'il  ami  IIihI  itivriiloror tlisfnMi-iM' 
(if  llic  lliiiiK  palcntcil,"  Im  i'oinpl«<li>, 
vkiilioiil  '^liowiiii;  thai  tli«>  lirht  iii\i<nloi' 
|i:id  pill  hirt  itivi'iitioti  in  pnictict'.  //it- 
ilmilh  V.  //>,it/i,  MS.  (App.  ('as.)  — 
(•u.>.ii,  Cli.  .1.;  I),  t;.,  \Hi\. 

;i,  'I'lic  rlaiisc  iiHinjr  "  ro:iHi>iial»l«>  »lili- 
wiu'tt  in  atlaptiii)'  and  pcirt't'lin^',"  an 
iiivt'iitioii,  is  applii'.'ildt-  only  to  tin*  fast< 
dt"  a  lit  i'l'iii'i' iIimI  iIu-  plaiiiliirs  paiciit 
had  ln'fii  Mirrt'plilioiisly  nr  iinjnsily  til»- 
taiiii'il;  ami  if  pl»'ail«'<l  it  may  Im  niu-i's- 
miv  for  tim  (h'f«'mlaiit  to  show,  in  onlcr 
Id  vacalf  lilt'  palriil,  that  In'  was  iisiiit; 
iliif  liillLti'iift'  wliiii  llii'  pali'iit  was  <tli- 
laiiit'il.  /V/vy  V.  fiinnU,  iM^<.  (App. 
(•a^,)-('lUNrii,  Cli.  .1.;   D.  l'.,  Mt7. 

4.  Tlio  provision  in  this  st'ciion,  r»'- 
(iiiiriii!^  notiff  i>l'  prior  knowl''<ljj;i!  :iinl 
ii«i',  was  inlt'iidt'il  In  ^'iianl  aj^.aiiist  siir- 
iiiist'  fi'Din  siu'h  evitU'iicu  as  was  jj;ivrn 
ill  Wliitiu'y'u  niae.  'I'lioii^li  his  invfii- 
tiiiii  was  tine  of  nmloiililctl  ori^^iiiality, 
two  |K'i'st»iis  ni'ro  l(idiii;lil  forwanl,  mic 
111'  wliDiii  li'slilifti  that  lit'  hati  scun  such 
iininvciilioii  in  Knylaml  scvcntci'n  ymrs 
liilipR',  ami  ihf  other  that,  he  li:iil  seen 
one  in  Irclainl.  Wllfon  v.  /iin'lroat/H, 
1  Wall.,  Jr.,  lit.-).— (JitiKu,  J.;  Ta.,  iH47. 

5.  The  provisions  »if  J^J^  7  and  i.'i  of 
the  art  of  IHIUl,  introiliieed  an  iinport- 
;int  innililicalion  into  the  law  of  ji.'il- 
I'lils,  disijj;iu'd  to  protect  the  Aiiieriean 
invt'ntor  ajfainst  the  injiistieo  of  heinj^ 
thrown  out  of  the  IVnits  of  his  ingenu- 
ity by  the  existence  of  a  secret  inven- 


tion or  dUeovery  iihroatl  -  that  U,  iuIIm- 
i'o\ery  not  paleiilt'd,  ;intl  not  di'McrllM'd 
in  any  prinlfil  p  Idiealioii.  ,l;io;<.,  5 
Opin.,  '.M.— Toi  rKv,  Ally.  <len. ;  IHIH. 

•I.  .\  fiitmi  fiiti'  inxeiitor  in  ' hi*  «'onn' 
try,  iiii'l  who  Im  lii'\<'t|  hiiiisi  If  in  he  llii< 
orijKinal  ami  lirxl  inventor,  at  the  lime 
of  his  'ipplieation,  aiiil  ilid  not  know  or 
lieli  vo  his  invention  had  hefitre  lieen 
known  or  iihciI,  is  cnlilletl  Id  a  patent 
for  his  invention,  thoiigli  the  same  in- 
VI  ntion  may  have  Im'i'ii  known  and  iisnl 
in  II  foreign  eoiintry,  provi<leil  it  hail  not, 
heeii  palrtili'il  or  dest-rilieil  in  any  print- 
I'd  pnldieation.      / f>i,f, 

7.  TIki  wortls  in  Ihiri  seetion,  "  nnleriA 
Niii'h  person  w.'iH  nsing  reason.'ilJe  dill- 
genee  in  adapting  and  perfeeiing  the 
same,"  eoiisliliite  a  t/niifijfrdfiini  of  the 
preei'diiig  language  of  Ihi'  si-elion,  so 
that  an  inventor  who  has  first  actually 
perfected  his  invention,  will  not  lie 
dt'eineil  to  have  siirreplitiniisly  or  iiii 
Justly  olitaiiied  u  patent  for  that  which 
w;is  iwj'iii't  itikU'Htitl  hy  uiiollnr,  inilrsH 
tht'  tuff  It  was  at  the  time  unfntf  rfaaon- 
a/tlf  i/ili>/i'iii'i'  in  ;iilapliiig  ami  perfect- 
ing the  same.  A/urH/ni/t  v.  A/ii\  IMS. 
(App.  C'as.)— DuNi.oi',  J.;    I>.  ('.,  iHf.M. 

H.  The  defence  that  the  pati'iiteo  had 
"surreptitiously  and  nnjnslly  ohiaineil 
the  paleiil,  for  thai  which  was  in  fact 
invented  or  discoveieil  l»y  another,  who 
was  nsiug  reaHonalilcililigence  in  adapt- 
ing and  perfecting  the  same,"  does  not 
ni'(;ess;irily  itiiply  had  faith  on  the  part 
of  the  patentee,  aga'asl  whose  patent 
this  tlefence  is  set  np.  The  w mtls  were 
intended  to  hu  used,  :uid  an^  used,  in 
their  hroadest  sense.  /V/r/yw,  /todffn 
tb  Co.  v.Jtromi  Pros.  18  Ilow.  I'r.,  !).— 
Nklson,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

0.  The  meaning  of  the  word  patented., 
in  the  phrase  "patented  in  any  foreign 
conntry,"    is   that   the   invention   shall 


i 

1 


'^'^  <<m0itf»S 


•«< 


A, 


^'^ 


.'•an; 


M|lfAl»l 


e««) 


6TATLTI  s.  CDNSTUirriDN  01' ;  11  I. 


fAVMr  At  r»,  rt'MJc.  act  or  ItM^  f|  li^  I1. 


r»*b- 


"  ■»'^'- 


-V 


liiivc  iH'fii  iifiili'  |ini(>iii  lo  ilu*  H'orlil.   Ill 

Kn^liithl,  llifrcrnrc,  iiii  itivftitinn  U  iii*t 
|>iitciit<<il  until  ili«*  i'i«in|t|ftf  ■|>fiilli'itlii)ii 
U   lilfti,  uliii'li   iii'fti    ii>)t  ltt>    until  nit 

IllOtltlf   lllh>r  lll(>  lilll«<  Ot'fllt'  ll'lttTH  |l!||. 

viil.  //.»«•»•  V.  ,V<>rfi'»i,  Ms.  -SfUAut  K, 
J.;  M;!**..  f*iit>. 

8*ftion  1«. 

1,  IVix'  •••liii^M  iiii<lt>r  tliU  MfOlloi), 
aihl  ;i  to  oi'  llio  !!«■!  »r  iHMtl,  ill  (>(|iii|y, 
ti^aiiixt  till*  l'«>tini)ii><«ii>ti('r  of  I'ulnitM, 
to  ('i>i<i|u>l  liiiii  to  U«ii«<  II  piili'iit,  inii'il 
t)t>  foiiiiiiiMU  I'll  ill  till-  Cirrtiit  C'lMli'l  of 
till'  rnitiil  St!iti'«i,  litr  till"  Di-tiiit  ol" 
i'oliiiiiltiii,  aiiil  tlu>  (.'ii-ciiil  ('miri)*  in  tlu> 
viiriotirt  Ktut(>!«  hiivt*  no  Jiiriitiiiciio**. 
J'nnfiim  V.  miswoi-th,  Mir.  Pal.  Oil'., 
y."i,  ;iil.     |{\M>M,i,  .1.  ;  I 'a.,  isjo. 

*J.  Till'  a<iFii>;n«>«<  i>t'  an  iiiti'iilioii,  by 
virtiio  of  mi  aM.ii^ninoiil  ii.ui|t>  lu'l'mv 
|»a((>iit  ixriiu'il,  may  tilo  a  liill  in  liix  own 
ii.'iini',  umli'i-  tlii^si'ftiiMi  aiiit  '^  lOnt'tlu' 
art  ot'  l.s:t!),  a^aiiiHi  a  |i:kti'iiti'i'  to  wlimii 
a  patt'iit  i?<.«m'il  on  tlu'  rfji'otitm  of  tlii« 
assi^nor'ri  application,  I'or  llu>  |)iii'poi*t' 
of  aniiiilliiii;  llu>  patent  i'<siit')|,  .■nui  Ictv- 
iiit;  oiu'  ^'raiiti'il  to  liiin  an  aviijrnoo. 
Ami  sucli  a^«si^lllll^nl  nci'il  not  liavi- 
Ik'i'ii  rcc'onleil  bofoiv  Huit  l»iou^;lil  ;  it 
will  be  snAii-iiMit,  if  it  is  nn'onU'il  at  tiny 
time  bi'fmi  tlie  issuim;  of  Ilu*  patent. 
ihiy\.  Cormll,  1  IMali'lif,  oOl),  .MO.— 
Nklsox.  .1.;  N.  v.,  1S40. 

3.  Upon  a  bill  filed  to  ileelare  a  pat- 
ent, j»ranteil  by  the  ('oinniissioner,  .af- 
ter an  interferenee,  invaliil,  or  iiu>pi'r;i- 
tive,  miller  this  section,  :iiul  amemleil 
by  55  10  of  the  act  of  1H;U),  the  liearinj,' 
IS  altogetlier  iiidepeiiileiit  of  that  before 
the  Commissioner,  ami  takes  place  upon 
such  testimony  as  the  itarties  may  see 
fit  to  j)rotliice,  agreeably  to  the  rnU'S  ami 
practico  of  a  court  of  equity.    The  ovi- 


•lenee  b«>foro  tlu»  (\>imni»a|i«iii>r  U  t^ 
etiileiliv  ill  xieh  II  unit,  I'teept  by  ,.„„ 
MiH  of  partie. ;  mr  are  the  p.irti,  ,r,. 
utiiele.l  to  the  tf^liniKny  nueil  ln«t",r,. 
the  l'oniini«(«ioiier.  Kit  her  purl*  i«  .,| 
liberty  to  inlroijnee  aillitioniil  eviihii,., 
AtAiiinnti  V.  ttoiifttmiin,  MS.  -  Nkuoh 
J.;  N.  v.,  IK.M. 

See  aNo  Coriir»«,  11.  I. 

I.  "Other  rea»oimbh»  en»ei»,*'  uinlir 
tloN  Mvlioii,  in  Hhieh  appeaU  iiti,|  y^tw* 
of  error  may  be  alloweil  to  the  Nii|iriiiii' 
Court,  niiiMi  be  limiteil  to  ^^■^',^^H  wlul 
relate  to  the  eoniNlriieliuii  of  thr  iiuttnl 
ItiWM,  lunl  Hiicli  aH  involve  importaiit  iiikI 
not  trilliii),'  matlerit,  eonnei'ted  unii 
those  laws,  and  (pie-<tioii.>«  nalv  .|,.iil,t. 
fill.  .(//.  >i  V.  JUinif,  '2  Wood.  A  .Mm.. 
l.'kT. — \Vo«u»m  UY,  J.;  Maie*.,  iNjii. 

'J.  I'lider  this  Meet  ion,  If  ii  writ  ofcr 
ror  is  allowed  by  the  comt  as  "(i«a»oii. 
able,"  Hiieli  writ  must  briiiji;  ii|i  ih,. 
whole  eiiKe  ft»r  eonsideralion,  and  th.' 
court  below  cannot  decide  iim  In  wlial 
particular  points  ^«hall  be  taken  up,  /A.,/,/ 
V.  Him)'»tni,i\  How.,  JTH.  -  WooDiii  liv. 
.1.;  Slip,  ('t.,  lHt7. 

:t.  'I'he  word  "reasonable"  apjilii'K  in 
the  cases,  rather  than  to  any  disfiiiiiiii:i- 
tion  between  the  dilferent  points  in  tho 
i-ases.      //'/(/.,  47H. 

4.  A  judp'  :it  chamberH  may  allDW.i 
writ  of  error  under  iIiIh  Hectioii,  in  tli« 
"other  «'ases"  refi-rred  to,  wliere  llio 
jiid},Mnent  is  less  than  ii<J,t)00.  Fovti  v. 
Silshy,  1  IJlatchf.,  b\\. — Nklson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1850. 

6.  The  "  other  cnseH"  in  this  Hcctioii, 
does  not  include  a  suit  in  eipiity  to  m  I 
aside  an  assi<;nmenl  of  n  pateiil.  Wil 
son  V.  Hainl/onl,  10  How.,  101,  lOi!.— 
Ta.vkv,  Ch.  J.:  Sup.  Cl.,  1H50. 


■TAT!T>>*,  iOXKTKl  CI'IMN  OK;  U.  a. 


MT 


r4Tmr  «i'i»    i<  tni*    ait  or  im.iik  f,i  II,  li. 


ni;il»l«'"  ainilu'c  U\ 
to  iiiiy  (liHi'iiiniiui- 
rt'iit  poiiilK  ill  llw 

nliiMH  iiuiy  ull'>«' !» 

lis  HiTtioii,  in  till 

I'll   to,   wIh'IH'  llio 

;i<j,()00.    Footi'  V. 

U. — N  1.1  SON,  J.; 


t.  Tilt*  (li«ori«tU>iiArjr  |Hm.r,  nt  li> 
framing;  wriiaot'  error  in  pnii'iii  rAit>», 
.(•tint   in  itu<   Cirt'iiil   Coiirtii  by  iliU 

|#i-||i>lt,    i«     i'lMllllU'il    to    ('lti>('i«   Hllifll    ill 
^olW    tllO    I'OIIKlrili'tinll     Ul'    lilt*     |t;tU'llt 

|,,M*,  iiit'l  tlti<  ri^lilii  III'  |>itli'iil"i>it  iitiilor 
ihiMii.  Sixtry.  .VuMy,  Id  llt»w.,  I«».'l.— 
Tankt.  i'h.  J.  ;  Sii|i,  t'l.,  lM.%.i. 

7.  ('iiiU>r  llii*  MvtiiMi  lilt*  I'iri'iiit 
C\tiirl«  liiivi*  JtiriM<lii<lii)ii,  irrc  |>fi*ii\«> 
ol'  lilt*   riul'-t   i*i'  tlio  |thiiiliir  l<>  iiii  in 

jUIU'lioM.  "'f    l»    <l>'ll«IHIi|     for    i»IH'.        .V(»'- 

,H$  V.  JohtiMOH,  •'!  lUnlfhr.,  H;l.--Niti.»«»iN, 
i;,rtii.  JJ.;  N.  v.,  IM.%:i. 

H.  TIm*  iirtliirul  iiili*r|«ii>liilii)ii  of  tli«> 
|f.ii^\iii({i>  of  iliii*  H.'i'iion  Hci'tiiit  to  )>«>, 
lli:»l  ConiiiTHH  huH  lii>»tit\M'tl  iipKii  llii« 
cimn  A  t'oniinon  juri»ilii'(ii>ii,  Imdt  mt 
it«  litw  mill  otpiiiy  Hiii«><«,  over  till  «'iini>n 
miller  iIh*  |>itl(>til  litWK,  lunl  lliiit  no  Niiii 
ot' lliiil  I'li.'inii'tor  iitii  l>i>  iiiJiiiil:tini>>l  iit 
liiw  wliirli  nitty  'lol  aUo  Im  piuMiciilcil 
iiicii»ily.     H'iii. 

Sei-hon  IH. 
S«'t>  aUn  IvvncNHiitN  ov  Taikni'. 

1.  Till' ilt'iMsioiior  ilio  ItiMinl  orCniii 
iMi!4-«ii)iii  r^i  umlrr  lliis  Hi'i'timi,  is  i-uiifln 
MM' williiii  llu'  sfii|ii'  lit"  its  !iii.liiiii(y. 
liroi)h  V.  liirkiiiU,  :i  Mtl.ian,  'J.'iS.  - 
Mill  AN,  .1.;  ()lii«»,  IHi;i. 

'J.  Ill  (lii«*  m'ction  tlu«  word  juitiuto- 
ii  iiscil  a-<  n|iiiv:il('iit  \i\  hiriiitin'.  H'i'"</ 
vmih  V.  .S7/(n//(/;/,;i Story,  I  Vll.  — Srouv, 
.!.;  Mass.,  im||. 

It.  'riic  rij^lil  ot'  riMK'w.'il  is  not  limit nl 
tot'iitiiiv  |i:it(>iits,  Itiit  also  :i|>|)lics  to  tlw 
'p;ist.     Ihiii,  I7)»,  I  HO. 

•t.  Tlu>  olijoct  of  tin-  claiiHi'  tiH  to  nn- 
siijiiccs  is  to  pn'Hi'i'vo  any  inwionH  con- 
tracts of  assifijniiu'lit,   ill    tlu'  sriiso  in 
wliii'li  iiiitli  partii's  iiiiilcrslooil  hiuI  in 
icndeil  ut  lliu  tiniu  il  wuh  niuilc,  and 


to  mviirv  lo  ilii>  |iiir«'liii«i>r  tiii>  riulit  lio 
Imd  iiilt'nitt'd  lo  liiiy,  mihI  wliifli  llii* 
|>itli'nli>i<  inl«<ndi>it  lo  *t<||,  Wihim  v. 
7^/Hiir,  T  l.iiw  Ut>|».,  AilO.  'rA!>iKt,('li. 
J.;  Mil,  IH4... 

ft.  'llii'  t>kli'nition  of  n  |)iit«>nl,  iinili<r 
llii«  HiH'lloii,  diH'ii  nol  iniii't'  lo  |lii>  Im-ii 
otil  of  iif>Mi|;ni'«'<«  or  ^nihlffH  iimliT  ilio 
ori)(iniit  iMilt'til,  NO  iim  lo  vi-il  in  lie  tc 
liny  i'\i'liii«i\i'  rifj;lil.  itiii  tin  IhiuHi  oI' 
nni'li  ri'ni>>«til  U  liniitod  lo  iIiomo  nlio 
wcri'  in  llit>  UNO  ol'  llii<  |iiiii'nlt<i|  iirtii-lt* 
III  lilt'  liinc  ot'llit'  roni'Miil,  and  huxi's  lo 
Mtirli  |ii>rxoii>  tli«>  t'i)r|il  It)  iiHii  |li«>  Miii 
t'liini's  hrlii  liy  lln<ni  ill  llit>  lini«<  oI'niicIi 
ri'tit'Mal.  Wihott  V.  Iin»,uiiii,  I  llow., 
OS.',      Nkimin,  .1.;  Slip.  !'•.,  |M|:., 

0.  'I'Im'  Mi«'aiiiii){  ol'  ilii<  words  "tiling 
|tiiti'nl«<d"  in  llii<  lallcr  purl  of  iIiIh  him* 
lion,  wlu*n  roust riit*d  in  ooiiMoi'tion  will* 
tilt'  -iinplt"  \\)x\\\  to  (/.I.,  w  itiioiit  till'  rij':lil 
to  titiikf  and  I'tinlf  lias  rcl'i  rt'iu<i>  to  tlu^ 
inai'liitii'  pali'iiti'd.      /.'wW.,  )»n;i. 

7.  Till'  plirasi«  *Mollii>  I'xli'iil  ol'tlirir 
intcnsis  tliiM'i'in,"  means  tl,.'ir  iiitiTi'sl.. 
in  tliK  patriiti'd  marliiiios,  lir  thai  iiitrr- 
est  in  otii'  or  iiioro  at  tlii>  tiini'  ol  tin'  ex- 
li'ii>.ioii.      //(/<A,  IIh:I. 

H.  This  si'flioii  anthori/.i's  the  rxfrn 
xioii  ofii  p.iti'iil  on  till'  apphr.'ilioii  of  an 
administrator;  and  tins  tlioii<;h  tlu'  pal- 
I'hico  dtiiinjx  liis  lil'i'tiiiii'  had  disposnl 
of  all  his  inli'i'i'Ht  in  llio  cxiHtiiiL^  palnit, 
:iiii|  liaviii'4  :it  tin-  tiiiii'  of  IiIn  death  no 
inli'ii'st  in  il.      Ihiif.,  (IHil. 

U.  itiit,  one  exleiisioii  is  provided  for 
by  lliis  Mi'i'lion.  (lifigun  v.  f'oo/,;  •»• 
in.itehf.,  m].--NKi.8oN,  .1,;  N.  v.. 
IH.MI. 

10.  Till'  words  oi'  tliirt  Neetion  aw  lo 
aNsi^neeH  and  f^ninleeri,  Hectn  lo  eonvey 
the  impression  th.it  sonu'ihintr  more 
tlian  the  mere  ownership  of  existing 
m.'irhiiies  was  intended,  and  thai  they 
were  iiileiiditd  to  emlirace  all  elasHos  of 


«.\^w 


'■"'  **^f1l 

'4III'' 


h, 


? 


'  ^-^'ii 


008 


STATUTKS,  COXSTIU'CriOX  OI<';  IJ.  3. 

I'ATBST  ACTS;   IM'BUC.      ACT  OF    1837,    ^^    2,    3,    6. 


^hfn' 


Buch  asxi^iu'os  ami  ;»niiiti'ea,  aiul  all  m- 
vei(tioris,  whctlicr  of  luachiiu'S,  pi'ocess- 
<•  or  ci)m|io.sitioiis  of  mutter,  and  to  I'lu- 
bnico  riLtl'ls  and  inti'ivsts  wliicli  wore 
<lilU)rcnt  in  extent,  I'ither  of  time  or  ter- 
ritory, or  both.  Dili/  ^-  l^iiion  Hub. 
Co.,  *;i  JJIatchf.,  4J>7.— Uall,  J,;  N.  Y., 
IH.-.O. 

II.  But  such  ri^ht  is  limited  to  a 
r'l^lit  to  use,  ailhou^^h  the  person  hold- 
mi;  it  may  also  have  held,  dnrinij  the 
ori<;inal  term,  an  exclusive  riijht  to  use, 
to  make,  and  vend.  And  such  ri<;ht  to 
IMC  is  secured  tuily  to  the  extent  of  the 
respective  interests  of  the  assignees  or 
grantees  therein.    Ibid. 

Act  op  1837.    Cuap.  45. 
Section  2. 

1.  Where  a  patent  was  granted  in 
18.14,  to  which  no  drawing  was  attach- 
ed, nor  any  reference  made  thereto ; 
and  in  June,  1S.S7,  such  patent  was  re- 
corded anew,  which  j)atent  was  also 
extended  for  seven  years  on  the  20'J» 
of  Sci)teniber,  1848,  and  in  November, 
1848,  a  drawing  of  the  inventicMi,  with 
Avritten  references  was  filed,  with  an 
affidavit  of  the  })atentee  that  such 
drawing  was  a  true  delineation  of  his 
invention,  Jfi'l(f,  in  an  action  of  infringe- 
ment, that  under  this  section  a  certified 
copy  of  such  drawing  Avas  admissible 
in  evidence  in  connection  with  the  p.at- 
cnt  and  specification,  and  that  the  whole 
together  madt.' prima  ft'ie  evidence  of 
the  particulars  of  such  invention.  Wi- 
fians  V.  Schenec.  <&  Troy  H.  H.,  2 
IJlatchf.,  283,  285,  298.— Nklson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,1851. 

2.  Such  a  drawing,  hoAvever,  as  a 
general  rulo  will  not  be  etVectual  to  cor- 
rect any  material  defect  in  the  specifica- 


tion, ludess  it  should  appear  that  it 
corresponded  with  ilrawings  wliioh  ac- 
cumpanicJ  the  original  application  for 
a  patent :  otiierwise,  irj  tasc  oCdiscrep. 
aiu'y  between  the  drawings  and  speiili. 
cation,  tho  latter  must  prevail.  Xor 
will  such  a  drawing  have  ihe  sanie 
effect  as  if  it  had  been  referred  to  in 
the  specification.     Ibid.,  200. 

Sertion  3. 

1.  Where  a  ])atent  was  obtained  in 
1834,  the  original  of  which  and  the 
drawings  were  destroyed  by  tiro  in 
183G,  and  the  patentee,  under  the  act 
of  18;J7,  afterward  in  1841  liletl  ji  n)py 
of  his  patent,  and  deposited  a  drawiui' 
'vhich,  however,  was  not  verified,  but 

,iieh  ho  verified  in  Februa-v,  1844; 
and  snbseipiently,  in  March,  If. 44,  con- 
sidering such  copy  im})erfect,  filed  an- 
other and  a  fuller  drawing,  and  com- 
menced suit  in  May,  1844,  Ilelu  that 
a  certified  copy  of  such  second  draw- 
ing was  properly  received  in  evidonoc 
in  such  action.  Emerson  v.  Ifoi/i/,  :' 
Ulatchf.,  9.— Bkits,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1845. 

2.  When  such  drawings  are  put  on  file 
they  become  public  records,  and  vo\)'m 
of  them  must  be  received  in  evidence. 
If  they  are  discordant,  one  m:iy  destroy 
the  effect  of  the  other.    Ibiil,  12. 

3.  Under  this  section  drawings,  when 
burnt,  may  be  restored,  and  if  in  some 
respects  erroneous,  they  can  be  correct- 
ed. Hogg  V.  Emerson,  11  IIow.,  (500. 
— WooDHUKY,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  isro. 

4.  But  it  would  not  be  proper  to  leave 
the  drawings  so  long  not  restored  or 
corrected  as  to  evince  neglect,  or  a  de- 
sign to  mislead  the  public.    Ibid.,  COG. 

Stction  6. 
Sec  also  Reissue  op  Patent. 


m& 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OF  ;  B.  3. 

i-ATBST  aoth;  pcblio.    act  or  18:n,  gg  5,  6,  7. 


0f'.9 


With  ri'spi'ot  to  roissiu's  this  st'ction 
ami  §  1  -^  "l"  the  a<^t  of  1 8'M)  are  to  bu 
taki'M  top;otht'r  irt  eoiistrr.otioii,  aiul  Mif 
most  just  aiul  cquiiabK'  I'xtt'iit  towh'n-h 
tlio  tonns  of  tln'  law  in  its  true  spirit 
will  admit  of,  ought  to  'k*  ailt>|)ttMl.  If 
the  imti'iit  be  defoctivo  or  iiisiifVuii'iit, 
either  in  the  sporitiratioii  or  ciaitn,  thi> 
mtt'iitoo  has  a  riglit,  "n  tho  absoiu'o  t>f 
fraiul  and  det'oplion,  to  have  a  ridssue 
forcaoli  separate  and  distinct  jtiirt,  etlVf- 
tually  to  cure  the  defect :  and  he  has 
the  right  to  restrict  or  enhirgc  his  claim, 
so  us  to  give  it  operation,  and  ctlcctu- 
ute  his  inventi('n.  Jhill,  Ex.  parte,  MS. 
(App.  Cas.)— MoKsELL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1800. 

Section  6. 

See  also  Assignee,  B.  3. 

1.  This  is  an  enabling  statute.  Prior 
to  its  passage,  letters  patent  could  only 
issue  to  the  invc'itor;  and  after  they 
were  issued  they  were  assignable  so  as 
to  give  the  assignee,  in  whole  or  in  i)art, 
legal  rights.  The  act  of  1887  gave  the 
right  to  the  assignee  or  assignees  to  have 
the  patent  issued  to  him  or  them,  and  not 
to  the  inve.Hor.  Anon.,  4  Opin.,  400. — 
Mason',  Atty.  Gen. ;  1 845. 

2.  Under  this  section  prtents  cannot 
issue  jointly  to  the  inventor,  as  such, 
and  to  the  assignee  of  a  partial  interest : 
but  must  issue  to  the  assignee  or  as- 
signees of  the  whole  interest.  Ibid., 
401. 

3.  After  tho  assignment  of  the  inven- 
tion under  this  section,  by  Avhich  the 
inventor  divests  himself  of  all  interest 
therein,  and  transfers  it  to  the  assignee, 
ilthough  the  application  for  a  patent 
must  he  in  his  name,  still,  for  all  sub- 
stantial purposes,  and  in  judgment  of 
law,  tfee  assignee  is  tho  party  making 


the    application,     (iiti/    v.    Coriu'H,    I 
IMatclif.,  SOI).— -Nklsox,  .1.;  N.Y..  IHIO. 

4.  Tho  provision  t)f  this  section  re- 
Huiriiig  duplicate  drawings,  tlu-ULrh  di- 
rectory in  its  terms,  is  not  a  condition  : 
and  it  has  reference  in  point  of  time,  to 
the  issuing  of  the  patent,  an«l  not  to  tho 
tiling  of  tile  jjctition  for  it.  Duplicate 
drawings  need  not  be  tiled  at  the  time 
of  the  application,  and  such  is  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Patent  Ollice.  French 
V.  Jiot/er,i,  MS. — (iiueij,  Kank,  .TJ.  ; 
Pa.,  isr)!  ;  aiieilhj  v.  Morse,  15  How., 
I'-'O. — (iuiKU,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1S5:1. 

5.  If  an  inventor  assign  all  his  right 
in  an  invention,  the  assignee  may  have 
the  patent  issued  to  himself.  But  if  the 
assignment  be  only  partial,  though  tho 
part  excepted  is  snuili,  the  assignee  has 
no  legal  claim  to  the  patent.  It  must 
be  issued  in  the  name  of  the  inventor, 
aiul  be  held  by  him  in  trust  for  the  use 
of  the  assignee  to  the  extent  of  tlie  eipii- 
ties  he  hin  by  virtue  of  his  contract. 
Ager's  Case,  MS.,  Opin. — Black,  Atty. 
Gen.;  labQ. 

Section  1. 
See  also  Disclaimer. 

1.  The  disclaimer  mentioned  in  this 
section  applies  solely  to  suits  pending 
when  the  disclaimer  is  filed,  and  the 
disclaimer  mentioned  in  §  9  api)lie3 
solely  to  suits  brought  after  the  dis- 
claimer is  filed.  Wi/eth  v.  Stone,  1  Sto- 
ry, 204.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

2.  Semhle,  that  a  disclaimer,  muler 
this  section  should  not  only  disclaim 
what  is  not  claimed  as  new,  but  should 
also  distinctly  set  forth  what  p.-irt  of  tho 
invention  is  still  claimed,  as  it  is  mani- 
festly designed  to  act  as  a  new  specifi- 
cition.  Lippincott  v.  Kelly,  1  West. 
Law  Jour.,  515. — Irvix,  J.;  Pa.,  1844. 


■■'IH-  yt> 


!«*'  'li 


.«*    H„H'    ,■ 


*"*[([*'•' I  Wni 


070 


STATITKS,  CONSTUU(TI()\  OF;  W.  i\. 


I'ATKNT  ACTM;   PltSI.IO.      ACT  Of   18:i7,  J^SS   1,   M,   0. 


;i.  A  tlisolaiiuor  of  a  part  of  an  iiivcti- 
tion  cannot  ailVct  a  prior  j^ranU'O  umlor 
tlio  patoiit,  milfss  ho  at'ocpis  of  it  ;  ho 
may  rofiist;  to  bo  allW'loil  l»y  it.  /Smith 
V.  J/«r<'«T,  4  Wost.  I  aw  Jour.,  62. — 
Kank,  J.;  I'a.,  IHU). 

4.  WliiMV  a  (lisclaiinor  niado  by  a  pnt- 
cnti'O  Htatcd  that  "it  was  to  opt-rati)  to 
till'  fXtt'Mt  of  tlu'  iiittMvst  in  siiitl  lottfrs 
patent  vcstctl"  in  tlu>  patontei';  /fcl</, 
tliat  it  fairly  iniporti'd  on  its  faci*,  that 
llio  pati'iitt'i'  was  tlu'  owner  of  tlio  en- 
tiro  intiMi'st  in  tlio  patent,  ami  if  so, 
thoro  was  a  substantial  coinpliaiu-f  with 
tho  statuto,  as  to  tlio  disrlaiinor  statinii 
tlio  ii'.torost  of  till'  party  niakini^  it. 
.Foot,'  V.  SiMn/,  1  lllatclif,  44i),  l.-iO. 
4(U.— Nki.son,  J..;  N.  Y.,  184!).  |  Anirin- 
e.l,  SiM>!/  V.  Foot,;  14  How.,  'JUl.— 
CuiiTis,  .1.,  Sup.  CM.,  IH.VJ.] 

.'■'.  Fndor  this  soot  ion  the  owner  of  a 
soelion.al  iiiierost  may  diseJ.iiin  a  piirt  of 
tho  thiuf?  patented,  whieh  will  bo  con- 
sidered a  part  of  tho  orijj^inal  patent,  to 
the  extent  of  his  interest  ;  but  the  pat- 
eiifi'e  is  not  eompellcd  to  join  in  it,  nor 
will  it  alVeet  any  one  exeept  him  makiiiuf 
it,  and  those  elalmini;  under  him.  J\)t- 
t(r  V.  Holland,  jSIS. — Ixokksom,,  J. ; 
Ct.,  1858. 

0.  After  such  a  disclaimer  a  dilVerent 
claim  of  right  is  secured  to  thodiselaim- 
ant  iVom  what  is  purported  to  be  se- 
cured to  the  patentee;  ditl'erent  claims 
of  right  in  the  same  invention  are  se- 
cured to  ditlerent  sectional  owners. 
Ibid. 

7.  The  disclaimer  of  part  of  an  in- 
vention, provided  such  disclaimer  arose 
from  in:t  '  vertenoy,  accident,  or  mistake, 
Avill  no  prevent  the  patent  fro'n  em- 
bracing .lie  part  so  disclaimed,  or,  .i  re- 
issue of  his  patent.  Jlaydcn,  Kx  parte, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Meuuick,  J. ;  D.  C, 
18G0. 


Section  8. 

This  80»^(ion,  8o  far  ns  it  pros  iih'g  t;,]- 
additiouH  to  existing  patents,  is  niK'nltil 
by  act  of  March  4  th,  1801.     [/-;,/.  I 

Se(^ii>n  9. 
See  also  Disci, aimku. 

1.  ^0  of  the  act  of  18;{7,  conti'mplated 
the  riileof  the  comnionlaw-  tluil  iraiiai- 
«'nt  embrjiees  diiferent  maihiiiO'i,  and  any 
one  »)f  them  is  not  new,  or  was  not  tlio 
invention  of  tho  patentee,  or  the  like 
the  whole  patent  would  be  void— as 
being  then  in  full  force,  ami  tlierttoii! 
sought  to  mitigate  it  hy  prnvi(li.i,^r  tlmt, 
under  the  cases  therein  meutioiieil,  tho 
patent  should,  be  good  to  the  extent  of 
the  j>ateutee's  invention.  Wi/ct/t.  y. 
Stone,  1  Story,  i>88,  289.— Snuiv,  J.; 
Mass.,  1840. 

2.  The  disclaimer  mentioned  in  this 
section  applies  solely  to  suits  brought 
after  the  disclaimer  is  filed.    //>/(/„ 'jiil. 

;<;  This  section  is  intended  to  cover 
"inadvertences  and  mistakes"  of  law, 
as  well  as  inadvertences  and  inistakos 
of  fact,     riiid.,  21);t,  2!).'), 

4.  The  doctrine  that  a  patentee  may 
take  out  a  valid  |)atent  for  a  combina- 
tion, anil  in  it  iiu'lude  a  right  to  each 
distinct  iniprovement,  is  conlinneil  hy 
the  obvious  intent  of  this  section,  which 
gives  a  patentee  a  right  of  action  for  a 
piratical  use  of  any  of  liis  invented  im- 
provements, -which  is  distinctly  stated 
in  his  patent,  though  he  may  by  mistake, 
accident,  or  inadvertence,  have  cliiimod 
others  of  which  he  was  not  the  inven- 
tor. Pitts  v.  Whitman,  2  Story,  C21. 
— Stouy,  J.;  Me.,  1843. 

6.  Prior  to  the  act  of  1 830,  if  the  pat- 


KTATLTKS,  CONSTULC'IION  OK;  H.  3. 


>s  it  proviili's  lor 
ilt'iits,  is  ri'iK'iiltil 
LHOl.     [iii/.j 


a. 

8:iV,i't>iiti'miilatcil 
il:i\v- -tluil  irii|i;it- 
muchiiios  and  any 
•w,  or  was  nut  iliu 
•nloc,  or  till'  liki', 
ould  l>i!  voi'l— an 
ire,  iunl  lluMi'tiiiv 

by  pri'v'nli.i,'  tlial 
I'iii  mi'iitioiii'il,  tlio 
(1  to  tlio  extent  of 
ntioii.      Wj/cth   V. 

'J81).— Stouy,  J.; 

mi'iitioncd  in  this 
to   wiiits  l»nnii,'ia 

s  iilotl.    Ihid.,  'Jilt. 
iiiteiuliHl  to  cover 

mistakes"  of  law, 

nees  anil  iiiistakis 

2'.»r). 

lU.  !i  patditoo  may 

iiit  tor  a  coniliina- 
II  rif^lit  to  oai'h 
,,  is  continued  by 
this  section,  wliich 
ivlit  of  action  for  .1 
d1'  l>is  invented  im- 
s  distinctly  stated 
\e  may  by  mistake, 
ence,  have  ckiiniod 
as  not  the  iuveu- 
nan,  2  Story,  C21. 

of  1830,  L' the  pat- 


w 


PATRNT  acts;  I'l'iiijo.    AOT  OK  |h;i7,  ^  !».   ih:i!>,  J5  (i, 


rntee  cluinied  more  tliaii  he  had  invent- 
ed, his  |iali>iit  was  void,  lint  nnder  this 
mrtion  the  patent  is  not  absohitely 
void,  lieeanse  (he  palenlee  claims  more 
than  he  has  actnally  invent«Ml,  bnt  is 
valid  tor  ho  iinich  as  is  trnly  and  fximi 
fiik  Ills  own  ;  bnt  to  secure  the  beiu>lits 
of  this  section,  the  s|)ecilication  nnist 
Mate  in  what  the  improvement  consists. 
/', ^r.v()//  v.  U'ooiAv/,  ;<  Mclican,  2H). — 
M.Kkan,  J. ;  Ohio,  IH4:i. 

(J.  Prim-  to  the  act  of  IH.'tU,  a  patent 
was  void  if  tlie  claim  extended  beyond 
the  invention.  I'ndi'r  };  (I  of  the  act  of 
ls:Ul,  it  was  v«>iil  if  11  snbstimtial  pari 
had  been  patented,  »»r  desiribcil  in  a 
|»rinted  pid)li«'alion.  ^  1.')  of  the  same 
act,  saved  the  patent  from  bciniif  void, 
if  the  patentee  believi'd  himself  to  be 
the  lirsl  inventor.  J^  0  of  the  act  of 
18;t7  eidarjjjcd  the  rights  of  the  pal*'ntee, 
providinij,  notw  ilhstandinj;  >^  IT)  of  the 
i,ot  of  is;!(i,  that  the  patent  should  not 
he  void,  where  ho  had  acted  in  j^ood 
faitii,  if  thn.n^rh  mistake  or  inadver- 
li'iiee  he  had  dainicd  more  than  he  hail 
invented,  and  that  he  mi^ht  maintain 
suit  on  the  ]>art  actnally  inventc(l  by 
him,  ])rovided  ho  tiled,  within  a  reasini- 
able  time,  a  disclainu'r  of  the  parts  not 
invented  by  him.  Smith  v.  A7//,  T)  IMc- 
Lean,  St,Hr).— iMi'LiCAN,.!.;  Ohio,  IHIO. 

7.  Where  a  i)atent  contains  several 
claim',  and  the  invention  end)raced  in 
one  is  not  new,  or  is  useless,  the  paton- 
toe  niidor  this  section  and  i^  7  may  still 
maintain  an  acticm  for  an  infrinj^ement, 
although  he  did  not,  before  action 
brought,  make  a  disclaimer  of  the  ]iart 
claimed  without  right ;  bnt  he  will  not 
be  entitled  to  costs.  Hall  v.  Wihs^  2 
lilatdif.,  198.— Nelson,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1851. 

8.  And  if  in  the  progress  of  a  trial 
it  turns  out  that  a  disclaimer  ought  to 


have  been  made  as  to  part  claimeil, 
the  plaint iir  may  still  re«"over,  but  will 
not  bo  entitled  to  costs.      //>/>/.,  h)8. 


Act  op  1830.    Cmai'.  88. 
Section  C. 

1.  The  dati'  of  a  patent  nniy  bo  altered 
to  correspond  with  thai  of  a  fori'ign  pat- 
ent, previously  (ak»'n  out  by  the  inven- 
tor, whi're  (lie  inislak**  has  not  arisen 
from  any  frandnleiil  or  deceptive  inten- 
tion. />((»ni lid's  Cittit.,  I  Ojiin.,  .•|;(r).  ■ 
Ni:i,soN,  Atty.  (len.,  Ik  It. 

'J.  I'mler  this  seclion,  if  th(>  dcuncslle 
patent,  in  a  case  wherc^  a  foreign  patent 
has  been  j)revionsly  iddained,  purports 
to  give  an  exclusive  right  for  fonrteen 
years  from  its  daU',  instead  of  from  tlm 
dal(f  of  tlu'  foreign  patent,  it  is  void,  as 
having  been  issued  without  auth(»rily  of 
law  ;  but  the  error  is  not  fatal,  and  may 
be  corrected  on  application  to  the  Pat- 
ent Ollio'.  Smith  V.  Kh/,  r»  IMcLcan, 
7h,  so.— Md.KAN,  .1.;  Ohio,  IHI!). 

M.  The  pr((viso  of  (his  section,  as  to 
when  a  home  patent  shall  bear  tlu^  date 
of  :i  I'creign  patent,  relales  only  to  such 
patents  as  are  (tfyplivd fur  here  itftcr  the 
issue  of  a  foreign  palenl.  French  \\ 
/iOj/iTS,  MH. — (iuiKK,  Kank,  J.).;  I'a., 
IHf)!. 

■1.  Where,  thert-fore,  an  application 
for  a  ))atent  was  made  in  this  coimtry 
in  April,  IHUH,  and  acted  on  in  that 
month,  but  a  patent  was  not  actnally 
issued  until  June  '20th,  18-tO,  at  whii^Ii 
time  the  patent  was  dated,  .and  a  foreign 
patent  was  t)btained  in  August,  lH;i8, 
/li'ld,  as  the  applicitiou  here  was  beforo 
the  foreign  patent,  that  the  grant  of  the 
patent  here  was  under  the  general  en- 
actments of  the  act  of  ]8n0,  and  its  term 
was  pro])erly  from  its  date.     Ibid. 


ll 


..j^tf 


•,-•  > 


■til 


MtaKiH 


-:=5-,i,-,-i!(,- 


A    3 


IWi 


ik 


jm 


612 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OF;  B.  3. 


PATKNT  ACTS;  I'tni.ir.    ACT  or  1839,  g  7. 


5.  A  i>;it('iit  is  not  void,  Ik'ciuho  it 
docs  not,  on  its  face,  bear  tiic  same  date 
witli  a  foreign  patent.  If  it  is  not,  for 
any  reason,  exempt  from  the  operation 
of  the  statute,  on  sueii  sulyeet,  tin;  only 
cU'eet  is  to  limit  the  monopoly  to  loiir- 
teen  years  from  the  date  of  the  foreign 
patent.  0'  lie  ill  if  v.  Morse^  15  How., 
112.— Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1H5;}. 


Section  1. 
See  also  Pniou  Usk. 

1.  The  seventh  section  of  the  act  of 
1839  allows  the  use  of  an  invention,  even 
with  leave  o''the  inventor,  for  two  years 
before  application  for  a  patent,  without 
invalidating  his  right  to  a  patent ;  a  for- 
tiori, the  use  by  a  third  jierson,  or  a  sub- 
sequent inventor,  after  the  invention  and 
before  the  issuing  of  a  patent  to  the  first 
inventor,  without  liis  consent,  is  no  bar 
to  the  issuing  of  a  patent  to  the  first  in- 
ventor, inidreath  v.  Heath,  MS.  (App. 
Cas.)— Ckancii,  Ch.  J.;  D.  C,  1841. 

2.  Under  this  section  the  purchaser 
must  be  a  purchaser  from  the  inventor 
himself,  before  his  application  for  a  pat- 
ent, and  not  from  a  wrongdoer  without 
Lis  knowledge  or  against  his  will,  l^ier- 
son  V.  Eagle  Screw  Co.,  3  Story,  400, 
407.— Stoky,  J.;  K.  I.,  1844. 

3.  This  section,  allowing  the  use  and 
sale  of  an  invention  for  two  years  before 
the  application  for  a  patent,  is  in  the  na- 
ture of  a  statute  of  limitations.  Ilovey 
v.  Henry,  3  West.  Law  Jour.,  155. — 
WooDBUUY,  J. ;  Mass.,  1845. 

4.  The  object  of  this  section  is  two- 
fold: first,  to  protect  the  person  who 
has  used  the  thing  patented,  from  any 
liability  to  the  patentee  or  his  assignee ; 
and,  secojjid,  to  protect  the  rights  granted 


to  the  patentee  against  any  iiifiingcnuin 
by  any  other  persons.  Mci'lnni  \, 
KiinjsUmd,  1  How.,  208,  200.— Ual^^ 
WIN,  J.;  Suj).  Ct.,  1843. 

5.  This  section  relieved  the  pafontco 
from  the  ettects  of  the  former  laws  aiid 
their  construction  by  the  court,  wliijoit 
puts  the  person  who  has  had  such  xWmw 
use  on  the  same  footing  as  if  luj  had  a 
special  license  from  the  inventor,  wliich 
if  given  before  the  application  for  a  pat- 
ent, would  justifv  a  continued  use  of  it 
after  it  issued,  without  liability.  Ihui 
209. 

0.  It  is  not  limited  to  patents  for  ma- 
chines, manufactures  and  compositions 
of  matter,  but  embraces  inventions  for 
modes  of  doing  a  thing,  as  a  new  im- 
provement in  the  act  of  casting  iron. 
Ibid.,  209. 

7.  Nor  is  it  to  be  construed  as  con- 
fined to  a  specific  ni.achine  as  distin- 
guished from  im  invention  or  tliin<r  pat- 
ented,  but  the  words,  "  newly  invcnlLil 
machine,  n'anufacture,  or  composition 
of  matter,"  and,  "  such  invention,"  mean 
the  "  invention  patented,"  and  the  words 
"  specific  machine,"  refer  to  "  the  tlii«(» 
as  originally  patented,"  Avhereof  the 
right  is  secured  by  patent,  but  not  to 
any  newly  invented  improvement  on  a 
thing  once  patented.     Ibid.,  210. 

8.  This  section  lias  exclusive  reference 
in  respect  to  the  use  of  a  machine  to  an 
original  patent,  and  not  to  a  renewal  or 
reissue  of  it.  Stimpson  v.  West  Chester 
R.  It,  4  How.,  403.— McLean,  J. ;  Snp. 
Ct.,  1845. 

9.  The  sale  of  the  product  of  an  in- 
vention is  not  a  sale  of  the  thing  in- 
vented, within  this  section.  The  sale 
there  spoken  of  must  be  a  sale  of  the  in- 
vention, or  patented  article.  Boothw 
Garelly,  1  Blatchf.,  250. — Nelson,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  1847. 


K*C 


w. 


STATUTKS,  CONSTUUCTIOX  OF;  H.  a. 


o^a 


winfi'iiiSIt'iiu'iii 

McClun/  V. 

8,  200.— l'»Ai.;)- 

["d  the  piitentpe 
fdrmer  laws  mid 
lO  coiirt,  wliileit 
s  liiul  >*uch  juior 
y;  us  it"  lio  liud  a 
invi'utor,  wliicli, 
licatioii  I'lir  aput- 
ntimicd  \ise  of  il 
liability.    Ibid., 

0  patents  for  ma- 
and  compositions 
•cs  inventions  for 
ng,  as  a  new  iin- 
t  of  casting  iron. 

construed  as  coii- 
nacliine  as  distiii- 
intion  or  thing  p:it- 

1  •'  newly  invented 
e,  or  cotn])osition 
|h  invention,"  moan 
jed,"  and  the  words 
•efer  to  "  the  thing 

id,"  Avhercof  the 
[patent,  but  not  to 
[improvement  on  a 

Ibid.,  210. 
exclusive  reference 
of  a  machine  to  an 
jot  to  a  renewal  or 
ton  v.  West  Chester 
•McLean,  J. ;  Snp. 

„  product  of  an  in- 
le  of  the  thing  in- 
'section.    The  sale 

;  be  a  sale  of  the  in- 
article.    Booths 

250.— Nelson,  J.; 


PATENT  ACTS;  IM  III.IC.   ACT  OF  1K39,  g^i^  7,  11. 


10.  This  section  virtually  extends  the 
1  atchli'c's  ]>rivih'go  to  sixteen  yciirs  iu- 
ftratl  of  loiirli'cii.  McCurintfkw  Si y- 
vioin;  2  niatchf.,  254. — Nklson,  .1.; 
N.Y.,  1851. 

11.  This  section  gives  no  protection  to 
tlio><e  who  may  liave  seized  u]>oii  an  in- 
veiitioii  or  discovery  disidoscd  in  a  pat- 
ent, whose  specitlcation  may  hai»pen  to 
In-  (lct'c<'tive  or  iiisiitlicient.  (tmnhjiuir 
V. />.'.'/,  MS.— (JjuKK,  J.;  X.J.,  lHr)'J. 

l^.Tlicprovision  in  J^  7, of  the  act  IHU!), 
as  to  the  use  of  an  invention,  relates  to 
the  case  of  an  use,  sale  or  license  to  use, 
(riven  or  made  ami  claimed  under  the 
inveiit(n',  who  admits  and  claims  the 
piivilege.  Tiie  clause  should  read  thus  ; 
"The  patent  shall  not  bo  held  invalid 
bv  reason  that  the  inventor  has  sold  or 
allowed  his  invention  to  be  useil  prior 
to  the  application  for  a  patent,  unless  he 
las  ahaiidoned  it  to  the  public,  or  that 
such  sale  or  p.ior  use  has  been  for  more 
thiin  two  years  ])rior  to  such  apjdication 
for  a  patent."  Kllithorpe  v.  liohrrtson., 
MS.  (Afip.  Cas.)  D.  C— Moksem,,  J.; 
1858. 

13.  The  priviler;o  granted  by  §  7  of  the 
act  of  18U9,  is  applicable  only  to  the  in- 
ventor, or  those  claiming  under  him, 
andthisconstruction  is  sustained  by  /*t'/r- 
mi  y.Eof/k  Sereio  Co.,S  Story,  402.  The 
use  of  an  invention  by  an  independent 
inventor,  or  under  a  separate  and  inde- 
pendent j)atent,  is  not  such  a  case  as  is 
contemplated  by  that  section.  13eech 
v.  Tucket;  MS.  (App.  Cas.)-  Mousell, 
J,;  D.  C,  18G0. 

U.  Tills  section  provided  a  remedy 
fir  cases  where  the  conduct  of  the 
party  as  to  the  s.ale  of  his  invention  did 
not  show  an  actual  ab.andonnient.  It 
also  secures  the  rights  of  those  who 
may  have  purchased  or  constructed  any 

newlv-inventcd  machine  prior   to   the 
43 


application  for   a  patent.     Sniiders  v. 
lAxjitii.,   a  Wall.,  Jr. — (IitiKu,  J.;  Pa., 

IHOl. 

I,").  The  obvious  constnu-tion  of  it  is, 
that  a  pm-chasc,  sale  or  prior  use  shall 
not  invalidate,  miless  it  amounts  to  ai. 
abandonment  to  the  public.     Ibid. 

Stdiun  11. 
See  also  Appeals,  TJ. 

1.  The  provision  that  "  the  decision 
of  the  judge  shall  govern  the  further 
proceedings  of  tiio  commissioner  in  the 
case,"  applies  only  to  so  much  of  the 
case  as  is  invcdvcd  in  the  reasons  of  ap- 
peal ;  and  the  appeal  itself  can  only  be 
considered  .as  an  appeal  to  so  much  ot 
the  de<'ision  of  the  commissioner  as  is 
ail'ccted  by  such  resisons.  Arnold  ^ 
/>/.sA(;;>,(App.  Cas.)  MS. — CuANcu,  C.J.; 
1).  C\,  1841. 

2.  The  officer  of  the  Patent  OHlce  at- 
tending before  the  judge  on  .an  appeal  is 
not  to  bo  considered  as  counsel  for  the 
Patent  Oilice,  or  as  an  advocate  for 
cither  of  the  parties  litigant,  but  only 
attends  to  explain  the  decision  of  the 
conniiissioner.  Perry  v.  Cormlt,  (App. 
Cas.)MS.— CitANcn,  C.  J. ;  D.  C,  1847. 

3.  All  the  conditions  j)rescribed  by 
this  section  must  be  complied  with  as 
prerequisites,  before  thejiidge  can  t.ake 
jurisdiction.  His  jurisdiction  is  special 
and  limited,  and  no  other  power  can  bo 
exercised  except  that  expressly  given. 
Greenough  v.  Clarke,  ^IS.  (Ai)p.  Cas.) — 
INIonsELL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1853. 

4.  The  jn-ovision  of  this  section  re- 
quiring the  judge  to  hear  and  determine 
appeals  "  on  the  evidence  produced  be- 
fore the  commissioner,"  is  to  be  con- 
strued with  reference  to  §  7  of  the  act  of 
1830,  providing  that  reasonable  uotico 


Mtl 


<li«Ci  tn' 


yi^f^'4. 

'n»"'''''imi<' 


■T'.Ws 


,  %n,.t\ 


:iKtaa 


I 


874 


STATUTES,  CONSTRUCTION  OF ;  B.  3. 


PATENT  ACTS  J'UBMC.   ACT  OF  1830,  gg  11,  12. 


Khali  In*  jJjivcM,  both  to  the  party  n|ipca1iiiK 
and  the  commisMioiior,  "  so  tliat  thoy 
may  have  an  opportunity  of  furnishing; 
such  facts  and  evidence  as  they  may 
deem  necessary  to  a  just  decision." 
There  is  nothing  in  the  act  of  lH3i) 
which  takes  away  or  impairs  that  right, 
but  every  reason  to  infer  that  it  was 
intended  to  hv  saved  to  the  fullest  ex- 
tent. Fidfz,  Ex  parte,  MS.  (App.Cas.)— 
MousEix,  J. ;  I).  C,  1853. 

5.  The  restrictive  part  of  this  section 
applies  to  the  trial  of  the  cause  by  the 
judge  on  the  merits.     Ibid. 

0.  Where  a  party  has  been  prevented 
from  producing  before  the  Commission- 
er his  proofs  to  support  his  claim,  it  is 
the  duty  of  the  judge,  b}'  reasonable 
regulations,  similar  to  those  directed  by 
§  12,  of  the  act  of  1839,  to  pursue  such  a 
course  as  will  afford  the  party  an  oppor- 
tunity to  produce  such  proofs  ;  and  he 
may  make  an  order  authorizing  the  party 
to  take  and  file  his  proofs  as  to  his 
invention.     Ibid. 

7.  The  provisions  of  this  section  as 
to  the  examination,  on  ajtpeals,  of  the 
Commissioner  or  examiners  of  the  Patent 
Office  must  be  considered  in  connection 
Avith  the  j)rovision  in  §  7  of  the  act  of  1836 
as  to  the  powers  of  the  old  board  of 
examiners.  The  language  of  the  stat- 
ute means  that  the  explanation,  author- 
ized to  be  required  of  the  commis- 
sioner, may  bo  so  full  and  clear  an 
explanation  ol'  the  principles  of  the 
thing,  as  to  enable  the  judge  duly  to 
apply  and  weigh  the  evidence  offered 
to  support  the  issue  in  the  case,  and 
is  not  to  be  limited  to  a  mere  expo- 
sition of  the  terms  used ;  and  such  ex- 
planations so  given  the  judge  is  bouml 
to  respect  as  a  part  of  the  case.  liich- 
■ardson  v.  Hicks,  MS.  (App.Cas.) — Mok- 
SKLL,  J. ;  D.  C,  1854. 


8.  Under  this  section  the  judge  huc. 
c»'(!d8  to  all  the  authority  cunfi.iivd 
upon  the  lioard  of  exanuncrs  by  g  7  ol 
the  act  of  1830,  t»»  recpiire  of  the  rotn. 
missioncrs  and  examiners  infoiination 
relative  to  the  subject  matter  under 
consideration,  and  to  the  full  exteiii. 
Sreln/s  Jpjmd,  MS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
MoUMELL  J.;  D.  C,  1853. 

SeeHnn  12. 
Sec  also  JIuLES  of  Patent  Office. 

1.  The  rules,  as  to  evidence,  made 
imder  this  section  by  the  Commissioner 
of  Patents,  in  conformity  with  the  law- 
while  they  remain  unabrogated,  are  as 
bimling  as  the  law  itself,  and  as  well 
upon  the  Commissioner  as  on  otiiors. 
Arnold  V.  IJishop,  ^IS.  (App.  Cas.)— 
Ckanoii,  Ch.  .T. ;  I).  C,  1841. 

2.  The  rules  of  the  Patent  Office  as  'o 
taking  evidence,  prescribed  under  this 
section  must  bo  Just  and  rea.iotiafile 
according  to  the  establisheil  principles 
and  precedents  in  like  cases.  Xir/iols 
V.  Harris,  MS.  (App.  Cas.) — Moiwku, 
J.;  D.  C,  1854. 

3.  The  rules  and  regulations  of  the 
Patent  Office  as  to  taking  testimony,  in 
cases  of  interference,  are  binding  upon 
the  parties,  and  each  is  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  them,  and  until  abropitetl, 
they  are  as  binding  upon  the  Commis- 
sioner himself  as  if  enacted  by  the  very 
statute.  O'llara  v.  Ilaiccs,  ]\IS.  (Api). 
Cas.) — MousEi.L,  J. ;  D.  C,  1859. 

4.  The  power  granted  to  the  Com- 
missioner under  this  section  to  make 
rules  as  to  the  taking  of  evidence,  gives 
no  right  to  make  new  rides  of  cvidenco, 
or  to  make  new  rules  of  law  so  as  to 
divest  vested  rights.  Dyson,  Ex  parU, 
MS.  (App.  Cas.) — DuNLOP,  J. ;  D.  C, 
1860. 


STATUTKS,  CONSTRUCTION  OF ;  B.  3. 


an 


the  jn<lj;o  nvic- 
rily  riinfi^'ri'tMl 
liiiiTH  by  g  7  oi 
ire  of  the  poiu- 
rs   iiitonniit'um 

mat  tor    iiinUir 
he  full    cxli'iil. 

(Ajip.    Cas.) — 
)3. 

!. 

Patknt  Office. 

evulenpo,  made 
he  Coimnissiuiier 
ity  with  tlie  l:i\v, 
abrogiiteil,  aiu  as 
self,  and  iw  well 
ler  as  on  olliors. 
IS.  (App.  t'as.)— 
3.,  1841. 

Patent  OlTiroas'o 

UkhI  under  this 

and  reanonahky 

blishctl  principles 

;e  cases.     Xirltok 

CaB.)— MousKix, 


PATK.NT  AC18;    HL'UUO.      ACT  OP   1842,    Jjjj   6,    0.      ACT  OP    184H,    ^    l.* 


cr 


rcguhvtions  of  the 
ving  testimony,  in 
are  binding  upon 
is  entitled  to  the 
until  abror;ated, 
upon  the  Coniiuis- 
lacted  by  the  very 
Ilawes,  MS.  (App. 
D.  C,  1859. 
mted  to  the  Com- 
,  section  to  make 
of  evidence,  gives 
•  rules  of  cvideiico, 
les  of  law  80  as  to 
Di/soH,  JEx  parte, 


Act  op  1812.     Chap.  203. 
Stetion  6. 
Sec  also  Penalties,  B. 

1.  This  section,  though  its  phr.isool- 
ocy,  "a  penalty  of  not  less  than  one 
Imiulred  dollars,"  is  peculiar,  autlmri/es 
the  infliction  of  a  penalty  of  just  one 
hundred  dollars  for  the  otlencc  therein 
described,  and  no  more.  Stitnj^snn  v. 
Pond,  2  Cur.,  606. — Curtis,  J.;  Mass., 
1855. 

2.  The  penalty  may  be  recovered  in 
an  action  of  debt.     Ifiid.,  506. 

',].  The  penalty  mentioned  in  this  sec- 
tion is  incurred  as  to  all  articles  made, 
and  having  the  word  "  patent"  affixed, 
with  a  gnilty  purpose.  /Stephens  v. 
CahhccUy  MS.,  Spuague,  J. ;  Mass., 
1800. 

I 
Section  6. 

See  also  Penalties,  B. 

1.  Under  this  section  the  assignees 
of  an  interest  in  a  patent  are  no  more 
liable  for  articles  purchased  and  sold  by 
them,  without  the  date  of  the  patent 
stnniped  on  them,  than  any  other  per- 
sons, unless  the  articles  were  manufac- 
tured with  their  connivance.  Palmer 
wAUen,  MS.— Beits,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1854. 

'1.  It  is  not  the  selling  of  the  articles 
so  unstamped  that  makes  them  liable 
to  the  penalty,  but  the  omitting  to  put 
the  stamp  on.     Ibid. 

3.  The  penalty  attaches  for  each  sepa- 
rate article  sold.     Ibid. 

4.  It  is  necessary  that  each  article 
should  be  stamped  with  the  day  of  the 


month  as  well  as  the  year;  buf  if  this 
is  done  it  is  8u{S(;ieut,  even  if  the  word 
"patented"  is  abbreviated.  Ilairlnj  v. 
Jiayley,  MS.— BErrs,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1B65. 


Act  op  1848.    CnAP.  47. 
Sectum  1. 
See  also  Extknbion  of  Patent. 

1.  This  .'ict  is  not  a  repeal  of  g  lS(tfthe 
act  of  18.16,  providing  for  the  extension 
of  patents,  and  the  enactment  of  a  new 
system  for  that  purpose ;  but  simply 
a  repeal  of  so  much  of  it  as  related  to 
the  action  of  the  Secretary  of  State  and 
the  solicitor  of  the  treasury,  leaving 
the  Commissioner  of  Patents  alone  to 
go  on  in  the  execution  of  the  duty. 
Colt  V.  Young,  2  Blatchf,  473.— Nel- 
son, J.;  N.  Y.,  1852. 

2.  Where  an  application  for  an  exten- 
sion of  a  patent,  imder  §  18  of  the  act 
of  1833,  was  pending  at  the  time  of  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1848,  which  con- 
ferred upon  the  Commissioner  of  l*at- 
ents  alone,  the  same  power  in  respect 
to  extending  patents,  previously  vested 
in  the  board  created  by  the  act  of 
1830,  Held,  that  it  was  not  necessary 
to  renew  the  application,  but  that  the 
Commissioner  had  the  power  to  go  on 
with  the  proceedings,  as  liaving  been 
already  properly  instituted,  and  com- 
plete them  by  granting  the  extension. 
Ibid. 


Act  or  1861.    Chap. 
Sections  2,  3. 
See  also  Examiners. 
1.  Previous  to  the  act  of  March  2, 


'   4.  -"^'^ 


m 


if 


o:o 


ST ATUTKS,  CONSTRUCTION  OK;  B.  3,  4,  a. 


PATBXT  AOTf;   PUBUO.     ACT  Or   1861,   j)   3.3.    CRtrATK;   OKNKItAI.   Ul  IK   A8   10. 


If^OI,  till  JiiiHci;il  uctH  (1oiu>  ill  the  Patent 
nnico  l»v  lilt'  piiiiiiirv  cxamiimr.-t  «>r  tlio 
l>o:ii'il  of  A|)|i(mIs  wi'Vi'  ill  iiiti'iilini'nt 
of  law,  tlu>  jndicial  actn  «>!'tlu'  Ci'iiiiiiis- 
.Hidiiur,  and  had  iiu  Icg.-d  viiliditv  until 
harictluiicil  liy  him.  'I'hcy  uito  tlu' 
orjj;;iiiH  of  the  Coiiimissioiit'r  to  inni'li'i' 
Jiiid  fnUijfitm  hi.H jiidginciit,  ,'iiid  till  iho 
Coiinnissloiu'r  gave  validity  to  their 
judicial  acts  l>y  IiIh  Jhit,  thoy  had  no 
V'<^',\\  evidence  !is  jiidi,'iiieiil,  Snmrdcit 
V.  /^urcc,  MS.  (Ai>ii.  Cas.) — DrM.oi-, 
J.,  D.  C,  1801. 

2.  Under  the  net  of  1  HOI  tlio  |)riinaiy 
cxaniiiicrs  and  examiners  in  eldcf  aie 
Tocof;ni/('d  ;im  jiulifiiil  ojfiri rs,  aclinij 
indei>endently  of  the  ('oinniis>ioner, 
who  can  onli/  control  t/icDi,  when  their 
jiiil,i;mcnt  in  due  course  conu's  l,>efore 
the  Conmiissioner  on  appi-al.     Pjif/. 

','.  Their  acts  are  not  the  acts  of  the 
Commissioner,  but  tiieir  own  acts. 
They  are  no  lonujcr  mere  organs  of  the 
CommissioinT,  but  independent  officers. 
IIo  can  only  reach  and  overrule  them 
when  their  judjiincnts  come  regularly 
before  him,  on  (t})pe<il.     Ihin. 

4.  The  Commissioner  can  give  no 
judgment  til!  an  appeal  to  him,  and  this 
cannot  be  done  till  the  judgment  of  the 
prim.'iry  ex.aminers  h;is  been  submitted 
to  the  examiners  in  chief.     Ibid, 

4.  Special  or  Private  Acta. 

a.  Generally. 

1.  A  private  net  of  Congress  author- 
izing the  issue  of  a  patent  to  an  inven- 
tor, is  to  be  considered  as  engrafted  on 
the  general  acts  for  the  promotion  of 
the  useful  arts,  and  the  jv'itent  is  issued  in 
purraiance  of  both.  Evana  v.  Eaton, 
3  Wheat.,  518. — Mar-siiall,  Ch.  J.; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1818. 


2.  An  act  of  Congres*  cxttnditig  r» 
patent,  passed  ii  general  terms,  uii;,f|it 
to  bi'  so  construed,  if  it  may,  us  to  \u\ 
deeiiii'd  ajii>t  exercise  o*"  coiistitutiuiKi, 
authority.  And  it  ought  to  bucoiistrui'il 
not  to  operate  retrospectively,  op  (x 
fiiiHt  J'ti'ti),  unless  that  constniciioii  ii 
unavoiihible.  lilanchiinl  v.  ,Sj>riii/ue 
;t  Sumn.,  542. — Sroiiv,  J. ;  Mass.,  lH;ii). 

'A,  A  reserviition  in  favor  of  as.signoc!) 
in  a  special  act  of  Congress  extendin'.,' a 
patent,  will  not  make  the  act  iiiicoiisii. 
tulional  on  the  ground  that  Congress  is 
only  authorized  to  confer  privileges)  on 
iitvcntora.  The  power  of  Congress,  to 
reserve  rights  and  jtrivileges  to  as- 
signees,  is  incidental  to  the  geiaTal 
power  conferred  to  promote  the  pre;,'. 
ress  of  the  useful  arts.  Jilnnclinnrt 
Oitn-!S!ovlc  Co.  V.  Wurmr,  1  lilatclif., 
•-'71,  270.— Nki.so.\,  .1.;  Ct.,   IHKI. 

4.  Congress  may,  by  special  ad  ex- 
tend  a  patent  even  after  the  expiration 
of  the  original  patent.    Ibid.,  270. 

5.  Congress  may  exercise  its  consti- 
tutional power  as  to  granting  rightv  to 
inventors  by  special  acts  or  otlierwisc, 
by  a  geiuu-al  system.  Hloomer  v.  Stul- 
Icj/,  .5  McLean,  101. — McLkan,  J,; 
Ohio,  IHoO. 

0.  And  may  extend  a  patent  by  spe- 
cial act,  after  such  patent  has  been  onto 
extended.     Ibid.,  102. 

7.  Alleged  fraud  and  misreprcscntn- 
tion  in  the  passage  of  an  act  of  Con- 
gress, as  an  act  granting  a  special  pat- 
ent, will  not  be  presumed  ;  but  such  an 
act  will  be  regarded  by  the  courts  as 
the  law  of  the  land,  until  it  is  repealed. 
Gibaon  v.  Gifford,  1  Blatchf.,  531.— 
NEL.SON,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1850. 

8.  A  special  act  in  relation  to  any 
particular  patent,  is  to  be  considered  .is 
engrafted  upon  the  general  acts  relating 
to  patents.    They  are  statutes  in  pari 


STATl  TKS,  CON.sTUrCTloN  OF;  15.4.  h. 


•n 


I  Af  TO. 


PATIHT  ACn;  PUT  ATI.     HLUP  Or  TIIOMAS  SLANOHAaD. 


n  t'xtcniliii;;  a 

,1     UTIll!*,    0\\'^]\{ 

iiitiv,  as  to  III) 
♦'  o<)iistitiitii)iia« 
to  Ik;  const  iiuitl 
ei'tivc'ly,  or  tx 
coiiMtntclioii  \^ 
rd  V.  l^/>riiffve, 
J.;  Mass.,  iHilO. 
\«)r  of  :is>ii4iu'C((, 
rt'H-*  oxti'iiiliuii  u 
,ho  act  uiuoiisii' 
thai  ('oiijirt'Ks  is 
liT  |)nvili"4i's  1)11 
■  of  ('oiiiiiiss, to 
»i-iviU'jJ!t')*   to  us- 
to   tlio   fji'iii-nil 
[•oiiioti!  tilt'  iiI'ol;- 
ts.     Jilum'liitnl'i 
iinu.r,  1   Ijlatelif., 
,;  Ct.,   IHIO. 
»y   Hj)i'cial  act  ex- 
or  tlu!  exiiinUiou 

I  hid,  'JTU. 
ori'iso  its  ('otisti- 
runtiiijj;  Y\<ih\<  to 
cts  or  olliorwisc, 
lilounier  v.  IStvl- 
. — MoLkax,   J.; 

a  patent  l)y  spp- 
It'iit  has  been  onto 

|iul  nnsrt'prcscntii- 

if  an  act  of  C!on- 

linj;  «■  »\^cc'u\\  pal- 

Vitnl ;  but  sudi  an 

by  the  courts  :\i 

lintil  it  is  repcaloil. 

Bhitchf.,  531.- 

l850. 

li  relation  to  any 

be  considered  as 

tneral  acts  relating 

statutes  in  pari 


ttiiihriii,  lunl  all  rolatc  to  the  nanu'  hult* 
jtrt,  iiiul  niiiHt  bu  cunNtninl  top>tlicr. 
Jilootuci'  \,  Mi'(^h(iwiin,  It  Il<nv.,  ft4H, 
631.— Tanky,  Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Cl.,  l«S:i. 

h.  ActH  for  roll  T  uf  TlKunai  liluticharcl. 
Act  ol' I  SOI.,  V\\.  213.    Act  or  Im:io.,  (!ii.  14. 

1.  Tho  act  of  ConjjrcHs  of  \H',\\,  chap. 
'jlH,  runcwin;;  tho  piitcnt  of  Thomas 
HIaiuharil,  for  hi  "  iiiachiiu'  forcut'-nj^ 
or  turiiinjj;  incj^iiiar  forms,''  secures  to 
|»atcntcoH  an<l  purchasers  their  ri;i;hts 
iiniv  upon  tho  samo  cotnlitioris  as  thoy 
iiiid  before  enjoyccl  them  ;  //«/(/,  that 
tin;  Uuileil  Stall's  had  no  rii,dil  to  make 
iiMil  uso  his  invent  ion,  i'xce|)t  on  tlu' 
|i;iyuu'nt  of  tlu'  sum  per  musket  w 
litlc  secured  by  the  terms  of  tho  former 
iissi'^uinont  to  them.  JUttnchnrd's  (Jane, 
Oiiiu,  (lilpin's  Ktl.  iH41,  lliJ5.— Ihr- 
LEK,  Attj.  (Jon.;   1H37. 

'J.  In  construinj^  an  act  of  Conj^ross, 
if  llioro  bo  a  plain  mistake,  apparent 
upoa  tho  laco  of  the  act,  which  m;iy  bo 
corrected  by  other  l.'int^uaLjo  in  tho  act  it- 
self, the  mistake  is  not  fatal,  liltinvh- 
(tnl  V.  lSj>r<(!/i(e,  3  Suiim.,  281!. — Stouy, 
.1.;  Mass.,  18;(H. 

3.  The  more  inisuomor  t)f  tho  name 
(if  a  person  t)r  eorporalion  named  in  the 
act,  as  of  a  person  to  whom  a  p.'itcnt  is 
irninled  by  the  iiot,  if  tho  person  roally 
iiitiiided  can  be  collocted  from  tho  terms 
<if  the  act,  is  also  not  a  fatal  mistake. 
IbuL,  'IS2. 

4.  But  Avhen  the  descriptive  -words 
tonslitute  the  very  ossonco  of  the  thinj?, 
as  the  title  or  designation  of  the  inven- 
tion, unless  tho  description  is  so  clear 
aiul  accurate  as  to  refer  to  the  particular 
thing,  and  are  incapable  of  being  ap- 
plied to  any  other,  the  mistake  is  fatal. 
Ibid.,  283. 


fi.  Tho  act  of  CoiigrosH  of  1834, 
granted  ii  pateitt  to  it.  for  tho  term  of 
fourteen  yi'urs  from  tlu!  twilfth  day  of 
Janu.'iry,  Ih37,  giving  him  "tlui  exdu- 
sivo  right,"  itc.,  of  making,  using,  »fec., 
his  invention  ui ^^wmitfhine  for  lurnin(( 
or  I'ulling  irregidar  forms,"  an<l  rofor- 
enco  was  made  in  such  act  to  a  descrip- 
tion ot  Nuch  invention,  contained  in  a 
specification  aimoxod  to  letters  patent 
granted  aid  11.,  on  the  ticd/l/i  of  Jati- 
uary,  \h'20 — and  in  point  of  fact  IJ. 
never  had  gnmled  to  him  any  letters 
patent  dat»'d  Jamiary  tiril/'t/i,  IH'JO,  but 
had  received  on  January  iwoifirt/i,  18'J0, 
(tertain  letters  patent  for  "  an  imjlue  for 
tin-niiig  or  cutting  irregular  forms  out 
(»f  wixid,  iron,  brass,  or  other  malt'rial 
or  Hubstanco,  which  can  bo  cut  by  ordi- 
n.ary  tools,  called  IJ.'s  self-directing 
machine;"  //»/»/,  that  tho  mistake  waa 
fatal,  and  that  tho  court  could  not  de- 
part from  tho  very  words  of  tho  net  to 
correct  tho  mistake.     I  hid.,  286. 

0.  Tho  act  of  1830,  chap.  14,  is  not 
unconstitutional  on  the  grotmd  that  it 
operates  retrospectively,  to  glvo  a  pat- 
ent ft»r  an  invention,  which,  though 
made  by  the  pati'iilee,  was  in  public 
use  at  the  time  of  tho  passage  of  tho 
act.  Tho  power  of  C/ongress  as  to  grant 
ing  patents  is  geti'^'ral,  and  it  rests  in 
tho  soimd  discretion  of  Congress  to 
s.iy  when,  and  for  what  length  of  time, 
and  under  what  circumstances,  the  pat- 
ent for  an  invention  shall  bo  granted. 
There  is  no  restriction  which  limits 
Congress  to  enact,  where  the  invention 
Inis  not  been  known  or  used  by  the  pub- 
lic. All  that  is  retpiired  is  that  the  i)at- 
ojitec  shoidd  be  the  inventor.  JSlanch- 
ard\.  Spnigue,  3  Sumn.,  541. — Story, 
J.;  Mass.,  1839. 

7.  The  act  of  Congress  of  1839,  chap. 
14,  extending  to  Thomas  Blanchard  a 


»■'  % 


^'^M 


'K.-1I'' 


Y': 


'i^jflit-  ^*f 


J    3 


■Ji 


078 


STATl'TKS,  CONSritUCnON  UV ;  U.  4.  c. 


rATtXT  ACnt;   I'HIVATR.      RNIirr  iif  DUrM  RTAMI. 


piiti'iit  lor  ''turning  irrt'^^uliir  (iiiiii«," 
hy  the  proviNo  of  tlu*  (IrMt  Hi'olion,  in- 
teixlctl  to  ((ivtt  to  aNni^iuu'M  of  tlic  oM 
|i;itrtit  till  t'<|imlly  «>Xflii!«iv('  |irivili<^i>  in 
tlio  txtcmli'tl  tffin.  /l/'itii'/iitr<l'ii  Hun- 
Stork  Turninif  Furtury  v.  Wurnery  1 
lllutihf.,  'J7fl.— Nkijhon,  J.;  Ct.,  IHW. 
H,  TIh'  ri'MiM'valioii  in  wnfli  net  us  to 
aNHii^nt'i'H,  (l(M's  not  niakf  tlic  act  unron- 
(ititiitional  on  tlio  ^ronml  that  ('on^i°**sn 
can  only  fonlVr  privili'j^oH  on  inventorn. 
Tilt'  jiowtTof  (/onijrfMs  to  ri'HtTve  rijjIiiH 
aii<l  privilt'i^cs  to  aNsii^rncrs  is  inciilriital 
to   till'  J^i'llfial  jloWtT  COKt'i'lTttl    to  |>ro 

liiotu  tlu'  pro^^roHs  of  tlio  useful  arts  l>y 
securing  to  invonlors,  for  liiiiitt-il  ttnics, 
tlic  cxclusivo  right  to  their  «liHcoveri«-<. 
J  bill.,  '270. 

0.  Thiii  aot  of  1830  (li<l  not  extcn<l 
the  nii'ro  h'gal  riglit  of  the  patentee, 
under  his  patent,  hut  grantctl  the  exclu- 
sive right  to  the  invt'iition,  ami  the  spcc- 
itieution  of  the  patent  was  tnily  relerreil 
to  to  itlentify  the  invention  oxtendoil. 
Ibid.,  279. 

rt   Act  for  ri'lif  f  of  Oliver  Kvuhh. 
Act  or  180S.    Ciiai'.  13, 

1.  Tjuler  this  act,  ami  a  patent  taken 
out  pursuant  to  it,  Jlihl,  tiiat  Kvaiis 
couhl  recover  (laiiiag<(s  for  the  use  of  :i 
mnchinc  violating  his  patent,  after  no- 
tice of  the  patent,  although  the  ma- 
chine might  have  lieen  constructed  prior 
to  the  passing  of  the  law.  .Am//.v  v. 
Tret."**,   2  Wash.,   343.— \Y'AsniN(iTON, 

J.;  Pa.,  1H09. 

2.  This  act,  which  was  jiassed  after 
a  patent  had  expired,  contained  a  pro- 
viso "  that  no  person  who  shall  have 
used  the  improvement"  (secured  by  the 
patent),  "  or  have  erected  the  same  for 
use  before  the  issuing  of  the  said  (se- 
cond) patent,  shall  be  liable  to  damages 


therefor,"  //>/>/,  that  lhiMpro\iNo  did  nut 
aiithori/.e  the  use  of  the  iniproveinnit 
Niilmcqiicnt  to  the  date  of  the  seconil  imt. 
eiit ;  Kiid  that  for  mucIi  Nidmcqueiit  ii«t< 
the  parties  using  \\er«>  lialile  to  diiiiia- 
ges  to  the  patentee.      I  bid.,  '24N,  2');i. 

.'I.  Thu  act  for  tlie  relief  of  Oliver 
Kvaiis,  is  not  to  lie  construed  so  an  tn 
exempt  either  from  treble  or  bin^rl,, 
damagOH,  thu  uh«,  Mubseipient  to  th,. 
passage  of  mieh  act,  of  the  niacliiticrv 
mentioned  therein,  which  was  encti-,! 
Hubsecpient  to  the  expiration  of  the  oi'i>r- 
inal  patent,  and  pre\iouH  to  the  |i:i>>K:ijr(. 
of  such  net.  h'l'iins  v.  Jordan,  0  Cm., 
'202,  '204.— Washinoton,  J.;  .Sup.  ft,, 
IHIrt. 

4.  The  right  to  recover  damages  for 
using  his  patent  nriscH  not  under  this 
law,  but  under  the  general  patent  law 
of  17n:l.     /bid.,  20.1. 

5.  Though  this  act  gav«!  to  Kvaii'^tlu' 
exclusive  property  not  only  in  the  m- 
tirf  iniprovnnent,  but  in  the  «ever<d  ma- 
I'/iitirs  I'lnployed  to  produce  the  speci. 
lied  results,  yet  as  the  patent  !ittiiallj 
issue<l  w;is  conliiU'd  to  the  whole  iiri- 
proveinent,  it  contained  no  cxcIiimvc 
right  to  use  severally  the  several  ma- 
<'liines.  J'AJtrnn  v.  Katon,  Pet.,  V.  C, 
;t40. — Washincito.v,  J.;  Pa.,  IHIO. 
I  Hut  HCi' poitf,  9. J 

0.  The  patent  of  Evans  for  his  im- 
proved hopper-boy,  granted  tinder  tlio 
special  act  of  180H,  is  not,  either  liy 
force  of  such  .ict,  or  of  the  decision  of 
the  Supreme  Court  in  Emms  v.  Entun, 
3  Wheat.,  4.')4,  an  excepticm  to  the  sjon- 
eral  rule  ;  nor  is  it  for  the  whoie  liopiuT- 
boy,  whether  he  was  the  inventor  of  it 
or  not.  J'Jvmm  v.  ITettiek,  3  W.'isli.. 
424-432.— Washington,  J. ;  Pa.,  1818, 

7.  His  patent  covers  only  that  of 
which  he  was  the  first  inventor,  and  liii 
invention,  if  an  improvement,  must  be 


HTATfTTKS,  COXSTIUHTIONT  OF;  U,  4,  U. 


67» 


prnvito  dill  not 

•  iiu|tio\)nuii|, 

tilt*  NVfniul  \m{. 

HU\t^Vt\\U'\\{   IWl', 

liiklitt'    to  ilaiiiii- 
hid.,  'ilH,  'j:.;i. 
n'lii'r  of  Oliver 

iHtniiul  HO    ItH    to 

rt'ltl*'   or   hiii;,'lc 

iSt'i|IUMlt  to  tlu' 
r  till'  niarliiiU'ry 
I'll  wiiH  isri'cti'tl 
ttioii  of  tlit>  oi'i){- 
IH  to  the  |t;ixsuu(' 
Jtififon,  0  t.'iii., 
5N,  J.;    Sup.  Cl., 

ivcr  <l!iinn}^t'H  for 
><  not  imdcr  tliii* 
iii'ral  piiti'iil  luw 

^avo  toKvaiis  the 
[t   only  in  llif  (/*• 

tlu'  /tllUT'd  IIKI- 

ro<hu'e  tho  hpeci- 
pati'Ut   actually 

to  till'  wlinlc  illl- 
d  no  I'xcluMVc 
till)  several  ma 

linn,  Pet.,  C.  C, 
.1.;    Pa.,    IHIO. 

ivans  for  his  im- 
■anted  under  the 
is  not,  either  by 
>f  the  decision  of 
Evans  V.  Kiiton, 
eption  to  the  pen- 
the  whole  hopinT- 
\\Q  inventor  of  it 
Jettkk,  a  Wiish.. 
ON,J.;Pa.,lHl^'. 
rs  only  that  of 
inventor,  and  lii« 
)vcnieut,  must  be 


I'HiVArit  M  !-<    i'Hiv\i>:     KKi.iKr  or  wm.  wnoowoani. 


K>t  forth  m)  ax  to  riearly  tliMtiii(XuiNh  it. 
Tlii't  not  liiivin^  \wv\\  done,  ho  eannol 
ri'e«»vt'r.     /A/*/.,  I'.'h. 

H.  Tin'  patrnt  «if  Oliver  Kvati«  in  not, 
pillier  hy  lli«'  Mpetrial  art  patH«'d  for  liin 
rrlief,  oi"  by  virtue  of  the  dt'i'i?«ion  of  the 
Hu|irenie  CJourt  {Kidnt  v.  JCiUon,  i\ 
Wheat.,  IH|m),  an  exception  to  the  j,'«'n- 
cral  prineiph'M  ^overnin;;  the  isHue  of 
iiiitenls.  If  l">  is  not  the  original  inven- 
tor of  the  tliiii!{M  patented  to  him,  or  if 
hilt  iiivi'Ution  i«  not  jirtipt-rly  M-t  forth, 
he  eaiinof  recover.  /'Ji'dnn  v.  /'Jiifon,  ;i 
\Va!*li.,  <'>!,  -tJ'J. —  W.VhmNuioN,  J.  ; 
I'a.,  IHIH. 

1).  'rh<»u<;h,  under  the  j^eneral  pat«'nl 
law,  a  donlit  nii^ht  arif^e  \vh<  iher  im- 
iirovenienls  on  ditlerent  machines  could 
rij^iilarly  he  comprehended  in  the  namo 
tialetit,  HO  as  to  j^ive  a  rii^ht  to  the  ex- 
clusive une  of  the  Heveral  machines  sep- 
anitelv,  nx  ^vell  as  a  rij^ht  to  the  exclu- 
bive  use  of  those  machines  in  cotnliina- 
tioii;  the  ."act  for  the  relief  of  Oliver 
Kvaiis,"  authorizes  the  issuing  to  him  of 
a  patent  ^rantiii^  to  him  tlu>  full  iind 
oxcliisive  ri|;lit  in  his  invention  and  im- 
iii'oveinents  in  the  art  of  manufaclurin<r 
lloiir,  and  in  the  Heveral  machines  he  has 
invented,  discovered,  improved,  :u  d  .-ip- 
plit'd  to  that  purpose.  /•Jnin.i  v.  hafon, 
3  Wheat.,  500.  —  AIausIIALL,  Ch.  J.  ; 
Hap.  Ct.,  1818. 

10.  Taking  tho  wlndo  together,  his 
patent  under  such  act  is  to  heconstruetl 
as  a  grant  of  the  general  result  of  the 
whole  niachintiry,  and  of  tho  improve- 
ments in  each  machine ;  and  he  may 
I'laiiu,  under  his  patent,  the  exclusive 
use  of  his  inventions  and  improvements, 
in  the  art  of  mantifacturing  Hour,  and 
in  tliG  several  machines  which  he  has 
invented,  and  in  hia  improvements  on 
machines  previously  discovered.  Ibid., 
517. 


11.  Tho  tieci«h>n  of  the  court  hclow 
in  Hi'HhB  v.  Kalnit,  'A  Wash.,  4A|,  that 
if  Kvans'  patent  was  for  the  hopperdioy, 
hecoulilnot  recover  unli«is  he  waHlIn! 
first  inventor  thcreol',  and  thai  if  it  wan 
a  patent  for  an  improvement  on  the  ho|»> 
per-hoy,  it  wum  defective  in  not  upecify. 
ing  the  improvement,  atllrmed.  /•Ji'inm 
v.  /''<iti>n,  7  Wheat.,  4;il,  i:!."!. — Smuv, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  IH'J'J. 

12.  Decision  of  Wahiiinotos,  J.,  in 
J'Ji<,in$  v.  llvttirk,  :»  Wash.,  ^'l\-\'.Vi 
(iintf  tl),  as  to  the  force  ;iiii|  extent  of 
Kvans'  patent,  athrmcd,  /'Jrnnn  v.  //it- 
tifk,  V  Wheat.,  47t).— SroiiY,  J. ;  Hup. 
(!t.,  IH'2'2. 

1.1.  Oliver  Kvans,  for  his  invention  in 
the  art  of  manufacturing  Hour,  received 
protection  originally  hy  means  of  an  act 
of  the  legislature  of  Pennsylvania,  pann- 
ed .March  •JOtli,  1787 — hefore  any  act  of 
Congress  ha<l  lieen  jiassed — which  se- 
cured to  him  the  exclusive  privih'ge  in 
his  invention  for  fourteen  years.  After 
the  expiration  of  this  time,  in  180H,  n 
speci.'il  act  of  Congress  was  passed,  an- 
lh<u-i/.ing  an  issue  of  a  patent  for  an- 
other term  of  fourteen  vears,  ninUir 
which  a  patent  was  issued,  bearing  dato 
J.niuary 'i2d,  1H08.  [/;'(/.] 

d.  Act  for  rollof  of  WilUam  "Woodworth. 
AoT  OP  1845.    CuAP.  27. 

1.  There  being  in  this  .act  extending 
the  Woodworth  jiatent,  no  implied  or 
expressed  reservatioti  in  favor  of  as- 
sigiu'os,  Ifeld,  that  an  assignee  under 
the  original  p.'itent,  or  first  extension, 
had  no  further  right  to  use  such  patent. 
Bloomer  v.  iStollctj,  5  McLean,  103. — 
MoLkax,  J.;  Ohio,  1850. 

2.  There  being,  in  the  special  act  of 
February   20th,    1845,    extending    the 


w-^^ 


•»     -111,. .  • 


*ii*,«i' 

->«^ 

M^-'"* 

d 

J5r~.      I- 


'■'"^llji 


ftUouittmoNs. 


or  HKi'iUNiiM  k\U  oiilKM,  ii»:«uua  Wt,  ON  MVnfRW. 


Wi>oi|w4>illi  |»iitfiil  for  M'Vt'ii  ytir  iVitiH 
iH-io,  tio  ri'Mi'rvntioti  or  itrnvUit  in  t'livor 
of  u^«i;{iii>(>r  iiiiilor  tilt*  llrMt  ttiriii,  or  llio 

HrHt   l'\lfl|i>l')l|     IIIkIiT    till'      lift     itl'    IH.'I)), 

tliry  liiivc  no  li^lit  ill  tlu'  tfiiii  fxlciiil 
i><|  hy  Con^ivM,  iiihI  ntniiut  vvvn  con- 
tliiiii>  llu>  u»it  of  iiiiicliiiU'N  hfl<l  ami  in 
ii>t«>  hy  tliciii  (It  ill*'  fkpii'iilioti  of  the 
flint  t'Xti'iiKioii.  (I'ifniin  V.  <iijf'<ri/,  I 
Uliil.lif.,  :>  10,  r»:H.~N>;i.HoN,  J. ;  N.  Y., 
IH.'.O. 

:i.  So  lii'M  iiIho  in  .)fim>inr.  '/'ttfiiim., 
MS.— Wooiiiii  i:v,  TiiMw.   I.F.;   It.  I,, 

iHflO;    liloiiiin.'    V.    \'<nii//,f,    MS.— Mr- 

KlXI.KV,     M.CaI.IIi,    .1.1.;      I.tl..      IHflO; 

Wntulinni'tU   V.     lttl)'ftolli\  .MS.  —  \V.\ltK, 

J.;  Ml'.,  1N.*>0;  iiti<l  Witnilifnrfk  v. 
t'«/*^'v«,  .MS.--Sri!.\i.i  i:,.l.;  .M:iK>*.,  iH.tO. 


SrCC.KSTIONS,  UK.MMNt;  OK. 
■    8cu  ulso  Mkciiami',  Suti.i,  ()v. 

1.  Tilt"  HiijjtycsfioiiM  of  flic  ini'dnmic 
ornpliiyctl  to  make  ii  niacliiiic,  or  of 
otliiTM,  iiH  to  its  form  or  proportioim,  mv 
not  iiivontioiiH  or  im|irov«>iiH'iitx  for 
Avliirh  a  |t;ili'iit  could  !»«'  olilaiiicil,  nor 
can  tlicy  iiivaljilatc  llic  )»;it('iil  fur  tin- 
thlii}^  to  wliiili  (licy  arc  ;i|i|iii('(l.  /'(/«• 
noek  V.  Ih'itlo^/ur,  4  ^VaHll..  514.— 
AV.vsiiiNGTo.v,  J. ;  I'a.,  18'J.'». 

2.  Kxccjit  tills  W!is  so,  very  fcu'  pal- 
cntH  could  be  HUpporteil ;  as  iit  most 
caHt's  it  might  probably  be  shown  that 
whilst  the  thinpf  patented  was  con- 
Btructiiij;,  or  before  it  was  broii<.jlit  to 
perfection,  many  such  improvements 
■were  adopied  in  conse(iuence  of  such 
suggestions.     Ibid,  .'>44. 

3.  The  suggestions  of  a  mechanio  of 
alterations  in  the  form  or  proportions 
of  a  machine,  as  designed  by  the  in- 


vi'iiiur,  will  hot  be  KuOlciciii  to  itcprUo 
tlui  iiiVfiilor  of  thu  nu'rll  of  ihi>  invvm 
lloii,  or  art'ett  Ihi*  validity  of  liin  piiriitt, 
if  iiicorponitnl  within  it ;  nor  would  it 
Ih>,  a*  to  Miich  alteration)*,  a  diMiiMry 
I  wliittll  wtMild  ehtillo  thu  liiecliunic  to 
tiiku  out  a  patent  for  tliein.  Mnlton  v. 
/ll'iif'H,  i  Wa.^h.,  a«'i. — Wa»iiini,to<v, 
•l.j  I'a.,  iM'.'t) 

4.  If  a  contrary  doctrine  were  to  he 
maintained,  vttry  few  If  any  ptttcnt* 
could  be  upheld,  iinlesN  in  ihoxc  cum.i 
where  (he  itiveiilor  is  also    the   Illi'i'liMii 

ieiaii  who  constructs  thu  niacliine 
//liif,  rtH2. 

A.  If  a  party  NUggest  an  idea  hh  to 
an  invention  which  is  iitdi-ipenMablc  to 
its  operation,  and  which  in  renlily  con- 
stitutes its  whole  value,  and  aiiuilicr 
adopts  siudi  suggestion  and  lakes  gut  a 
patent  theretbr,  the  patent  is  void,  ns 
not  bring  the  invention  of  the  pittciiicc. 
TItoiiuiH  V.  UV'A.f,  '1  I'aiiie,  loj,— 
Tllt>MI'HON,  J.;  X.  Y.,    IH'J7. 

((.  And  it  is  sutticient  if  such  a  sug> 
ge^tioll  was  made  by  such  ot' it  per- 
son, w  ilhoiit  being  carried  out  or  patdit- 
ed  by  him.     J !,;,(.  lo:t. 

7.  To  show  invention  in  aiiuiliii' 
than  the  patentee,  because  of  siiggcv 
tions  m:ide  by  siudi  other  persmi,  tiic 
^pu^stil)n  fur  the  jury  is,  whrilicr  Mirli 
person  communicated  subiitantially  the 
invention,  so  that  without  more  iiivuii- 
tive  power  the  other  could  have  ap- 
plied it.  A  mere  hint  is  not  siitliciiiit, 
nor,  on  the  other  hand,  need  he  cuiii- 
municate  every  minute  thing  about  the 
invention  ;  but  he  must  h.ave  cuiiiiiiuui- 
cjited  the  substance.  Alihn  v.  /hirnj, 
1  Story,  338,  3y9.--ST0UV,  J.j  Mass., 
1840. 

8.  The  testimony  of  a  witness,  how- 
ever, that  he  gave  such  comniunicatiiui 
as  to  an  invention,  is  in  the  nature  ul 


;i 


TK«lfN'ir\r. 'IKItMS,  AM)  PlfKASKa 

MI>:«MMI   iir,    WHO  M4T    fHOVI. 


011 


It  to  iU|>rlvo 
•I*  till'  lnvi'ii- 
A'  hi*  |i!iti'tit, 
nor  wiml'l  il 
a  tUM-oviry 

Illl'i'llillllO   to 

ii>  wvrv  to  Imj 
■  liny  |iuU«t« 

)    tilt*    lltl'I'llUII- 

thu   ntitcliitii' 

till  ulcii  nn  to 
uli:<|nn<<;il»l«'  to 

til  n-ul'tty  con- 
i',  ftlitl  uiK'tlirr 
uiil  takt's  uitt  it 
lent  is  viii'i,  n^ 

dl'  tlu'  |illtllll>'l'. 

IVlIU',     lt»J.— 

t  if  such  il  ^^l^,'• 
u.li  «!'  'T  i..r- 
•.loiitorimU'Mt- 

,,n    ill    iiii'ithfr 

Imso  ttl'  sii.u'j^i'!" 

Ihi'i"  ItiTMili,  till' 

L,  whithiT  siuh 

mh;.tfiiiti;i!ly  tlie 

,ut  iiinri'  iuvL'U- 

I'.ml.l    liavi"  aj)- 

JH    IH>t  Mltlil'U'llt, 

1,  iieinl  hi'  wiu- 

[thin^i  ahdiit  tlie 

have  I'oiiiiiuiiii- 

[hkn  V.  I'rfnj, 

»KY,  J.;  ^I'l^'''' 

|iv  witiK'ss,  how- 

comJiiuirwatioa 

[i  the  iiuturo  ol 


'  .tiifi'iiiiinti,  nn>l  In  nlwnyn  r(*(;nrili<(1  nn 

,    Illll't'lllUII    kil|)|    til'  t'Villltlll'l'.       /fn'ti., 

'I, 

0.  Ill   onlor   to   iiivtiliiliitu  II  piKi'iit 

(III  llti'   pcrouinl  th:it  thii    |iiil>'iil till 

not  <'oiuM'i\i>  ihi*  iih  ti  rtiihnilini  in  the 
iinpriivt'iiii'iit,  it  iiiiiKt  ii|>|M>;ir  ihiil  llif 
,ii^}{(>itlliiiiM,    if  niiy,  iiiiiih    to   him  hy 
othiTK,  «inihl  fiiniioh  nil    '■    iiiloniiii- { 
(ion  iircc»«ary  to  ••iiahic    him   Im   ••oii- 
i.lrui'1  thv  iiii|)roVfiii«>iit.  In  other  u  onlx, 
till*  Kiii;^i>M(ioiiM  mii^t  hiivo  h«'(>ii  Niillt- 1 
rifiit  to  ciiahli'  him  to  i-oiiNtnict  a  com* 
picli'  ami    pfi I'ftt   mtichint'.       /'iVN  v. ' 
//,///,    2    Hlutilif.,    'j;it.— Nklhun,  J.;1 
X.Y.,  IH.-H. 

10.  It'  iIh'V  Kim|)ly  niihil  him  in 
iirriiiiii;  at  llio  nsi'tui  rcMilt,  ami  if, 
al'lor  all  tin-  soLr^Ji'-tioiis,  tiicro  wuh 
>iinii'ihii>]L;  h-ll  tor  him  to  tU'viso  iiiid 
work  out  \>y  luH  own  nkill  iiml  iii^c- 
unity,  thfii  h«>  is,  in  «-onti>in|ilation  of 
law,  to  he  I't'^ranli'il  an  the  first  ami 
iirijjinal  tlisiovfivr.     //>/</,,  'j:tt. 

11,  On  thu  othor  hiiml,  if  thi>  sii^^ov 
lioniiiiitl  communifutioiih  of  another  ^o 
til  iiiukc  up  a  coiiiiiii'tt'  ami  pnti'ct  ma- 
ciruic,  t'tnliiiilyiiiir  all  that  is  cnil  raci'il 
ill  till' ]>utiiit  suhs(>i|itciitly  isKiU'd  to  tlio 
imrty  to  wl  "mi  tho  suj;p'stions  woro 
iimilc,  the  patt'tit  is  invaliil,  hcraiiso 
llic  ival  (lixovi-ry  hcloii^s  to  aiiotluT. 
Il>iil.,  V':it, 

tJ.  liii|uirit'H  tmulc,  or  information  or 
Milviie  rect'ivi'il  from  inon  of  srirnco,  in 
the  course  of  iiii  iiivi'iilor's  rcscarclu's, 
will  not  impair  his  rij^lit  to  tliccliaracti'r 
of  im  inventor.  It  iiiakos  no  ditU'rciU'o 
wiii'tlicran  invi'iitor  ih-rivo  his  informu- 
liiiii  iVoin  honks,  or  from  conversation 
villi  men  skilled  in  science.  (/JinHlif 
■;. yiunc,  1 5  II.,  11 1  .—Tan icy,  Ch.  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  185.3. 

13,  If  the  ide.i  involved  in  tho  putent- 
«1  article  had  occurred   to  others,   or 


lintl  j'omp  fn  tho  pnli'tilni'  from  otlititw, 
•till,  if  till'   patentee    Inul   lieeii  the   firit 

lo  \i\\»  to  tliiit  iilt'ii  n  iiKcfiil  and  prncthk 
nil  form,  hi<  will  Ixteomiideri'd  the  tlr*t 
inventor.     Ti'»f  v.   /VoV/m   I  MeAIIU., 
40.— Mf.\i,t.inr»;ii,  .1.  ;  Cal.,  |N.^.'^. 

II.  .Mvi'(«  eoiiVersiliioiiN  iihoiit  tho 
praetieiihility  of  mi  jinprovniient,  or 
sntxtfeNtioiiN  IIS  to  the  milliner  in  which 
it  niiuht   he  carried  out  or  iiccnmplixh* 

ed,  will    not    of   themselves    defeat     tllO 

olninm  to  ori^imility  of  him  who  per* 

feetH    lll«    ideii    iiinl    s ires  ii   patent. 

./lotnon  v.  Min>ri\  .M.S. — liKwiir,  J.; 
Ohio,  I  MHO. 

lA,  lint  liny  inforimition  ton palentco, 
Niitlicient  to  eiiahle  him  toeoiistriiet  tho 
thiii)^  ilself,  would  dextroy  theoriuinal- 
ilyof  the  invention.  Such  kiiowledi'.', 
however,  must  he  detiliite  and  tatij^iole, 
mid  siitllcient  of  itsulf  to  entihio  tho 
party  to  uhom  imparted  to  constniet 
the  tiling.      Ihitl. 


TECIINICAI.  TKU.MS  AND 
IMIW.VSKS. 

1.  "Lnteriil  motion,"  in  mechanics, 
does  not  mean,  us  the  term  ordinarily 
siL(nilies,  a  side  motion,  hut  :i  loii<_ritudi» 
mil  one.  Jiroitk'x  v.  Hiiktutl,  ;i  Mclieun, 
4.51._M(;Lkan,  .1.;  Ohio,  IHJt. 

'J.  'I'he  word  "  stilistantial,"  is  not 
susce|itilile  of  an  exa<  t  <leliniti<in.  Ilut 
it  is  very  ^tniorally  used,  and  no  word  is 
inort!  familiar  in  courts  of  justice  ami  in 
the  ordinary  affairs  i  ♦'life.  Ileyond  tho 
evaet  sciences  we  do  not  look  for  pre- 
cision. We  look  more  to  the  aiihfdnr'e 
of  thinijs  than  their  forinH.     Ibid.,  4!)Q. 

3.  If  teehnical  terms  arc  used  peciilisir 
to  inechanies,  in  deserihing  an  invention, 


•il 

t'f 


%^i^ 


I 


^iinii 


082 


TECHNICAL  TKUMS,  AND  IMIUASKS. -THEORY. 


UEANiNO  or;  WHO  mat  I'ROVI. 


I'ATHNTABIMTT  Of. 


I'vidcuoo  may  be  hojvrcl  in  oxplaiintion 
of  tliose  terms,  nnd  in  such  case  a  jury 
may  ho  necessary.     IhuL^  442. 

4.  As  to  the  meaning;  ofwonls  of  art 
and  teclinical  jilirascs  in  commerce  and 
nianii'"ictures,  which  nay  materially 
nftect,  enlarp-ic  or  control  tlie  meanin«; 
of  the  words  of  the  patent  and  specili- 
cation,  the  jury  are  to  jud<;e.  Witsh- 
Imrn  \.  Gould,  3  Story,  15«. — Sioky, 
J.;  luass.,  1844. 

5.  The  i)atentep  is  not,  in  the  descrij)- 
tion  of  his  invention,  to  he  confined  to 
technical  lan<;naj^c ;  but  may  make  use 
of  that  which  is  in  popular  use,  and  bet- 
ter undei'stood  by  all.  The  fewer  tech- 
nical terms  used  the  better,  if  the  s\ib- 
jeet  is  intelligible  without  them.  JI<>- 
vey  V.  Stevens,  .')  Wood.  <fc  Min.,  28. — 
WooiMirijY,  .J.;  Mass.,  1840. 

'  0.  A  thini;  is  anhxtantialht  the  san>e 
with  another,  when  a  is  the  same  in  all 
impoitant  i)articulars.  It  nmst  be  the 
Bamc  material,  when  material  is  impor- 
tant— of  the  same  thickness,  Avhen  thick- 
ness is  important — be  applied  in  the 
same  way,  condition,  and  extent,  when 
either  of  these  circumstances  are  im- 
portant. Adams  v.  Edtcards,  3IS. 
,  J.;  Mass.,  1848. 

7.  Experts  may  be  examined  to  ex- 
plain terms  of  art,  on  the  principle  of 
cuique  in  sua  arte  credendnm.  Corn- 
ing V.  Burden,  15  IIow.,  270. — Guieu, 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 

8.  "End  i)lay"  of  a  shaft  is  its  lateral 
play  within  the  boxes  in  which  it  runs. 
"  Free  play"  is  its  imcheckcd  action. 
"  Free  end  play"  is  its  unchecked  lateral 
action  in  its  revolutions.  Page  v.  Feriy, 
MS.— WiLKiNs,  J. ;  Mich.,  1857. 

9.  "M.ay,  in  fact,"  does  not  signify 
"shall  be."    Ibid. 

10.  Experts  may  be  examined  as  wit- 
nesses, to  explain  terms  of  a't,  and  the 


state  of  the  art  at  any  given  tiuio.  The 
maxim  ofcuifjuc  in  sua  arte  nrd^'ntliou 
permits  tlu'm  to  be  exainiiu'd  as  to 
quc'Htions  of  art  or  scioiice  peculiar  lo 
their  trade  or  profession,  ^\'ill(l||l>  \ 
K  Y.  «6  K  Ji.  It.,  21  IIow.,  100,  loi.J 
(JitiKU,  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1858. 


THEORY. 

1 .  A  patent  cannot  be  legally  ohtaiiici] 
for  a  mere  philosophical  or  abstract  the- 
ory ;  it  can  only  be  for  such  a  theory  re- 
duced to  practice  in  a  |)articular  stnic- 
t  m"e  or  combination  of  part  s.  Lowell  v. 
Lewis,  1  Mas.,  187. — Stouy,  J.;  Mass, 
1817. 

2.  The  mere  speculation  of  a  philoyo. 
])her  or  mechanician,  which  has  never 
been  tr!"d  by  the  test  of  experieiiee 
and  never  put  into  actual  operation,  will 
not  deprive  a  subsequent  inventor,  who 
has  employed  his  labor  and  his  talents 
in  putting  it  into  pnictice,  of  the  reward 
due  to  his  ingcjuiity  and  enterprise. 
Bedford  v.  Hunt,  1  Mas.,  305.— Stokv 
J.;  Mass.,  1817. 

3.  A  discovery  of  some  new  iirinciple, 
theory,  elementary  truth,  or  an  im- 
provement upon  it,  abstracted  from  its 
a])plication,    is    not    a   new   invention. 

Whitney  v.  Enimctt,  Bald.,  31 1.— Baid- 
wix,  J.;  P.I.,  1831. 

4.  But  when  such  discovery  is  ^t- 
plied  to  any  practical  purpose,  in  the 
new  construction,  operation,  or  eftects 
of  machinery  or  compositioji  of  matter, 
producing  a  new  substance,  or  r  eM 
one  in  a  new  way,  by  new  machinery, 
or  by  a  new  combin.ation  of  the  parts  of 
an  old  one,  operating  in  a  pecu'iar,  bet- 
ter, cheaper,  or  quicker  method,  it  is  a 
"  discov"ry,"  "  invention."  or  "  improve.- 


TKADK  MAUKS,  A. 


6P3 


PKOrKHTY    IN;    IN    WHAT   KXIHTH. 


wme  new  jtritioiplo, 
truth,   or  an  ira- 

I  abstract  ('(1  from  its 

a  new   iuvoiitiuii. 

,Baia.,311.— Bald- 


iiH'iit,''   within   the   acts   ol"  CongrcHH. 

//,/,/„  :ni,;n2. 

5,  An  iinperfi'ct  anil  inconiph'to  in- 
vention, rostinj^  in  nuMV  tln'ory  or  in  in- 
(illi'i'lual  notion,  or  in  uncertain  experi- 
int'uts,  and  not  aetually  redueed  t«)  prae- 
tiic,  and  embodied  in  some  distinct  nia- 
cliinory,  apparatus,  maniifaeture  or  eom- 
itosition  of  matter,  is  n<.t,  and,  indeed, 
laiin't  be,  patentable  under  the  j»atent 
liiw.-.  Jiciil  V.  CutUr,  1  Story,  500.— 
Stouy,  J.;  Mass.,  iHtl. 

0.  If  an  invention  be  the  mere  speeu- 
lation  of  a  piiilosopher  or  meehanieian 
ill  his  closet,  and  he  takes  no  step  to- 
ward securiu}^  a  patent,  but  keeps  his 
jiviMition  a  secret,  and  another  ])erson, 
who  is  also  an  original  but  sid)se(pieiit 
inventor  of  the  same  thinj;,  obtain  a 
patent  for  it,  and  bring  it  into  use,  the 
patentee  in  a  suit  at  hiw  will  be  eonsid- 
iml  the  first  inventor.  lUhhvdth  v. 
math,  :MS.  (App.  Cas.)— CuANcii,  Ch. 
J.;  1).  C\,  1841. 

T.  It  is  not  enougli  to  conceive  the 
idoii  of  a  new  manufacture,  or  of  a  new 
and  useful  instr»nuent.  That  aloiu>  is  no 
honelit  to  mankind,  and  is  not  Avorthy 
the  patronage  of  government.  The  new 
idea  innst  bo  reduced  to  some  ]»ractical 
use  before  it  can  become  the  subject  of 
a  patent,  or  bo  set  up  and  relied  ui)on 
to  defeat  one.  Many  v.  Jagf/cr,  1 
Blatehf.,  383.— Nki,sox,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1 848. 

8.  The  mere  speculation  of  a  jdiiloso- 
pher  or  Jiiechanie,  never  put  into  prac- 
tice or  operation,  will  not  deprive  a  sub- 
sequent inventor,  who  has  employed  liis 
labor  and  talents  in  putting  it  into  prac- 
tice, of  the  reward  duo  to  his  ingenuity 
and  enterprise.  ItieJi  v.  Lipp'mcott^  20 
Jour,  Fr.  Inst.,  od  Ser.,  15. — GuiKii,  J. ; 
Pa.,  1853. 

0.  The  same  position  laid  down  in 
Uicd  v.  Cutter,  1  Story,  599  {ante  5), 


held  also  in  the  following  case.  Mnr- 
nhnll  V.  Ntr,  MS.  (Aj)p.  Cas.) — DuNi.or, 
J.;  D.  C,  1853. 


TRADK-MAUKS. 

A.    rilOl'KUTY    in;     l.V  WHAT   MAT  KXI8T.  .  .    683 

■I.  Who  may  AcyriuK  I'ropkuty  in CB7 

<'.      I'ltOl'KUTY    in;    now    KHCrKCTKD fiJl 

D.  Violation  or ;  what  is (Wl 

l-i.     WllKN     VIOLATION     OV     WILL     HB      KK- 

HTUAINKI) 601 

A.    PuOl'KItTY  IN  ;  m  WHAT  MAY  KXIST. 

1.  The  right  of  a  jjcrson  in  a  trade- 
mark does  not  ])artake  in  any  consi<l- 
erable,  if  in  any  degree,  of  the  nature 
and  char:icter  of  a  )>atent  or  c»)pyright. 
T,i  :hr  v.  Carpenter,  2  Sand.  Ch.,  017 
(Ct.  Errors). — Si'exckk,  Senator;  N.  Y., 
1840. 

2.  Another  is  at  full  liberty  to  manu- 
facture and  vend  the  same  article  to  any 
extent,  and  whenever  he  chooses.  lie 
is  only  required  to  depend  for  his  suc- 
cess upon  his  own  character  and  fame, 
and  not  to  pirate  upon  the  trade-marks, 
the  rights  of  others.     .I7na.,  017. 

3.  The  assurance  that  a  party  can 
eiyoy  the  exclusive  benefit  of  his  trade- 
marks is  among  the  highest  incentives 
to  ingenuity,  laborious  exertion,  and 
honorable  .and  faithful  condimt,  and  is 
one  of  the  greatest  securities  to  the 
public  against  imposition.     Hmh,  017. 

4.  A  label  or  trade-mark,  when  it 
has  become  known,  is  a  Kj)ecies  of  prop- 
erty ;  and  the  owner  will  be  protected 
against  the  attempts  of  others  to  appro- 
])riatc  to  themselves,  by  its  use,  the 
benefit  which  such  owner  is  exclusively 
entitled  to  enjoy.  Partridge  v.  3fenck, 
IIow.  App.  Cas.,   659. — Wuight,  J.; 

N.  Y..  1848. 


f  » 


084 


TUADK-MAUKS,  A. 


I'lWrRllTY   in;   IN'   WHAT  RXWTS. 


T).  Tlic  owner  of  :in  oriyiiiul  (r:iiU»- 
ni:irk  lias  :i  rii;|ii  lo  1k>  iirotcctcil  in  llic 
cvcliisivt'  use  dl"  !»I1  llic  in  irks,  I'nins, 
(ir  synilidls  :i|i|in)|»riatfil  as  (Icsit^nalinj; 
till'  origin  and  owncrslilp  ol'  tin?  lliinjj; 
to  wiiicli  at1i\(>il,  Init  he  cainint  he 
])rol('ctr(|  in  tlios.*  wliifli  iiavc  no  sncli 
ri'Ialion.  A)in>skiaij  Mdiiitj]  Co.  v. 
Spun-,  2  Saiul.  {S.  C,  OUO. — I)i;kk,  J.; 
N.  v.,  isio. 

0.  Uc  lias  no  n;:j1it  to  appropriate  a 
Rij^n  or  syinliol  wliicli,  iroin  llic  naliirt' 
of  tilt'  Out  wliit'li  it  is  nsod  to  siLrniiy, 
others  may  employ  with  ecjual  I  nit  I', 
jiiul  thereforo  Imvo  mi  ('(pial  ritjlit  to 
employ  for  the  same  purpose.  Ihid,, 
OOti,  (U)7. 

v.  The  use  of  words,  marks,  or  sijxns, 
indieatini;  the  name,  mode,  or  proeess 
of  manuiaetnre.  ami  its  peeiiliar  or  r»'la- 
live  i[iiali{y  as  distinti^uished  from  those 
indii-alin':;  orijjjin  or  ownership,  eaimot 
lie  jiroleeied  in  any  partienlar  porsoii, 
lint  are  free  lo  sill  wlii'ii  used  as  an 
I'xpression  of  the  facts  which  (hi'y  really 
si<j;nify.      Ibid.,  (iO!),  (ilO. 

8.  Where  the  plaint  ill's  used  in  their 
laliel  the  letters  A.  C.  A.,  not  as  an  in- 
dit'atiou  of  owm-rship,  lint  only  to  indi- 
cate the  relative  <iualily  of  llu'  goods, 
Ilthl,  that  the  defendants  could  not 'he 
rcstraiiu'd  from  using  the  same  letters  for 
a  similar  i)ur]iose.    Ibid.,  00!),  (HO,  010. 

0.  The  right  of  a  party  to  the  exclu- 
sive enjoyment  of  a  trade-mark  does 
not  dejieiid  upon  any  exclusive  right  of 
jiroporty  in  the  article  sold,  or  upon  any 
exclusive  right  in  tlu>  label — as  that  is 
not  a  book  within  the  i>rovisions  of  the 
statute — but  upon  the  use  and  establish- 
ed reputation  it  has  attained, and  that  its 
frau«hilent  use  is  an  injury  to  third  per- 
sons. Coffeen  v.  lirunton,  4  AIcLean, 
517,  519.— McLean,  J.;  Ind.,  1849. 

10.  The  right' which  any  person  may 


have  to  the  proteelion  of  tho  mint  as  to 
his  trade-mark  does  not  depend  i|i)0]] 
any  exclusive  right  whi<-h  he  uiav  ln> 
supposed  to  have  to  a  particular  naino 
or  to  a  particular  form  of  words;  lij^ 
right  is  to  be  protecteil  against  iVaiid 
and  this  may  be  practised  jigaiiist  liim 
by  means  of  a  name,  though  tli(>  pcisdi, 
|ir:iclising  it  may  (lave  a  perfect  right  to 
use  tiiat  name,  provided  he  does  not  ao- 
company  the  use  of  it  with  siicli  dtln,,. 
circumstances  as  to  cirect  a  fraud  iiiion 
otln'i-s.  Stone  v.  i^irlan,  '.\  y\i\.  |,;,\v. 
Kcp.,  .'Uil.— (^AMi'MKi.r,,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  isr.o. 
II.  Tnule-nuirks  may  be  either  tin- 
naiiu'  of  the  maker;  or  symhnlicaj;  ;i|. 
tlH>  name  of  tiie  eompoun<l.  Ihiviss. 
lunihdl,  '2  U.  I.,  509.— CiUDKm;,  J.; 
I{.  I.,  IH^a. 

I 'J.  In  all  c.'ises  where  nanies,  sii,'iis 
marks,  brands,  labels,  words,  or  devices 
of  any  kind  can  be  advantagctuisiv  useil 
to  designate  the  goods  or  property,  (ir 
.particular  place  of  business,  of  a  person 
engaged  in  trade  or  nianufaclnres,  or 
any  similar  business,  he  may  adupt  am! 
use  such  as  he  pleases,  whicli  are  adijit- 
ed  to  that  end,  and  liave  not  been  before 
appropriated.  Sfid,r.s  v.  Liuidgwff,  17 
Harb.  S.  C,  009.— S-iuono,  J.';  N.  Y., 
185;J. 

1  .'i.  No  other  person  can  lawfully  im- 
itate them,  and  by  that  nu'ans  sell  liis 
own  goods  or  propi-rty,  or  carry  on  liis 
business,  as  'he  goods,  property,  or  busi- 
ness of  the  former.  If  any  one  does  so, 
he  is  liable  to  an  action  at  law  for  (lain- 
•ages,  or  may  be  restrained  by  injunc- 
tion.    Iftid.,  009. 

1 4.  In  respect  to  words,  marks,  or  de- 
vices which  do  not  denote  the  goods  or 
jiroperty,  or  p:irti(nilar  jilace  of  business 
of  a  person,  but  only  the  nature,  kind, or 
(juality  of  the  articles  in  whicli  bo  deals, 
a  different  rule  prevails.    Ibid..,  C09. 


^Jl.i.,  \,\  Z'fy^ 


S*'      "^'i 


THAI )K-M AUKS,  A. 


CR5 


words,  marks,  or  do- 
(k'liote  till'  floods  ov 
liir  place  of  business 
y  the  nature,  kiml, or 
c?  in  whieh  hi!  deals, 
rails.    Ibidem. 


PROraRTT  IN;    AND   IN   WHAT. 


15.  No  |ti<)|M'rly  ill  such  wonln, 
iiiiiiks,  or  (levircs,  ciii  lie  arr|iiir('i|. 
'I'lii'V  "••''}'  '"'  "^''"'  '•>■  '"any  <lilVer('n( 
iicisoiis  at  the  HaiiH'  time,  with  pcrrcct 
(inili  jiiid  I'ainiesN,  'I'liey  si<j;iiit'y  iiolh- 
inu',  «li''"  I'airly  interpreted,  hy  which 
iiiiv  denier  in  ii  siinil;ir  artich-  eiin  he  de- 
Iraiided.      //'/'/.,  (iOK. 

K;.  riie  eredil  and  repiitiition  whieli 
aiiiMii  aei|uires  hy  his  eare  or  hKIII  in  the 
iimniiiiieture  of  a  purtieular  artieh>,  is  JV 
MH'cies  of  property  whieh  i]u'  law  ree- 
oi'iiizes  and  protects:  and  where,  as  :i 
menus  of  exteiidiii;^  his  reputation  and 
(tnidinji  pnrcliaserH,  he  .'iHixes  some 
murk  or  syinhol  t(»  desif^'iiale  that  iir- 
titleas  his  niannfactnre,  lie  is  injio'ed 
l,v  tlie  sale  of  an  urticle  inannfactiired 
liv  iiiiother,  with  his  peculiar  symhol  or 
tnide-iiiark  alllxed  to  it.  Lrmoina  v. 
Canton,  '2  K.  D.  Smith,  :J4V,  .■JJH.— Da- 
i.v,  J.;  N.  V.,  1H,5.1. 

17.  There  is  no  essentiid  (liU'erenee  in 
kind  in  refeiHMice  to  the  protection  to  he 
I'ranted  to  trade-marks  between  estah- 
lisliiiK'iits  formed  for  tho  i>nrpose  of 
trade  and  those  fornu-d  for  th(!  jnirposi? 
of  I'lori!  amusement.  Chn'ufi/  v.  Jftir- 
^phij,  12  How.  I'r.,  VS. — Cr.KiJKK,  ,T. ; 
X.V.,  18.->fl. 

18.  While  neither  exercises,  or  is  cil- 
culated  to  exercise,  'iiiy  d«'moraliziii<^ 
iiillueiice,  ono  is  as  widl  entitUnl  to  tho 
protection  of  tho  law  us  tho  other. 
Ibid.,  1H. 

19.  The  ])laintiiV  orujiuii/.cd  a  band 
of  performers  of  negro  minstrelsy,  .and 
named  thcra  after  himself,  "Christy's 
Minstrels."  Jfeld,  that  ho  was  entith!d 
to  the  exclusive  use  of  that  name,  and 
liiat  tlio  assumption  and  use  of  that 
luamt  l)y  others,  without  a  license,  would 
be  perpetually  restrained  by  injunction. 
Ibid.,  78,  V9. 

20.  The  privilege  of  a  party  to  the 


exclusive  enjoyment  of  ii  tr!id(<-niarU 
does  not  rest  upon  a  rii^lit  of  property 
therein,  but  on  its  pr*  r  iis(>  and  nppli* 
ciilioii  in  the  m.Miiiier  in  which  it  has 
lieeii  imitaled  and  eiiiployeil  iiy  (lie  de- 
fcndiiiit.  ]V<i/l<:n  V.  Crairl,;/,  ;i  rdiilclif., 
4tH.    -Ukttb,  J.;  N.  Y.,  \><r>t\. 

'Ji.  ,\  '■^  )i(inii'"  may  in  some  (!ases  be 
rij^litfiilly  used  iimj  protected  !is  a  trade- 
iii.'U'k  ;  but  this  is  only  when  the  mime 
in  used  as  indic'itini;  the  true  oiji^nn  or 
ownership  of  the  article  oU'ered  lor  side 
—  never  when  it  is  used  to  desijjnate 
the  article  itstdf,  and  has  become,  by 
ado|)tion  and  use,  its  prop(>r  fipixdla- 
tioii.  /'rfn'ift/r  v.  W'lfh,  |;i  How.  I'r., 
;»h7.— DiiKu,  .1.;  N.  V.,  Ih.57. 

'2'2.  All  who  have  an  eipial  ritjht  to 
maniifacturi' and  sell  the  article  have  ;in 
e«pial  ri<j;lit  to  desij^'iiate  and  K(dl  it  by 
its  appropriate  name,  provided  such  ]>er- 
son  is  c:ireful  to  sell  the  arti<'le  as  )ire- 
pared  and  maniifactiircil  by  hiinsell', 
and  not  by  .anotlKU'.     //>/</.,  iih7. 

'JM.  An  exclusive  right  t(»  use,  on  .a 
l.'ibcl  or  other  tnide-mark,  the  .appropri- 
ate name  of  a  inanufactiinMl  .article,  ex- 
ists only  in  those  who  have  an  exclusive 
property  in  the  article  itself,    f/nd.,  risH. 

21.  There  (!an  l)o  no  exclusiv(!  prop- 
erty in  !i  generic  or  s|tccilic  name,  uii- 
iess  as  incident  to  an  excdusivct  property 
in  tho  article,  composition  or  process, 
wlii(!h  the  name  is  used  to  designate. 
7otiilhiS(in  \.  JiitUcl,  MS. — DiiKK,  J.; 
N.  Y.,  18.57. 

25.  A  name  or  appellation  may  bo<', 
appropriated  as  a  trade-narine  ;  .and  this 
may  be  given  to  a  compound  or  article 
every  iiigre<lient  or  portion  of  whi(!h  is 
open  to  tl'.e  use  of  every  one,  but  tho 
sale  of  which,  under  that  appellation,  is 
not  lawful  to  any  other  person.  Jiet- 
ridffe  v.  Merchant,  4  Abb.  Pr.,  158. — 
Hoffman,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 


m 


6S0 


TIIADK-MAUKS,  A. 


niUPKRTT   IK;   ANU  IN  WUAT. 


20.  The  fiirtluT  rcinovetl  suth  an  np- 
iu'llation  is  from  uctuully  ropresi'iitiii^ 
tlio  iU'tiolo  ill  qiU'Htioii,  tlio  inori!  (Iwitkul 
niid  cxcluNivi'  bucoinctt  the  right  to  it. 
J  bid.,  158. 

27.  Ami  cvon  if  the  term  used  bo  com- 
mon, yet  it  msiy  bo  employed  with  such 
peculiar  emblems,  colors,  and  devices, 
ns  to  give  the  person  using  an  exclusive 
right.  Strictly,  the  right  of  appropria- 
tion in  such  instances  results  I'rom  the 
peculiar  emblems.     Ibid.,  158,  159. 

28.  What  will  be  protected  embraces 
not  merely  names,  but  the  manner  of 
putting  up  the  articles,  and  even  includ- 
ing the  wrappers  or  enveloi)e8  employed 
by  the  person  entitled  to  the  trade-mark. 

Willunns  v.  Johnson,  2  Bosworth,  7. — 
Woodruff,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

29.  When  a  person  forms  a  new  Avord 
to  designate  an  article  made  by  him, 
which  has  never  before  been  used,  he 
may  obtain  such  a  right  to  tlwat  name  as 
to  entitle  him  to  the  sole  use  of  it  as 
against  others,  who  attempt  to  use  it  for 
the  sale  of  a  similar  article ;  but  such  an 
exclusive  use  can  never  be  successfully 
claimed  of  Avords  in  common  use  previ- 
ously as  applicable  to  similar  articles. 

Wolfe  V.  Gourard,  18  How.  Pr.,  67.— 
IxtiUAiiAM,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1859. 

30.  Words,  as  used  in  any  langu.ige, 
cannot  be  appropriated  by  any  one,  to 
his  ex(  itisiveuse,  to  designate  an  article 
sold  by  hinj  similar  to  that  for  which 
they  were  previously  used.     Ibid.,  67. 

31.  No  person  can  acquire  a  right  to 
the  exclusive  iise  of  words,  .applied  as 
the  name  of  an  article  sold  by  him,  if  in 
their  ordinary  acceptation  they  desig- 
nate the  same  or  a  similar  article. 
Ibid.,  69. 

32.  Every  man  has  a  right  to  the  re- 
ward of  his  skill,  liis  energy,  and  his 
honest  enterprise ;  and  when  he  has  ap- 


propriated, as  his  trade-i.iark,  It'tUtrs 
combined  ir.to  a  word  before  unknown 
and  has  used  th.'it  word  ami  pu),. 
lished  it  to  the  world  as  his  adoptoj 
"trademark,"  he  has  acquired  rights  in 
it  which  the  courts  will  protect.  JUir. 
neit  v.  Phalon,  12  Mo.  Law,  IJcp, 
22;J. — PiKRKKI'ONT,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  IH.IO. 

33.  Hut  no  one  can  ap{)ropriate  a  word 
in  general  use,  as  the  words  gin,  wine 
brandy,  which  designate  things  or  tho 
(pialities  of  things,  as  his  trademark, 
and  restrain  others  from  using  tlmt 
word.     Ibid.,  223. 

34.  A  manufacturer  or  vender  of  an 
article  cannot  acquire  a  right  to  an  ox- 
elusive  employment  of  a  word  or  words, 
having  .in  established  moaning,  to  qual. 
ify  the  name  of  such  article,  so  us  to  de- 
prive every  other  person  of  the  right  of 
usiiig  such  words  to  designate  any  other 
article,  apparently  similar,  Avlieu  the 
words  are  such  as  have  no  reference  to 
the  origin,  ownership,  or  manufaetiire 
of  such  article.  Corwin  v.  I>(ibj^  I'p. 
ton  on  Trade-Marks,  191. — lloiiKursox, 
J.;  N.  Y.,1860. 

35.  The  principle,  that  the  mere  ii^e 
of  a  name  to  designate  an  article,  woiil  J 
give  to  those  employing  it  the  extdusive 
riglit  to  designate  such  article  by  siicli 
name,  would  be  giving  a  copyriglit  of 
a  most  odious  kind,  without  reference 
to  the  utility  of  the  .application,  or  the 
length  of  the  title,  and  one  that  woiilJ 
be  perpetual.     Ibid.,  195,  190. 

30.  Where  a  person  used  the  words 
"  Club-IIouse  Gin,"  as  a  label,  ami  an- 
other manufacturer  of  the  same  article, 
designated  his  as  "  Old  London  Chil> 
House  Gin,"  Held,  that  there  could  he 
no  exclusive  use  of  the  words  ••  Chih- 
House,"  as  these  words  had  no  roftr- 
ence  to  the  origin,  ownership,  or  imnii- 
facturc  of  the  article.    Ibid.,  19G. 


TWADK  MARKS,  B. 


C87 


rsuU'-Viiurk,  letters 
il  bolbre  uiikimwii, 
t    woril    anil  \>\\\)- 
rid  HH  Ills  atldptttl 
IS  acquired  rights  in 
will  protiH't.    ]hir- 
2   Mo.  Law,  llt'p., 
J.;  N.Y.,  1H50. 
II  appropriate  a  wonl 
he  words  gin,  wine, 
ignato  things  or  tho 
as  his  traiU'nwrk, 
iVB   from   usint,'  ilua 

urer  or  vendor  of  an 
aire  a  right  to  an  ex- 
iitof  a  word  <»r  words, 
(hed  meaning,  to  (lual- 
ich  article,  so  as  to  Jo- 
person  of  the  riglit  of 
to  designate  any  other 
ly   similar,  wlieu  tlie 
,s  have  no  reference  to 
irship,  or  maimlueturc 
Corwin  v.  X'"?J/,  I'p- 
irks,  191.— UouKUTsos, 

pic,  that  the  mere  u>e 
lignate  an  article,  woiiU 
ploying  it  the  exelnsive 
,e  such  article  Ity  siuli 
giving  a  copyriglit  of 
jnd,  without  refeveiice 
the  application,  or  tlie 
tie,  and  one  that  would 
jicl,  195,  196. 
person  used  the  words 
in,"  as  a  lahel,  ami  an- 
ircr  of  the  same  artide, 
[as  "  Old  London  Clul> 
M,  that  there  could  k 
[e  of  the  wora9"Clul> 
so  words  had  no  refer- 
lin,  ownership,  or  raana- 

irticle.    IMd.,l^<i' 


WHO   MAT  ACQt'IHB  PKOPEUTT   IN. 


37.  The  cxcIubIvo  use  (»f  known  words 
in  ft  language,  in  a  trade-niurk,  is  con- 
tino'l  to  tliose  which  indicate  theorig'n 
yr  uwncrsiiip  of  the  article — otiicrwisc, 
selling  hy  tlie  same  title  would  not  tend 
to  represent  them  to  be  the  same  words. 
Ibid.,  107. 

38.  Such  an  epithet  as  "  club-house" 
indicates  no  more  than  tho  words  "  ho- 
tel," "royal,"  "imperial,"  or  "princes," 
or  any  other  high-souudipg  title  would 
tlo,  anil  no  one  would  l;e  bound  to  sus- 
pect that  tlierc  lurked  beneath  those 
words,  the  indication  of  a  particidar 
ownership  or  manufacture.     Jl)i(l.,  197. 

39.  Tlie  true  rule  is,  that  no  words 
can  be  used  by  tlietnselves  without  other 
devices,  as  a  trade-mark,  except  such 
as  point  out  ownership,  or  origin,  and 
those  which  have  no  retercnce,  in  any 
possible  way,  to  any  other  attribute  of 
the  article.     Ibid.,  198. 

40.  Tliongh  an  exclusive  right  to  a 
trade-mark,  or  label,  devised  and  intend- 
ed to  deceive  the  public,  will  not  be  pro- 
tected by  injunction,  yet  tho  fact  that 
a  tiadc-mark  bears  a  fictitious  name,  as 
the  name  of  the  manufacturer  of  the  ar- 
ticle, does  not  affect  the  owner's  right 
to  protection,  where  it  is  shown  that  it 
is  not  used  with  any  fraudulent  intent, 
and  does  not  in  fact  deceive  the  public. 
Dale  V.  Sinuhaon,  12  Abb.  Pr.,  239,  241. 
-lIiLToy,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1861. 

B.    Who  may  acquire  Property  ix. 

See  also  Aliens. 

1.  Where  parties  adopt  certain  trade- 
marks, and  stamp  them  upon  articles 
manufactured  by  them,  they  are  enti- 
tled to  such  mark,  and  have  an  undoubt- 
ed right  to  the  assistance  of  a  court  of 
iqiiity  to  enforce  that  title  by  a  perpet- 
d  injunction.    Taylor  \.  Car2)entcr,  11 


Paige,  207. — Walwobtii,  Chan. ;  N. 
v.,  1H44. 

2.  The  venders  of  an  article  of  man- 
ufiu'ture  ilisiinguished  by  u  particular 
tr.'ide-mark,  and  to  which  they  have 
given  a  reputation,  although  tliey  may 
not  be  tho  manufacturers  of  the  article, 
are  entitled  to  be  protected  in  such 
trade-mark.  Taylor  v.  Carpenter,  2 
Sand.  Ch.  014  (Ct.  Errors).— Lorr,  Sena- 
tor, N.  Y.;  1840. 

o.  The  maker  and  vender  |^  only  cn- 
tillevl  to  protection  against  a  piracy  of 
his  tr.'ule-mark,  not  the  person  who  buys 
to  sell.  Ibid.,  020. — Wuiuirr,  Senator, 
dissenting. 

4.  It  is  not  necessary  that  a  party 
should  have  a  copyright,  or  be  a  citizen, 
in  order  to  claim  protection  against 
counterfeits  and  forgeries  of  their  labels 
and  marks.  Ibid.,  018. — Barlow,  J., 
Senator. 

5.  The  question  as  to  the  protection 
of  a  trade-mark,  is  not  whether  tho 
complainant  was  the  original  inventor 
or  proprietor  of  the  article  n\ade  by 
him,  and  upon  which  he  puts  )»is  trade- 
mark, nor  Avhether  the  article  made  and 
sold  by  the  defendant,  under  the  com- 
plainant's trade-mark  is  an  article  of  the 
same  value  or  quality.  Partridge  v. 
Menck,  2  Barb.  Ch.  103. — Walworth, 
Chan.;  N.  Y.,  1847. 

0.  But  the  court  proceeds  upon  the 
ground  that  the  complainant  has  a  val- 
uable interest  in  the  good-will  of  his 
trade,  or  business,  and  that  having  ap- 
propriated to  himself  a  particular  label, 
or  sign,  or  trade-mark,  indicating  that 
the  article  is  manufactured  or  sold  by 
him,  or  under  his  authority,  or  that  he 
carries  on  his  business  at  a  particular 
place,  he  is  entitled  to  protection  against 
any  other  person  who  attempts  to  pirate 
upon  tho    good-will  of  his  friends   or 


•9SUm: 


iMP''%Niir'4|,llifil| 


'  |jj(f^|l(''"Wlll' 


088 


TUADE-MAUKS,  B. 


WHO  MAT  ACQt'tnR  PROPrnTT  IH. 


custoMHTs,  or  tif  I  lie  patroim  of  IiIh 
triuli'  or  Itiisiiics:',  by  Hailiii;^  iii'ih-r  liis 
fl:i<»  willioiM  liis  uiilliority.      /A/*/.,  lo.'t. 

7.  A  |M'rs(iii  liaviii^  :i(loj  li'il  ami  used 
a  parliciilar  labt'l  or  tradt'-niark,  in 
liid  buHiiu'HH,  otiicrs,  without  his  con- 
Ni'iit,  liavo  no  rij^ht,  with  ihi-  viiw  of 
(li'ri\iiifx  ailvaiita^i'  Irom  tlu^  Haiiic,  |o 
iiso  such  label  or  trade-mark,  witlioiil 
I'hanixc,  or  cvi'ii  with  such  oolorabU' 
(lill'crcucc  as  is  calculated  to  doceivu. 
Vtirtrhlijc  V.  Mench,  How.  App.  Cas., 
rn")!). — WitKiiir,  J.;  N.  Y.,  ists. 

H.  Hut  where  a  person  inaiiMfai'iiires 
and  sells  an  article  under  the  name  of 
the  oriniiial  manufacturer,  althouirh  he 
may  have  purchased  of  such  one  the 
secret  of  liis  manner  of  preparing  the 
article,  ai  1  also  the  right  to  use  his 
name,  he  is  not  entitled  to  l»e  protected. 
IbUL,  Tjafl,  TjOI. — (J.vijDiN'KU,  Senator, 

1).  And  it  makes  no  ditl'erence  that 
the  artii'le  manufactured  by  liim  is  in 
all  respects  etpial  to  that  ofVcred  l)y  the 
original  manufacturer.     If>id.,  501. 

10.  The  privilege  of  deceiving  the 
public  for  their  own  benefit  is  not  a  le- 
gitimate subject  of  connnerce,  and 
th.erefore  it  makes  no  difference  that  the 
complainant  has  pinT/inscd  tho  right  lo 
use  the  name  of  the  first  proprietor.  A 
party  asking  equity,  must  come  with 
clean  hands.     Ibid.,  601. 

11.  Every  manufacturer,  and  mer- 
chant for  Avhom  goods  ai'c  manufac- 
tured, has  an  unquestionable  right  to 
distinguish  the  goods  that  he  manufac- 
tures or  sells  by  a  peculi:n'  mark  or  de- 
vice, in  order  that  they  may  be  known 
as  liis  in  the  n  arket,  and  that  he  may 
secure  the  profits  that  their  superior 
repute  may  be  the  means  of  g.aining. 
Ilis  trade-mark  is  an  assurance  to  the 
public  of  the  qu.ality  of  his  goods,  and  a 
pledge  of  bis  own   integrity  in   their 


manufacture  and  sale.  Aitionki'ii<i  M,t„in' 
Co.  V.  S/>etir,  '2  Sand.  S.  ('.,  (to;,.!, 
DiKit,  .1  ;  N.  Y.,  IMtO. 

I'J.  An  acipii.'scmce  of  a  rn;un Tie. 
turcr  in  thct  use  or  imitation  ofhls  iia,],.. 
m:irk  may  be  inferred  from  his  kiiowl- 
c<|ge  and  silence ;  but  such  consent, 
wiiellicr  ex]>ressi'd  or  implied,  wlicn 
gnituitous,  may  b(>  witlnlrawn:  it  Is  n,, 
more  than  a  re\ocablo  license.  //;/,/. 
(iin. 

i;j.  Where  the  plaint  ill"  had  an  Mj;ri'i'. 
nieiit  with  the  proprietors  of  ;i  |„,(,.[ 
— till'  Irving  House — to  use  the  nninc 
of  such  proprietors,  and  the  name  dt 
Iheir  hotel  upon  the  co.aches  and  l);id(r,.s 
of  their  servants,  and  eiitere(l  Jm,, 
bonds  for  the  faithful  jn'rlbrMiancc  df 
their  duties  in  carrying  passengers  nnd 
baggage  to  and  from  the  stcMiiihoats. 
itc,  itc,  //eld,  that  the  plaiiiiilVIiail  an 
exclusive  right,  as  ag.ainst  third  jur- 
sons,  in  the  use  of  the  name  of  siicli 
hotel  on  his  coaches  and  badges  for  such 
purpose,  .and  th:it  he  was  entitled  (o  an 
injunction  to  restrain  the  use,  by  dtliors, 
of  the  words  "Irving  House,"  or"lr. 
ving  Hotel,"  to  induce  travellers  to  ho- 
iievo  they  were  the  serv;nits  of  sncli 
hotel,  t^tone  v.  Curhin,  n  I^fo.  LawIJci)., 
;Ui()-30'2.— Cami'UKM,,  J. ;  X.  Y.,  18.10. 

14.  The  inventor  of  a  iiiedicini", 
though  he  can  have  no  exclusive  rijrlil 
to  make  and  vend  the  same  unless  he 
obtain  a  patent  therefor,  is  entitled  to 
his  trade-mark  in  the  name  of  sucli 
medicine,  and  the  law  will  recognize 
and  |>rotect  this  right.  Davis  v.  Jun 
dal(,  2  11.  I.,  569.— GuEKXK,  Ch.  J., 
K.  I.,  185;!. 

15.  A  party  will  be  protected  in  the 
use  of  a  name  which  he  li.as  ai)i)r()pn- 
ated  and  rendered  valuable,  wlietluT 
such  name  is  upon  articles  of  personal 
property  which  he  may  manufacture,  or 


<¥i...        *!< 


TKADKMAlMvS,  IJ. 


Ohi» 


WHO   HAY   ACgVIIlK   FHUi'KlirY  IN. 


be  protected  in  llic 

h  lie  has  apiJvnpri- 

valufible,  wlietlicr 

artii-lcs  of  personal 

nay  manullicturc,  or 


ipplieil  to  a  hotel  where  he  lias  hiiilt  up 
ji  l»iiJ*iiiess.  Itomiird  v.  //i  ttrii/iuti,  '<) 
Suii.l.  S.  C,  72V. — Ca.mi'iiici.i.,  .1. ;  N.  V., 

IB.')!. 

10.  Where  the  proprietor  of  n  hotel 
opt'iii'tl  it  aH  the  "  Irviiit;  House,"  ainl 
it  liecaiin' t^eiienill \  known  also  hh  tlie 
"irviiii;  Hotel,"  and  was  <lesi;xiiate(l  l>y 
bitdi  niinies  intliseriuiinately,  //tl<f,  that 
ho  liail  an  exclusive  ri^iit  to  the  UHe  uf 
{iiu'li  nanu's,  and  that  au  injuuclion 
would  lie  a!j;aiust  otlu!r  pers<»ns  setlin;^ 
una  lintel  ealled  also  the  "  Irving  llo- 
1,1."     //>hl.,  72(1,  728. 

17.  'riie  proprietor  of  a  hotel — the 
Itovere  House~a!j;reed  with  the  plain- 
tillto  keep  eoaeheH  at  a  certain  railroad 
(U'pot,  to  convey  jtassen^ers  to  such 
house,  and  aut'liori/ed  hiiu  to  p"it  on  hi.s 
coaches  and  on  the  caps  of  his  drivi-rs 
llio  words  "  Hevere  House."  A  simi- 
lar agreement  had  existed  between  the 
wid  proprietor  of  the  Revere  House 
and  tlie  defendants,  but  had  been  ter- 
mhiated.  The  defendants,  howi'ver, 
continued  to  use  the  sanu)  words  on 
ihuircoaclies  and  drivers'  caps,  and  held 
thi'insclves  out  as  co..necte<l  with  such 
house.  Marsh  v.  Jlilli/if/s,  7  (wishing, 
322.— KLKiviiKJt,  J.;  INIass.,  1851. 

\6.JMd.,  that  the  plaintiff  had  an  ex- 
clusive right  to  use  the  words  "  JJevere 
House,"  as  indicating  and  holding  hini- 
solt'out  .aa  having  the  patronage  of  that 
establishment  for  the  conveyance  of 
passengers,  and  that  the  use  by  defend- 
ants of  the  same  words  for  the  jturpose 
of  falsely  holding  themselves  out  as 
liaving  such  jjatronage,  was  a  fi-a\ul  up- 
on the  plaiutitt'  and  a  violation  of  his 
rights,  for  which  he  could  maintain  an 
action.    IbUl,322. 

19.  The  principle  is  well  settled  that 
a  manufacturer  may,  by  priority  of  ap- 
propriation of  names,  letters,  marks,  or 
14 


HyinboU  of  any  kind  to  distinguish  his 
numufaclureH,  ac<piire  a  properly  there- 
in :is  a  trade-murk,  for  the  inviision  of 
which  an  action  for  damages  will  lie, 
and  in  the  exehisivu  umc  uf  which  he 
m.'iy  have  protection,  uhen  necessary, 
by  injuiu'tion.  ,Sfn/,-f'n  v.  /ji(jn/;/r(tj/\ 
IV  l»arb.,  U08.~Snio.\.i,  .1.;  M.  V,, 
IH-.M. 

20.  There  in  no  essential  diflcrcnce 
between  establisl. incuts  formed  for  the 
purpose  of  trade  and  tliosc  Ibrmcd  for 
the  purpose  of  nu're  auniseuieiit.  Chn'.sfi/ 
V.  J/iirj>/ii/,  12  How.  Tr.,  78. — Ci-kkkk, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  IH.'iO. 

21.  Where  a  jierson  organized  a  band 
of  performers  of  negro  minstrelsy,  ;md 
nametl  them,  after  himself,  "C.'hristy's 
Minstrels,"  J/d(f,i\\nl  he  was  entitled 
to  the  I'xclusive  use  of  such  name,  and 
th.at  he  would  be  protected  in  it.  7/n'iA, 
7S,  79. 

22.  The  owner  of  goods,  which  ho 
exposes  to  s.'ile  in  market  in  his  own 
right,  is  entitled  to  the  exclusive  use 
of  any  trade-mark  devised  and  applied 
by  him  to  the  goods  to  distinguish 
them,  as  being  of  a  particular  manuthe- 
ture  or  ([ualify,  although  he  is  not  him- 
self the  manufacturer,  aiwl  although  the 
name  of  the  real  manufacturer  is  used 
as  a  part  of  the  trade-mark.  M'ltlfon 
V.  Crawtij/,  ;J  Llalcht',,  1  lo. — JSktis,  J. ; 
N.  Y.,  1856. 

2:3.  The  assigi\eo  of  the  whole  right 
in  such  trade-mark,  and  of  the  i)roperty 
in  the  goods  to  which  it  is  attached,  is 
entitled  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  exclu- 
sive right  thereto,  and  nuiy  nuiintain 
an  action  in  his  own  name  for  any 
wrongful  use  by  others  of  such  trade- 
mark, to  the  like  extent  as  the  origina- 
tor thereof.     I/>id.,  448. 

24.  A  person  cannot  accpare  a  right 
in  a  trudeuark,  iu  which  he  will  be 


'*^hr  ■  t 


^Lfit' 


'■■*'  ■«i^ 


.'•      ■■■"      ("..itC        ■ 


,ilHBl 


MO 


TllAbt  MARKS,  K 


WHO  MAT  AOWUIIU  PRUPKMTT   IN. 


proti'ctud,  wlioii  Huch  name  was  in- 
UmkU'iI  lo  «lt'<rcivc  llu'  pultlic.  An  ex- 
cliiMivo  piivil'^o  fur  (Ktct'ivin^  the  piil)- 
lu!  in  not  unu  that  can  bu  («anctiuiiu<l. 
Fdridlfe  v.  Wills,  la  How.  Tr.,  .180. 
DuKK,  J.;  N.  v.,  1h:)7. 

25.  Whoro  tho  plaiiitills  wcro  on- 
gngcil  iti  inatiul'uclui-ing  aixl  Hitlling  an 
article  called  thu  "  Malm  of  a  Thourtaml 
FlowcrH,"  und  whii-h  they  rcpn'scnti'd 
OH  "  tho  vi'ry  balm  and  extract  of  hual- 
inj{  blosKoms,"  but  which  in  fact  was 
only  a  liiiuid  Hoap,  llrUl^  that  the 
name  was  intended  to  deceive  the  pub- 
lic, and  that  thu  pluiutitl'  could  not  be 
protected  therein.     Ibid.,  ;100,  yi»3. 

20.  In  determining  tho  right  of  a 
person  to  a  trade-mark,  the  invention 
of  the  article  sold  is  not  an  element  of 
decitiion.  Dut  tho  first  use  or  appro- 
jiriation  of  tho  designation  or  name 
is  the  material  tpicstion.  J'etridffo  v. 
Mare/Ktntf  4  Abb.  Pr.,  100. — Hoffman, 
J.;  N.  Y.,  1857, 

27.  A  manufacturer  of  goods  who, 
in  order  to  designate  his  own  manufac- 
ture, has  adopted  names,  marks  or  la- 


marks,  li'ttcrB,  or  other  uymbolM  which 
any  mi'uufacturer,  trader,  or  oiIkt  h«r. 
son  has  deviso<l,  or  apprnprialtil,  or 
been  accustomed  to  use  in  his  Inido  or 
business,  and  will  restrain  by  injniniion 
any  unautlutri/.ed  use  thereof  t,,  |,i^  pp^, 
juflice.  JiloMa  v.  Jilootntr,  2\\  iJarb. 
S.  C,  009.— Smith,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1h,^7. 

31.  Hut  it  would  seem  to  bo  irii|ilic.l 
that  such  in(!i\idual8  should  not  iliuni. 
selves  attempi  or  allow  imy  iinpo.ition 
upon  tho  publie  by  the  false  and  fraudii- 
lent  uso  of  such  labels,  devices,  and 
names  or  inventions,  for  tho  sale  ofupn. 
rious  or  simulated  articles.     Jhld.^  CO'J. 

32.  Where  the  plaintitls,  growers  of 
garden  seeds,  agreed  to  sell  defendants 
empty  paper  bags,  with  tho  plaintiflV 
labels  thereon,  which  they,  defendants 
wero  to  fill  with  seeds  and  sell  in  cer- 
tain counties.  Held,  that  it  was  a  con- 
tract against  public  policy,  and  there- 
fore void.     I  hid.,  005,  010. 

33.  Tho  law  of  trade-marks  Is  of  re 
cent  origin,  and  may  be  comprehended 
in  tho  proposition  that  a  dealer  "  has  a 
property  in  his  trade-mark."     Clark  v. 


bels,  which  are  peculiar  and  not  before  |  Clark,  25  IJarb.  S.  C,  79. — MnciiKU, 
used,  is  entitled  to  be  })rotcctoil  in  :i|  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 


court  of  ecpiity  in  their  use.  Willinnts 
V.  Jo/inson,  2  Bosworth,  0. — WooD- 
UUFF,  J.;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

28.  Though  the  mark  lias  no  other 
meaning  than  to  distinguish  their  man- 
ufacture from  others,  if  tho  party  has 
ffivon  it  out  as  his  mark,  and  by  it  the 
article  has  jicquired  reputation  and  sale, 
Le  is  entitled  to  protection  in  it.  Ibid.,  0. 

21).  This  is  true,  though  the  articles 
manufactured  by  him  may  bo  composed 
of  well-known  ingredients,  which  .any 
person  ni.ay  combine  and  sell  at  his 
pleasure. — Ibid.,  0. 

80.  The  courts  -will  protect  the  title 
of  the  author  or  iuvoutor  of  any  names, 


34.  The  ownership  is  allowed  to  Iiiiii, 
that  he  may  have  tno  exclusive  bcnctit 
of  the  reputation  which  his  skill  lias 
given  to  articles  made  by  him,  and  that 
no  other  person  may  be  able  to  sell  to 
the  public  .is  his,  th.it  Avhich  is  not  his. ' 
Ibid.,  79. 

35.  It  is  to  protect  one's  right  of  sell- 
ing his  own  that  the  law  of  trademarks 
has  been  introduced.  It  must  include  a 
right  to  sell  to  all — to  the  incautious  .ns 
well  as  to  the  cautious.  lirookbjn  W. 
L.  Co.  V.  Masury,  25  Barb.,  S.  C.,418 
— MiTCiiEu.,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1857. 

30.  Tho  right  to  a  trade-mark  docs 
not  become  established  until  the  *"9'1«- 


'  »yml»olH  which 
cr,  or  olIiiT  pur- 
»j)jiroiirial»'il,   or 
IK  ill  liiH  tnulc  or 
•iiin  l»y  iiijiiiiotion 
lu'ft'of  to  his  pro- 
oomcr,  'i>\  IJurb. 
;  N.  Y.,  1H57. 
:om  to  bo  iiiiplic  \ 
hIiouUI  not  ihum. 
)W  any  im]ti»»ition 
J  ialso  ninl  IVauilu- 
)olrt,  dovici's,  and 
for  the  Biilf  <)fi«pu- 
:ic,U'rt.     //;/</.,  009. 
liiititVs,  f^rowc'is  of 
to  Biill  doii!ii(hmtH 
svilh  tho  phiiiiliflV 
li  they,  lU'fi'iulaiits, 
ids  iiml  Boll  ill  cer- 
that  it  was  a  con- 
policy,  and  there- 
05,  010. 

riidc-niarks  is  of  ro- 
be coinitreheiuled 
at  a  dealer  "  has  a 
i-mavk."     Clork  v. 
C,  79.— MnciiEu, 

irt  allowed  to  liim, 
exclusive  hcm'tit 
srbich  bis  kWH  I'aa 

e  by  bim,  and  that 
be  able  to  sell  to 

it  which  is  not  his. 


le 


ty 


t  one's  right  of  soil- 
law  of  trade  marks 
It  must  inchule  a 
to  the  incautious  as 
,us.  Brooklyn  W. 
:5  Barb.,  S.C,  418 

Y.,  1857. 

a  trade-mark  does 

lied  until  the  *"<>'^ 


TIIANSLATIOX. 


001 


COfTRIOlIT  IM. 


mark  bo  ko  oncn  UHed,  and  ho  Ioii^  cm- 
iiloyed,  exclusively  ainl  iinintcrni|)te(lly, 
jiH  to  cr«'ate  ft  prcsiiiii|iti()n  that  every 
h()dy  would  know  and  ackiiow  leil^o  it 
sm  a  distinctive  bad^e  of  owiuT.ship,  nnd 
that  tho  UHO  of  it  by  olIieiH  must  have 
](('t'U  iiiteiiile<l  to  deceive.  Corwin  V. 
Jhily,  Upton  on  Trade-M.-ukH,  101). — 
UoiiKUTHoN,  J.;  N.  v.,  1800. 

37.  Even  if  others  have  used  it  pre- 
viously— but  itH  use  had  been  discon- 
tinued so  lonj^  as  to  ^ive  room  f<»r  the 
infereiico  that  it  had  licen  abandoned, 
as  nn  ordinary  desi^^nation  of  any  simi- 
lar articles,  and  it  is  then  taken  up  by  a 
person  dealing  in  tlie  article,  and  used 
exclusively  and  uninterruptedly  so  long 
as  to  give  rise  to  tho  presuinplion  that 
it  was  universally  recognized  as  the  in- 
(lirid  of  his  ownershij),  his  right  slioiild 
be  protected  as  nuicli  as  though  it  hud 
then  been  used  for  tho  first  time. 
Jhkl.,  109. 

38.  A  party  cannot  bo  protected  in 
tlie  use  of  trade-marks  Avhich  arc  em- 
ployed to  deceive  the  i)ublic,  and  to  de- 
ceive tlu'in  by  the  fraudulent  representa- 
tions contained  in  the  labels  and  devices 
which  are  claimed  to  constitute  wholly 
or  ill  part,  such  trade-marks.  An  intent 
to  deceive  tho  public  is  not  favored. 
JIvbhs  V.  M'ancais,  10  IIow.  Pr.  671. — 
BoswoKTH,  J;  N.  Y.,  1800. 

no.  Where  the  plaintiff  m.inufactnred 
a  s>:m  powder,  called  "Meen  Fun," 
which  was  represented  as  made  in  Lon- 
don, and  "patronized  by  Her  Majesty, 
the  Queen,"  when,  in  fact,  it  was  made 
in  New  York,  and  the  defendant  manu- 
factured a  like  article,  representing  it  as 
"patronized  by  Iler  Majesty,  the  Em- 
press," IMd,  that  the  court  would  not 
grant  an  injunction ;  not  out  of  any  re- 
gard for  the  defendant,  but  not  to  assist 
m  deceiving  the  public.    Il/id.,  671. 


40.  The  ncgh'i't  of  a  parly  to  carry  nn 
his  biisini'ss,  under  its  well-known  name, 
for  a  iiiimltcr  of  years,  do«>H  not  prcvnit 
him  from  resiiming  the  same  or  eiititio 
another  to  use  tli«>  name  of  his  business, 
/f<iiee  V.  Si'iriitij,  19  IIow.  I'r.,  li') — 
IIOFfMAN,  J.;  N.  Y.,  IHOO. 

C.      PuorKKTV  IN,  IIOW  ntOTKiTKD. 

See  A«rnoNs,  C. ;  Kquity,  C. 

D.     Violation  ok,  what  amounts  to. 
See  Ini-'HINukmknt,  C. 

Fi.      WllKN  Vl(»I,ATI(>V   op  WIM.  BE  KB- 
HTUAINKl). 

See  Injunction,  C. 


TUANSLATION. 

1.  One  person  may  have  a  right  to  a 
copyriglit  in  a  translation  upon  which 
he  luis  bestowed  time  and  labor;  but 
another  lias  an  eCj'.'.'d  right  to  translate 
the  original  work,  and  publish  his  trans- 
lation. Emerson  v.  Uarlrn,  3  Story, 
780. — Stouy,  J. ;  IMass.,  1845. 

2.  A  vopi/  of  a  book  must  be  a  tran- 
script of  the  liDujiinye  in  which  the  con- 
cei)tions  of  the  author  are  clothed.  Tho 
same  conceptions,  clothed  in  another 
language,  cannot  constitute  the  same 
composition  ;  nor  can  it  be  ctilled  a  tran- 
script, or  "  co/)y,"  of  the  same  "  book.^'' 
Stowe  V.  Thoiitus,  2  Amer.  Law  Keg., 
220. — GuiEK,  J.;  Pa.,  1853. 

3.  Though  the  point  was  not  directly 
in  issue  in  the  great  case  of  3filler  v. 
Taylor,  4  Burr,,  2305,  yet  the  inference 
that  a  translation  is  not  an  uifringement 


s._^iW— •)'< 


•'  K,,,- 


Hull '''hi 


- »«. 

"■'■♦■■■  '^:^.fn' 


;sf,^;,|j 


'Oru 


ttOil 


UNITKI)  STATKS. 


moiin  AND  uAMLiTiii  or  Ai  TO  rimm. 


of  n  copyrifjht  In  n  ln|;intl  rcMiilt,  iiinl 
Htiil«'<|  \>y  llio  jiit|j;«'M  llii'in'««'lvi'K  iix  u 
iicc'CHHury  ••orollary  tVoin   I  In'  |irliiri|ilt' 

(it*     lllW     tllfll      (il'dlluil      li)'     tItO      CtMII't. 

Iftid.,  230. 

4,  Tlio  vnno  of  ^fill,r  v.  Tnjlor,  i 
Dun.,  Hi'ttli'il  the  (|iii'Mtiiiii  tiH  to  \\w  iiii- 
liin-  oftlii'  |ir<i|ii>rty  >\  liich  an  aullior  Iimn 
ill  liiH  wiM-kM;  ntnl  it  in,  that  iitliT  imlili- 
caliniiJiiH  |iin|u'rty  cnnslMtN  in  tlu)  "riixlit 
<>l'«n|iy,"  which  HitTuilifs  "thi'  xo\v  rij.'ht 
of  |ii'iiitiii;;,  |>iii)li.>thiM<;,  niul  Hclliiiir  hin 
litrrary  (■<itii|iositioii  or  hook  ;"  not  that 
liu  liiiM  •  •  *h  n  |>ro|)(>rty  in  his  original 
coiKi'ptioim  tliat  hi'  alone  ran  use  tlii'in 
in  the  ('i)ni|tositinn  of  a  now  work,  or 
cloiho  iht'iii  in  aiUn'ori'iil  iIi'ohh  hy  traii:-i- 
hition.     /ftuf.,  'i.'JO. 

5.  A  tnuihlation  can,  in  no  Just  scnso, 
l»p  ralli'fl  a"co|)y"ofa  i)ook.    Jhhf.,  'j;n. 

«i.  Where  an  exclusive  |>ri\  i!ci;e  has 
l»et  M  securetl  l)y  statute  in  ii  book  which 
is  |>iii)licly  circulated,  ii  stranp-r  who, 
in  whole  or  in  pait,  rr|iroilitces  it  in  the 
new  ioriii  of  translation,  orahridj^eineiit, 
or  index,  or  table  of  contents,  or  analyt- 
ic.'il  review,  docs  not  infringe  tho  Htatii- 
torv  privileLTo.  15ut  either  of  these  acts 
would  violate  tho  right  of  the  literary 
proprietor  of  .1  hook  of  which  the  circu- 
lation had  been  private  only.  Kccncs. 
ir/(f'(///<7/,0  Anier.Law  lieg.,82. — Cad- 
AVAi.r.ADEU,  J,;  I'a.,  1800. 


UNITED  STATES. 

1.  In  an  action  under  §  10  of  the  act 
of  1V03,  the  court  will  not  order  the 
United  States  to  be  substituted  .is  plain- 
tiffs in  tho  action  of  scire  facias,  in 
])laco  of  tlie  petitioner.  Wood  v.  Wil- 
liams, Otilpin,  520,  524. — Hopkinson, 
J.;  Pa.,  1S:J4. 


2.  Tho  United  State*  nuii.ot  l,,. 
brought  in  iim  a  parly  to  a  litigation,  n-- 
speeiing  thevalidil)  of  any  ri^dits,||,i|„. 
ed  or  derived  under  the  I'nited  Sliiun 
Inwa.     //>/(/.,  A20. 

:t.  On  the  eontrniy,  theno  rifr|itn  ore 
considered  jirivale  rights,  \  confni. 
versy  as  to  them  is  strictly  betwiin  tin. 
p.irticH  <'onceriie<I,  although  the  piil.jii. 
may  have  iin  eventual  interest  in  it. 
I  hill.,  ft  •.'(),  ft'JI. 

•1.   Where  a  patent  was exleiidiil  |,v 
special  act  of  (Congress,  which  si'ciiri'il 
to  patentees  and  purehasors  their  riLrhtt 
only  upon  the  same  terms  and   ciiiKli. 
tioiis    they    had    before    enjoynl    tli<iii 
and  underthe  former  patent  the  rniicl 
States  had  tho  right  to  \\m  the  inven. 
tioii   at  a    stipuliiti'd   price,  //,y,/,  that 
under  such  extension  the  riiitcd  States 
could  not  continue  to  use  th"  iiivcntiMn 
except   upon  tho  t«  rnm  befon^   aiticcd 
upon;  there  was  no  exception  in  its  fa. 
vtM'.     manrfiiiriVH  "'/«>■,  ()piii.,(iil|iin'M 
»'d.,  1120.— IliTi.Kit,  Atty.  (bwi. ;  1m;i7. 
ft.  S.  being  an  inventor  of  an  improve- 
ment in  (b'agoon  and  pack  saddles,  iiiailo 
jipplication  for  a  patent  therefor  huforu 
May,  1H47.     In  November,  1847,  lid'oii, 
such  ap|»licalion  was  acted  on,  (J.  inaile 
Jipplication  for  a  patent  for  tlu!  same  in- 
vention; but  notice  of  interforence  wag 
not    given.      In   Decmber,   1h47,  tlie 
Secretary  of  State  a(blressed  the  Vum 
missioner  <»f  Patents,  that  an  early  issue 
of  a  patent  to  G.  would  facilitate  ft8ii|) 
ply  of  saddles  to  the  government;  G.V 
application  was  taken  up,  and  a  pateiil 
issued  December  llth,   1847 — S.'s  ;i|»- 
plication  remaining  not  acted  upon  and 
postponed.     Jfdd,  that  the  wrong dono 
to  S.  was  not  committed  by  the  UiiitcJ 
States,  or  by  any  of  its  officers,  so  as  to 
render    them    pecuniarily    respoiisil)lr 
therefor.      2'histlc  v.    United  StaUs 


*-  ^v>. 


VKUDU  r  IN  I'ATKNT  CASKS. 


out 


irrnrr  ur. 


it  CM  nuuiDt  \w 
I  It  liti^iktioii,  r«<- 
;iiiy  ri^litH iluiiM' 
10  l'iiit«'tl  Sluii'n 

;lit«.  A  coiitm- 
irtly  ln'twi't'ii  till' 
\o\\)i\\  the  jiiililu' 
III  iiituroHt  ill  it. 

\v:i(«oxtfinl('<l  liy 
»s,  wliit'li  Hi'iMirctl 
|j;ist>rH  tlicir  iii.'lit  t 
ti'ViMH  mill   cDiidi- 
fo  t'lijnyt'il    tliiiM, 
j)att'iit  till-  \'\\\U'\ 
tt»  usr  till'  iiivtii- 
prii'o,  J/ilil,  tli:it 
,  tlic  Uiiiti'tl  Sliiti's 
)  (ISO  ill"  invriilion 
•iiiH  lit'lorc   aiiivnl 
('xrt'|>tion  ill  ilH  t;i- 
V(«(',  ()i)iii.,<lill'iii''« 
Atty.Cn'ii.;  Wt. 
"iitorof  iiniiiil»n>vc- 

|)!ifkH;ul<lli'S  ">:"'"' 
li'ut  thorcl'Dr  lict'on; 
liMulu-r,  lH47,l>i'l'"io 

!icti'«l  on,  (1.  iii;iilt' 
Iciil  lor  tlu'SiUiK'in- 
of  iiitcrii-ronco  w:\g 
r  ■iuIkt,  1h4",  tlu' 
(IdrosHcA  tint  (\>m 
L  tliiit  an  curly  issue 
|)iil(l  tarilitatt'iVHUii 
<4ovornnicnt ;  G.  i* 

m  up,  ami  a  lialont 
lltli,  1H47-S.'s  111- 

not  ac'tcil  upon  m\ 

liatthe  wroiijidoiu' 

[ittca  by  the  United 
itsotlicers,  Boasto 

miarily  responsibk 
V.    United  Slates 


Pevoi'ciiux'it  Ut'p.,  lUO. — SuAUituiKhi, 
J.;  (;t.  CluilllN,  IHAU. 

(J.  TIhtu  in  iiolliiii){  to  OHtop  tlu»  fjov- 
crniiH'iit  of  tlu<  I'liilctl.StiiloH  from  wliow- 
|ti>(  !i  palt'iit,  wliiuli  il  ti.-kH  ^ninti'il,  to 
hiivo  Ih'ch  II  nullity  ai>  initio,  owiii^  to 
tlit<  tioii-t'xiHt(>iico  «if  tilt)  coiulitioii  pro- 
ct'ilciit  uf  iiov«'!ty  of  til**  invention. 
KIni/  V.  Unitf.tl  StiitfH,  10  Mo.  l.iiw 
Ucp.,  <i:ii.  — Ct.  ClainiH,  iMfl?. 

7.  TIk)  irnitt'il  Staton  oro  not  preclii- 
lied  liy  tliu  fact  of  ^nintiii^  n  patent, 
rnmi  ^(iviii^  in  I'viiloiicc,  or  avaiiiiii; 
tlii'iiisi  \'cH  of  any  Iv^^ixl  olijcctions  that 
may  ho  brought  against  any  Niich  pat- 
ent. Shreere  v.  United  iStdtia,  AIS. — 
LoKiNo,  J.;  Ct.  CluiiuH,  1851). 


vb:rdict  in  i'atknt  casks. 

As  to  oflect  of  verdict  in  feigned  is 

gUL'S,  800  FkIONKI)  LSMIK,  IJ. 

As  to  what  defects  aro  cured  by  ver- 
dict, SCO  Pl.KAI»IN»!,  1). 

As  to  efl'ect  of  former  recoveries  or 
verdicts  upon  the  (picstion  of  rij^ht  to 
an  injunction,  see  IxjuNcnox,  li.  2.  b. 

1.  The  recovery  of  a  verdict  by  the 
plaintiQ'  in  an  action  for  the  infringe- 
ment of  a  patent,  does  not  pass  any  le- 
gal right  to  the  defendant  to  use  the 
machine  made  by  him.  Every  future 
uso  will  bo  an  infringement  of  the  plain- 
tift''B  patent.  Whitteinore  v.  Cutter,  1 
Gall., 484.— Story,  J.;  Mass.,  1813. 

2.  The  verdict  of  a  jury  in  an  action 
on  a  second  patent,  cannot  avoid  a  first 
patent.  Morris  v.  Huntington,  1  Paine, 
356.— Thompson,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1824. 

3.  Whether  a  verdict  for  a  phiintiff 


and  tlio  aMMcsHrnent  of  diunagca  for  a 
violation  of  IiIh  patent,  untitlu*  thu  do- 
feiidant  to  use  thu  maehhio  mibiteipieiit- 
ly,  or  traiiHl'i'i'H  to  him  the  rii^hl  lo  iiito 
it;  tinvry,  J-Jiirii!  V.  tS,nri/cr,  I  Man., 
i:».— Siouv,  J.;  MasM.,  182ft. 

4.  i|i  an  action  for  an  infringement 
ol  !i  p.ileiit,  where  the  declaration  goeH 
for  a  user  during  a  limited  period,  and 
allerward  the  party  hiics  for  a  uMor 
during  another  and  Hubseqiient  period, 
a  verdict  and  judgment  in  thu  t'ormer 
case,  is  not  a  legal  bar  to  a  recovery  in 
thu  second  action.  The  piracy  is  not 
the  Hame,  nor  is  thu  gravamen  the  naino. 
//>/</.,  14. 

0.  Whether  a  verdict  given  in  a  «uit 
at  law  is  ever  uvidenc(>  of  any  thing,  hut 
the  fact  that  it  was  rendered,  unless  a 
judgiiieiit  Inubcen  duly  rendered  there- 
on; qiii'ry.  Allen  v.  Jllunf,  3  Story, 
74»J. — Stouv,  J.;  Mass.,  1H45. 

0.  A  former  verdict  of  dismissal  be- 
tween tlie  same  parties,  on  an  issue  out 
of  eliancery,  on  a  bill  asking  for  an  in- 
junction, and  upon  an  original  .>pecilica- 
tioii,  is  not  admissible  in  evidence  in  a 
suit  at  law  for  damages  for  violation  of 
tlie  patent,  with  corrected  specilications, 
and  in  no  case  is  such  a  verdict  a  bar  tO 
the  second  action,  unless  judgment  was 
reiiilered  on  such  verdict  against  the 
plaintiif,  or  such  verdict  of  dismissal 
was  on  the  merits.     Ibid.,  132-1  :J4. 

7.  A  verdict  in  a  patent  case,  and  sus- 
taining a  patent,  can  in  no  case  be  evi- 
(lenco  at  law  or  in  equity,  in  another 
action  brought  by  a  witness  called  by 
the  plaintiff  ou  the  trial  in  the  former 
action,  and  who  was  interested  in  the 
same  [latent,  for  the  purpose  of  estab- 
lishing his  title  to  the  patent,  as  it  is 
a  proceeding  inter  alios.  Huck  v  Her' 
mance,  1  Blatchf.,  324. — Nelson,  J.j 
N.  Y.,  1848. 


■-i»'  *#",  ■(, 


'V<)|!P«'>.., 


til 


'■Plllii 


li^l 


:lH7 


9H 


WAUUANTV. 


iM  ouimuoTi  umummn  fhiwn. 


R.  Hut  ■uoh  vt*r<llct  wonlil  lio  n<lriiU- 
ikblo  on  It  iiiotioii  for  n  |»ro\iHioiiiU  iu- 
Jiiiictioii,  itN  iill'onliii^  Ml  roil);  i<vii|«>tiO(t 
of  till)  valitlity  ni'  llu<  |iult<iit,  itii<l  n(  UU 

tillt'.        It    it    »'Viil«'IW«',    llOWl'MT,  Mill)    ill 

ritHi'M  wliiTo  hilt  own  <l('|)<mitioii  wouM 
1m>  foinpftuiit,  niMi'H  ill  whifh  tho  itppli- 
ctUioii  iH  to  iIm<  '•omul  iliHcri'tion  of  lliu 
court.      //>!(/.,  ;t'2  I,  M-'S. 

0.  Wlii'ri'  u  piitt'titvo  aixl  hii«  iiNNij^nitu 
brought  n  unit  in  otpiity  in  tliu  Circuit 
(,'oiirt  in  LouiNiiuiu,  iiiwlcr  Hoi'lioii  1«)  of 
till'  a<*t  of  iH.'tO,  ti|{ttiiiHt  n  Junior  piit- 
enti'o,  to  ilfclurif  nucli  junior  puti-nt  voM, 
on  tlic  ground  of  itn  intorftTuiioi'  with 
tho  phiintifTit  piitt'iit ;  aiiil  ut^tTward  thtt 
pain*'  plaiiititrH  hroii^ht  an  iiction  at  law 
ill  aiiotlicr  circMiit,  for  un  infriii^ciiiciit 
of  their  patent,  aijiiiiiHt  n  party  wlio  wan 
noi  n  party  to  tht)  Niiit  in  liouisiatia,  hut 
M'lio  iiail  ohtainoil  an  iiiti>n>st  in  tht 
junior  patent,  Hou;;hl  to  hi«  mit  aside  liy 
that  Hiiit,  after  the  eoiiuiuiiieeiiieiit  of 
that  Huit  and  heforo  tho  jiidj^nient  ron- 
derod  tlierein ;  J/clil,  that  tlie  partie  to 
Biich  Huit  at  law  were  witliin  the  pro- 
viso of  naid  g  1*1,  and  that  tiieir  ri^litii 
would  hit  hound  hy  a  deeision  in  the 
Biiit  in  Louisiana,  declaring  that  siieh 
patentH  interfered,  or  that  either  of  them 
was  valid  or  iiivaliil.  7^i/kr  v.  J/i/de,  2 
lllatchf.,  300,  312.— Uki-'v  J.j  N.  Y., 
18S1. 

10.  In  an  actior  Tk-  Jic  infrin;^ompnt 
of  a  patent,  if  tho  jUry  adopt,  as  the 
mcasurn  of  dainaj:fe8,  the  price  of  the 
patent  fee,  proved  in  the  case,  such  ver- 
dict will  operate  to  vest  tho  title  of  the 
patent  to  tho  extent  of  its  use  hy  tho 
defendant  complained  of,  throuf^hout 
its  term.  Sickles  v.  Borden,  3  Blatchf., 
645. — Nklbow,  J. ;  N.  Y.,  1856. 


W, Mill. \  NTT. 

1.  A  oonvpynnco  or  lieenno  "  to  huilj 
and  UHt*  n  patent  niaehino,"  di'Merihinif 
U*'ftnd  mu'h  »«•  I  have  n  patent-riylit 
for,"  dovH  not  aniotiiit  to  n  covenant  uii 
the  part  of  the  vender  that  lie  liml  q 
valid  pateiil-ri^ht.  linti  v.  I'nitt  \ 
Conn.,  3  43,  34tJ.~Swin,  CI,.  J.j  Ct., 
INIA. 

a.  If  n  party  nell  nn  Intercut  in  a  pat- 
(>nt-ri){lit,  making  represetitatioii><  t],n\, 
are  «'<pilvaleiit  to  a  warranty  that  tlio 
invention  in  of  value,  hut  the  title  it 
piiMAud  hy  an  ordinary  hill  of  nalu  or  a«* 
Hi^iinieiit,  whieh  eonlains  no  words  of 
jjuarantee,  the  purchaser  eaiiiiot  no  ho- 
hind  Nueh  assi^nineiit  and  prove  reprc- 
Hcntatioiin  and  aHsertions  made  previoiii 
to  the  exeeiititin  of  the  asMiyniiieiit,  ami 
thus  impeach  the  <-oiisiderati>iii  ot'  tht 
Hale,  and  avoid  payment — the  preHiiniii- 
tioM  «f  law  hein;;  that  the  writiiijj  con. 
tiiiii-i  the  whole  contract.  Win  Onlraml 
v.  Ii,i(f,  1  Wend.,  432.— Savaue,  Cli. 
J.;  N.  v.,  1H'J«. 

3.  There  is  no  implied  warranty  in 
the  Hale  of  a  palent-rij,'lit.  The  venilor, 
Hclliii;,'  in  p»od  faith,  is  not  respoiisildo 
for  the  j^oodnesH  of  hiH  tilh'  heyond  tho 
extent  of  his  covenants.  J/inU  v.  7\co- 
mei/,  1  Dev.  A;  Hat.  Eq.,  817,  318.— 
Daniki.,  .T.;  N.  C.,  I83«). 

4.  In  sales  of  personal  property,  tlioro 
is  an  implied  warranty  that  tlu;  vendor 
has  title  to  the  property,  and  tlio  name 
implications  arise  as  to  sales  of  patent* 
rij^hts.  Durst  v.  Jirorkway,  1 1  Ohio, 
471.— HiRciiAUD,  J. ;  Ohio,  1H42. 

5.  Where  jiotcs  were  jfiven  for  tho 
purchaso  of  a  patent  which  proved  to 
be  void,  J/vld,  that  an  injunction  would 
bo  allowed  against  the  collection  of 
such  notes  outstanding,  and  in  the  liniuls 


rv. 

•ciii»«»  "  to  ^uil'l 

A  |tut«'ii!-ri;ilit 
>  n  oovi'ititnl  oil 

tlitit  l)i>  liml  » 
tit  V.  Pr,itt,  I 
n,  CI..  J.;  a, 

iittTcHt  ill  n  |mt* 
I'Ht'iitationN  tliikt 
irnkiily  lliat  tliu 
hut  lilt'  titli>  iit 
)ill  of  Kuli)  or  aH< 
itiN  no  wonU  of 
.'T  rmiiiot  j^o  1)0- 
tml  |in»vt<  n'priv 
iH  iiiimIc  |>ri-\ii)iii 

ll^siylilllfllf,  illlil 

^'nlcnition  of  tlid 
it — th«  prcHiiiiijt- 
the  writini^  coii- 
t.  Van  Onlrtinil 
2. — Savage,  CIi. 

i»'<l  wiirnidty  in 
it,  Tlio  v«'iii|or, 
m»t  rcsponsililo 
title  l»fyoii(l  tlio 
Jli'itt  V.  7W 

':(i.,  ;in,  318.— 

*i. 

il  property,  tlicro 
that  tlu!  vendor 
y,  Hiid  tlio  same 
)  siiU'H  of  jiatenl* 
>r/iW(iy,  1 1  Ohio, 
)luo,  1H42. 
ro  given  for  tho 
whieh  proved  to 
injuiietiou  would 
lie  collection  of 
L  and  in  the  hamU 


wnrr  of  kruou  tn  ivxtrnt  casks. 


«M 


W>BN   UM,    AMD  AIXDWAMCB  Of. 


of  ilia  voncloni  of  tha  patent.    IbtJ., 

4TI. 

0.  If  ti  Mil  of  "itlo  uf  n  patent  contiiUiM 
no  wtirriuity,  but  a  iilm|>l<*  tniiiiifir  of 
tiilo,  tl>c  vitndon  cannot  N«*t  up  ii  pa- 
rol wiirr»nty,  for  It  u  to  bo  preNuiuoil 
that  tlio  writing  contaiiiit  tlii«  eiitiri> 
eontrnot.  JollljffVv.  (,'nUin»,'2  Mo.,  ;ni. 
-St:«irr,  J. ;  Mo.,  iMftft. 

7.  Wlioro  A  wm runty  im  not  ineludod 
in  tlio  writtiMi  rontnict,  it  I'luinot  l>u 
proved  by  piirol  uvidonct*,  iinleNS  it  in 
aUo  iillef{«Ml  Ihnt  It  wiih  fiilMo  or  fruiidit- 
lent,  and  tbiit  tliereliy  tho  vtiidiu^  whh 
(liN-eived,  iind  then  parol  proof  in  only 
cfideneo  of  nueh  ropreMeiitiition.  M'"- 
Clni'if  V.  Jiffrieii,  H  Ind.,  8.1. — Davison, 
J,;  Ind.,  I «.')(». 

H.  An  ai«Hi}{iinient  contained  a  wurr.'in- 
ty  that  the  invention  waH  original,  and 
that  no  other  invention  had  been  pat- 
rnlod  in  tho  United  States  on  the  Kunie 
iiriiK'iplc.  In  an  acti<in  of  covenant  in 
which  brenchcH  were  asNigtied  in  the 
terms  of  tho  warranty;  Jlild,  that  thi' 
patent  was  not  concduHivo  thnt  the  in- 
vention waH  original,  and  upon  a  new 
principle,  and  that  upon  proof  of  tho 
breaches  aMsigtuul,  the  plaintitV  could  re 
cover.  Wrif/ht  v.  Wilnofi,  11  Rich. 
Law.,  144, 162.— O'Nkai.i,,  J. ;  8.  Car., 
1857. 

9.  In  contracts  for  tho  Halo  of  inter- 
ests in  a  patent  wnero  there  is  no  fraud, 
the  purchaser  must  <lepend,  wdien  tln^ 
prove  of  no  value,  npon  his  covenants, 
ir  both  parties  are  equally  innocent, 
and  there  is  no  warranty  of  title,  tho 
loss  must  fall  where  tho  bargain  Icives 
it.  CiinsUr  V.  Eaton,  2  Jones  Eq.,  501 . 
-Nash,  Ch.  J.;  N.  Car.,  1856. 


wmiimAW.vi.. 

tiuo  ArrLioATiotf  vitn  I'ATKirr,  0. 
WITNKSSPIS. 

Boo  EVIDKNCIC,  O. 


WOKIvMKN,  MAMIfdTY  AS  IN- 
FUINliKUS. 


Sou  AUKNT,   KmIM.OYKK. 


WRIT  OF   KllKOIl   IX   PATENT 
CASES. 

See  also  ArrKALK,  A. ;  Bri.T.s  or  Ex. 
cKniov;  CouiiTs,  11.  I, 

1.  From  a  judgment  in  a  proceeding 
under  |$  10  of  the  .act  of  I7lt;i,  in  :i  Dis- 
tri«'t  Court,  a  writ  of  error  lies  to  tho 
Circuit  Court,  under  g  22  of  chap.  20 
t^f  tho  judiciary  act  of  1700,  if  tho 
uinount  in  c<mtrover»y  exceeds  fifty 
dollart).  SUaritH  v.  Unrreft,  I  Mas., 
lOU,  107.— Snmv,  .1.;   .Mass.,  IHIO. 

2.  A  refusal  to  aiueinl  a  verdict  is 
not  the  snbject  of  a  writ  of  error :  it  be- 
ing but  a  mere  cxenMse  of  discretion  by 
the  court  below.     //>/</.,  lOH. 

3.  Under  g  17  of  tho  act  of  lft.10,  if  a 
writ  of  error  is  allowed  by  tho  court  in 
cases  where  th«»  amount  in  dispute  does 
not  reach  $2,000,  and  in  such  as  aro 
deemed  "  reasonable,"  it  must  bring  up 
the  whole  case  for  consideration,  and 
the  court  below  cannot  «letcrmine  that 
only  particular  jioints  shall  be  taken  up. 


'JPl^'**-* 


**-»n» '       ' 


.1 

J 


000 


WRIT  OF  ERilOR  IN  PATENT  CASES. 


WIIKS   UEH,    AM)  AU.OWANCB  OF. 


Jfo(j(j  V.  J'JmerHon,  0  How.,  477,  478. — 
WooDHUKY,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct,  1847. 

4.  The  word  "  reasoimblu"  apjilies  to 
tlic  casen  rutlicr  tliiiii  to  any  «lisrriiiiin:i- 
tion  between  the  (litfereiit  poiuts  in  the 
cases.    Ibul.,  478. 

6.  Under  §  17  of  the  act  of  1830,  an 
appeal  or  writ  of  error  lies  to  the  Su- 
preme Court,  under  an  order  of  the 
court,  althoujjjh  the  judgment  is  under 
the  amount  of  |2,000.  Foot>;  v.  Silahy, 
1  lllatchf.,  544.— Nklsox,  J.;  N.  Y., 
1850. 

0.  A  judge  of  this  court  sitting  at 
chambers  is  a  court  in  the  proper  and 
usual  sense  of  the  term,  and  has  the 
])ower  to  allow  a  writ  of  error,  under 
§  17  of  the  act  of  1830,  in  cases  where 
the  judgment  is  under  $2,000,  and 
where  the  court  shall  deem  buch  writ 
reasonable.    Ibid.,  544. 

7.  There  might  be  some  reason  for 
holding  that  the  judge,  when  allowing 
such  writ,  must  be  if<itting  at  a  stated 
term  of  the  court,  and  not  at  chaiubers, 
where  the  court  at  chambers  and  at  the 
stated  terra  were  held  by  different  per- 
sons. But  where  they  are  held  by  the 
same  person  the  distinction  is  not  well 
founded.     Ibid.,  544. 

8.  On  the  allowance  of  such  a  writ  of 
error,  the  judge  made  an  order  giving 
leave  to  the  defendants  to  make  a  bill 
of  exceptions.  On  the  trial,  two  years 
before,  no  bill  of  exceptions  had  been 
settled  in  form,  but  a  case  had  been 
made  and  settled,  to  move  for  a  new 
trial.  No  reservation  was  contained  in 
the  case  to  turn  it  into  a  bill  of  excep- 
tions; but  it  had  first  been  drawn  up 
in  the  form  of  a  bill  of  exceptions,  and 
changed  by  direction  of  the  judge  at  the 
trial.  Held,  on  a  motion  to  set  aside 
the  order,  that  as  the  points  and  excep- 
tions were  taken  in  the  required  form 


at  the  trial  to  entitle  the  party  to  tho 
benefit  of  them  on  a  writ  of  error 
though  the  paper  book  was  in  tlio  form 
of  a  case,  whicii,  however,  was  given  it 
under  tiie  direction  of  the  judge  at  tho 
trial,  without  prtyudico  to  tho  rij^'lit  of 
the  defendants  to  make  a  bill  of  excep- 
tions, that  the  order  should  stand.  Ibid. 
644,  645. 

9.  The  last  clause  of  §  17  of  the  act 
of  1830  providing  for  appeals  and  writs 
of  error  "  in  all  other  cases  in  which  the 
court  shall  deem  reasonable,''  does  not 
apply  to  a  suit  in  equity  to  set  aside  an 
assignment  of  a  p-^tent.  Wilson  v. 
Sandfurdy  10  How.,  101, 102.— Taney 
Ch.  J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

10.  The  right  of  appeal  is  confined  to 
the  cases  mentioned  in  the  first  i)art  of 
the  section — "  to  actions,  suits,  contro* 
versies,  and  cases  arising  under  any  law 
of  the  United  States  granting  or  con- 
firming to  inventors  the  exclusive  right 
to  their  inventions  or  discoveries"— and 
v/as  intended  to  secure  uniformity  of 
decision  in  the  construction  of  the  acts 
of  Congress  in  relation  to  patents. 
Ibid.,  101-313. 

11.  A  judgment  of  a  Circuit  Court 
rendered  upon  an  agreed  statement  of 
facts  between  the  parties,  may  be  re- 
examined by  thia  court  on  a  writ  of  er- 
ror. Stimpson  v.  Hal.  c0  Sua.  R.  R 
Co.,  10  How.,  340,  347.— Danikl,  J. ; 
Sup.  Ct.,  1850. 

12.  A  writ  of  error  will  not  lie  from 
an  act  done  in  the  court  below,  the  do- 
ing  of  which  was  a  matter  of  discretion 
with  the  court.  Silsby  v.  Foote,  14 
How.,  220. — Curtis,  J. ;  Sup.  Ct.,  1852. 

13.  A  second  writ  of  error  brings  up 
for  revision  nothing  but  the  proceed- 
ings subsequent  to  the  mandate,  Sizer 
\.  Many,  16  How.,  103. — Taney,  Ch. 
J.;  Sup.  Ct.,  1853. 


***^^i 


WRIT  OF  ERROR  IN  PATENT  CASES. 


007 


ho  party  to  tlio 
writ  of  I'lror, 
was  in  tlio  rurm 
rer,  was  {^ivcn  it 
the  judf^u  iit  Iho 
I  to  tho  rijijht  of 
3  a  bill  of  oxcep- 
)ulil  Btaiul.  iitU, 


WHEN   UtS,   AND  ALLOWANOK  Of. 


]  4.  Wliero,  Ihoreforo,  after  tl-.e  man- 
date, tho  conrt  below  did  nothing  but 
tax  tho  coHta,  and  thoso  uinountod  to 
less  than  |2,000,  JTeld,  that  no  writ  of 
error  would  lio.     Ibid.,  103. 

15.  Tho  discretionary  power  as  to 
granting  writs  of  error  iu  patent  cases, 


vested  in  tho  Circuit  Court  by  g  17  of 
tho  act  of  1830,  is  confined  to  cases 
which  involve  tho  construction  of  the  I 
patent  laws,  and  the  rights  of  patentees 
under  them ;  and  does  not  justify  a  writ 
of  error  merely  to  ro/iew  a  question  of 
costs.    Ibid.,  103. 


I*!i!f 


n  ih 


^.. ''..liafiWJjl' 


'■•  v«a''|,'lii)(|ii|i 


J     J 


\f  a  Circuit  Court 
reed  statement  of 
irties,  may  be  re- 
[rt  on  a  writ  of  er- 
\al.  S  Sus.  B.  R 
I347. — Daniel,  J. ; 


